Over the past 50 years there has been an increasing understanding of the role of property rights in the development of Third World countries.
After the Second World War we were subject to many economic equations and models for economic growth based on abstract theories. None of these had any substance, no meaning and no value but they have been the framework for American foreign aid ever since.
Early experiments in giving agricultural property legal rights to the farmers as well as property rights for urban dwellers and commercial builders became an outstanding piece of evidence about the importance of property rights in the development of Third World countries. The island of Taiwan became the foremost example. As property rights were introduced in Taiwan, economic growth exploded. The same was true in Japan earlier.
It is fairly obvious why economic growth requires property rights. In Africa where property rights are not very widespread it is common for a prosperous farmer to find that his relatives rapidly move onto his property and have social and moral claim to live in his prosperous territory. This makes sure that he can never accumulate capital that is necessary for the expansion of business.
The United States has fairly well developed property rights and they are certainly sufficient for businesses to invest in capital development and expansion.
We should note that property rights are not as thorough as they could be and have been tested adversely at the margins over the past 40 years.
The first test came when federal law allowed courts to the seize property of drug dealers before the trial occurred. It was common for lawyers to be paid long before the accused criminal was arrested because merely the claim of illegal behavior resulted in seizure of assets. No property rights.
Those anti-property anti-business rules are still on the books and have not been successfully challenged. America has a way to go in respecting property rights.
An even worse situation exists with the right of eminent domain. Governments can still claim property rights for government projects. Traditionally this was for freeways and right-of-ways but in the 80’s some cities began claiming property for the purpose of reselling the property for commercial development. Some states have banned this interpretation of eminent domain but many important states haven't. Government still seems to have this arbitrary and anti-commercial view that it can seize property for ostensibly 'higher and better' land use.
Property rights are fundamental to the success of commerce. American property rights are adequate but could be better.