Some essentialist work occurred before then, but it was not until the 1990s that the modern backlash against the bundle of rights theory snowballed.
James Penner squarely linked the dephysicalization of property with the bundle of rights theory (18) and argued that the bundle theory was not a theory at all.
In response to the failures of the bundle of rights theory, alternative theories typically look to one core right or try to lump several rights together.
possible excesses of the bundle of rights theory developed principally
a point made by Penner when he attacks the bundle of rights theory in
Penner then goes on to say that if the bundle of rights theory is
progenitor of the bundle of rights theory, thinkers in the property
5) Put simply the bundle of rights theory assumes that if a person holds all of the rights then she is the owner of the property.
13) The first section also argues that the dominant understanding of the bundle of rights theory is primarily concerned with the owner's use and control of his property, which is a definition better suited to private property rather than to common property.
56) The bundle of rights theory of property provides answers to these questions of access and use, but as we shall see, its current understanding relies on a bounded vision of property that isolates each piece of property from all others as far as possible, and that also overemphasizes the role of individual action in creating and maintaining property.
11) The basic indirect relationship between interests in use and the legal interests (as with the life estate and the superficies) is an inevitable feature of the overwhelming transaction costs of the "complete" property system envisioned on many versions of the bundle of rights theory
A problem with the bundle of rights theory
is that the word "property" ceases to have any real meaning.