Policy Sciences

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 71–93 | Cite as

Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective

Article

Abstract

This article seeks to shed new light on the study of decentralized natural resource governance by applying institutional theories of polycentricity—the relationships among multiple authorities with overlapping jurisdictions. The emphasis on multi-level dynamics has not penetrated empirical studies of environmental policy reforms in non-industrial countries. On the contrary, many of today’s decentralization proponents seem to be infatuated with the local sphere, expecting that local actors are always able and willing to govern their natural resources effectively. Existing studies in this area often focus exclusively on characteristics and performance of local institutions. While we certainly do not deny the importance of local institutions, we argue that institutional arrangements operating at other governance scales—such as national government agencies, international organizations, NGOs at multiple scales, and private associations—also often have critical roles to play in natural resource governance regimes, including self-organized regimes.

Keywords

Developing countries Decentralization Local governance Institutions Natural resources management 

References

  1. Acheson, J. M. (2003). Capturing the commons: Devising institutions to manage the maine lobster industry. New Haven, CT: University Press of New England.Google Scholar
  2. Ackerman, J. (2004). Co-governance for accountability: Beyond ‘Exit’ and ‘Voice’. World Development, 32, 447–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Acuna, C. H., & Tommasi, M. (2000). Some reflections on the institutional reforms required for Latin America. In Institutional reforms, growth and human development in Latin America (pp. 357–400). New Haven, CT: Yale Center for International and Area Studies.Google Scholar
  4. Adamolekun, L. (1991). Promoting African decentralization. Public Administration and Development, 22, 285–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aggarwal, V. K., & Dupont, C. (1999). Goods, games, and institutions. International Political Science Review, 20, 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Agrawal, A., & Ribot, J. C. (1999). Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and African cases. Journal of Developing Areas, 33, 473–502.Google Scholar
  7. Alston, L. J., Libecap, G., & Mueller, B. (1999). Titles, conflict and land use: The development of property rights and land reform on the Brazilian frontier. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  8. Andersson, K. (2002). Can decentralization save Bolivia’s forests? An institutional analysis of municipal forest governance. Dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  9. Andersson, K. (2003). What motivates municipal governments? Uncovering the institutional incentives for municipal governance of forest resources in Bolivia. Journal of Environment and Development, 12, 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Andersson, K. (2004). Who talks with whom? The role of repeated interactions in decentralized forest governance. World Development, 32, 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Andersson, K., Gibson, C., & Lehoucq, F. (2006). Municipal politics and forest governance: Comparative analysis of decentralization in Bolivia and Guatemala. World Development, 34, 576–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Andersson, K., & van Laerhoven, F. (2007). From local strongman to facilitator: Institutional incentives for participatory municipal governance in Latin America. Comparative Political Studies, 40, 1085–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Aoki, M. (2001). Toward a comparative institutional analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Bahl, R. (1999). Fiscal decentralization as development policy. Public Budgeting and Finance, 19, 59–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Baker, M. (2005). The Kuhls of Kangra: Community-managed irrigation in the Western Himalaya. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
  16. Berkes, F. (2007). Community-based conservation in a globalized world. PNAS, 104(39), 15188–15193.Google Scholar
  17. Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices for social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Bickers, K., & Williams, J. T. (2001). Public policy analysis: A political economy approach. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  19. Bird, R. M., & Vaillancourt, F. (Eds.). (1999). Fiscal decentralization in developing countries. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Blair, H. (2000). Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries. World Development, 28, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen, J., & Rogers, J. (1995). Associations and democracy. London, UK: Verso.Google Scholar
  22. Crook, R., & Manor, J. (1998). Democracy and decentralization in South Asia and West Africa. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302, 1907–1912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ellis, F., & Mdoe, N. (2003). Livelihoods and rural poverty reduction in Tanzania. World Development, 31, 1367–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Epstein, R. A. (1997). Enforcing norms: When the law gets in the way. The Responsive Community, 7, 4–15.Google Scholar
  26. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). (1999). State of the World’s Forests 1999. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
  27. Feeny, D. (1988). Agricultural expansion and forest depletion in Thailand, 1900–1975. In J. F. Richards & R. P. Tucker (Eds.), World deforestation in the Twentieth Century (pp. 112–143). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Fiszbein, A. (1997). The emergence of local capacity: Lessons from Colombia. World Development, 25, 1029–1043.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fitzpatrick, D. (2006). Evolution and chaos in property rights systems: The third world tragedy of contested access. Yale Law Review, 115, 996–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Flores, G. (1998). Samaipata: Manejo de Cuencas y Manejo Forestal. In P. Pacheco & D. Kaimowitz (Eds.), Municipios y Gestión Forestal en el Trópico Boliviano (pp. 395–434). La Paz, Bolivia: CEDLA and CIFOR.Google Scholar
  31. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Innovations in empowered participatory governance. Politics and Society, 29, 5–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gibson, C. (1999). Politicians and poachers: The political economy of wildlife policy in Africa. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Gibson, C., Andersson, K., Ostrom, E., & Shivakumar, S. (2005a). The Samaritan’s dilemma: The political economy of development aid. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Gibson, C., Williams, J., Ostrom, E. (2005b). Local enforcement and better forests. World Development, 33, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Gibson, C., & Lehoucq, F. (2003). The local politics of decentralized environmental policy in Guatemala. Journal of Environment and Development, 12, 28–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gibson, C., McKean, M., & Ostrom, E. (Eds.). (2000). People and forests: Communities, institutions, and governance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Goldfrank, B. (2002). The fragile flower of local democracy: A case study of decentralization and participation in Montevideo. Politics and Society, 30, 51–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gow, D. D., & Morss, E. R. (1988). The notorious nine: Critical problems in project implementation. World Development, 16, 1399–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Grainger, A. (1993). Controlling tropical deforestation. London, UK: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  40. Hardee, K., Bronfman, M., Valenzuela, T., & McGreevey, W. (2000). Promoting partnerships and participation in the context of decentralization. POLICY Project Paper. Washington, DC: USAID.Google Scholar
  41. Hayek, F. A. (1948). Individualism and economic order. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Herring, R. (2001). Authority and scale in political ecology: Some cautions on localism. In L. Buck, C. Geisle, J. Schelhas, & E. Wollenberg (Eds.), Biological diversity: Balancing interests through adaptive collaborative management (pp. 187–204). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  43. Higgs, R. (1996). Legally induced technical regress in the Washington salmon fishery. In L. J. Alston, T. Eggertsson, & D. C. North (Eds.), Empirical studies in institutional change: Political economy of institutions and decisions (pp. 247–279). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hilton, R. (1992). Institutional incentives for resource mobilization: An analysis of irrigation schemes in Nepal. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 4, 283–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97, 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. IDB (Inter-American Development Bank). (1994). Fiscal decentralization: The search for equity and efficiency. In Economic and social progress in Latin America. Washington, DC: IDB.Google Scholar
  47. Johnson, C. (2001). Community formation and fisheries conservation in Southern Thailand. Development and Change, 32, 951–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lam, W. F. (1998). Governing irrigation systems in Nepal: Institutions, infrastructure, and collective action. Oakland, CA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  49. Larson, A. M. (2002). Natural resources and decentralization in Nicaragua: Are local governments up to the job? World Development, 30, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lebel, L. (2006). The state, the firm, and the farmer: Community conservation and the use of land and water in upper tributary watersheds. Paper presented at the International Association for the Study of Common Property Biennial Meetings, Ubud, Bali, June 19–23.Google Scholar
  51. Leighton, C. (1996). Strategies for achieving health financing reform in Africa. World Development, 24, 1511–1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lewis, B. D. (2003). Local government borrowing and repayment in Indonesia: Does fiscal capacity matter? World Development, 31, 1047–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Libecap, G. D. (1989). Distributional issues in contracting for property rights. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 145, 6–24.Google Scholar
  54. Lutz, E., & Caldecott, J. (1997). Decentralization and biodiversity conservation. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  55. Martin, L. L. (1995). Heterogeneity, linkage and commons problems. In R. Keohane & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Local commons and global interdependence: Heterogeneity and cooperation in two domains (pp. 71–91). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
  56. McGinnis, M. (Ed.). (1999a). Polycentric governance and development: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  57. McGinnis, M. (Ed.). (1999b). Polycentricity and local public economies: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  58. McGinnis, M. (Ed.). (2000). Polycentric games and institutions: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  59. de Mello, L. R. (2000). Fiscal decentralization and intergovernmental fiscal relations: A cross-country analysis. World Development, 28, 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meinzen-Dick, R. (2007). Beyond panaceas in water institutions. PNAS, 104(39), 15200–15205.Google Scholar
  61. Murombedzi, J. (2001). Natural resource stewardship. In: D. Hulme & M. Murphree (Eds.), African wildlife and livelihoods (pp. 244–254). Oxford, UK: James Curry.Google Scholar
  62. National Research Council. (1986). Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resource Management. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  63. National Research Council. (2002). The drama of the commons. Committee on the human dimensions of global change. E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. Weber (Eds.), Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  64. Nickson, A. R. (1995). Local government in Latin America. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  65. Nygren, A. (2005). Community-based forest management within the context of institutional decentralization in Honduras. World Development, 33, 639–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Oakerson, R. (1999). Governing local public economies: Creating the civic metropolis. Oakland, CA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  67. Oates, W. E. (1985). Searching for leviathan: An empirical study. The American Economic Review, 75, 748–757.Google Scholar
  68. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (1997). Final report of the DAC ad hoc working group on participatory development and good governance, parts I and II. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  69. de Oliveira, J. A. P. (2002). Implementing environmental policies in developing countries through decentralization: The case of protected areas in Bahia, Brazil. World Development, 30, 1713–1736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Ostrom, V. (1991). The meaning of American federalism: Constituting a self-governing society. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  72. Ostrom, V. (1997). The meaning of democracy and the vulnerability of democracies: A response to Tocqueville’s challenge. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  73. Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 493–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ostrom, E. (2001). Decentralization and development: The new panacea. In K. Dowding, J. Hughes & H. Margetts (Eds.), Challenges to democracy: Ideas, involvement and institutions (pp. 237–256). New York, NY: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  75. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  76. Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. PNAS, 104(39), 15181–15187.Google Scholar
  77. Ostrom, V. (2008). The political theory of a compound republic: Designing the American experiment (3rd ed). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. First published in 1987.Google Scholar
  78. Ostrom, E., & Nagendra, H. (2006). Insights on linking forests, trees, and people from the air, on the ground, and in the laboratory. PNAS, 103, 19224–19231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., & Wynne, S. (1993). Institutional incentives and sustainable development: Infrastructure policies in perspective. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  80. Ostrom, V., & Ostrom, E. (1977). Public goods and public choices. In E. S. Savas (ed.), Alternatives for delivering public services: Toward improved performance (pp. 7–49). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Reprinted in M. McGinnis (ed.). (1999) Polycentricity and local public economies: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis (pp. 75–103). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  81. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas. American Political Science Review, 55, 831–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pacheco, P. (2000). Avances y Desafíos en la Descentralización de la Gestión de los Recursos Forestales en Bolivia. La Paz: CIFOR-BOLFOR.Google Scholar
  83. Pacheco, D. (2007). An institutional analysis of decentralization and indigenous timber management in common-property forests of Bolivia’s lowlands. Dissertation, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  84. Pacheco, P., & Kaimowitz, D. (1998). Municipios y Gestión Forestal en el Trópico Boliviano. La Paz: CIFOR, CEDLA, Fundación TIERRA, BOLFOR.Google Scholar
  85. Palsson, G. (1998). Learning by fishing: Practical engagement and environmental concerns. In F. Berkes & C. Folke (Eds.), Linking social and ecological systems: Management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience (pp. 48–66). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Parry, T. R. (1997). Achieving balance in decentralization: A case study of education decentralization in Chile. World Development, 25, 211–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Platteau, J. P. (2004). Monitoring elite capture in community-driven development. Development and Change, 35, 223–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Platteau, J. P., & Gaspart, F. (2003). The risk of resource misappropriation in community-driven development. World Development, 31, 1687–1703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Prud’homme, R. (1994). On the dangers of decentralization. World bank policy research working paper no. 1252. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar
  90. Rabesahala Horning, N. (2005). The cost of ignoring rules: Forest conservation and rural livelihood outcomes in Madagascar. Forests, Trees and Livelihoods, 15, 149–166.Google Scholar
  91. Ribot, J. C. (1999). Decentralization, participation and accountability in Sahelian forestry: Legal instruments of political-administrative control. Africa, 69, 23–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Ribot, J. C. (2002). Democratic decentralization of natural resources: Institutionalizing popular participation. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  93. Sayer, J., & Campbell, B. (2004). The science of sustainable development: Local livelihoods and the global environment. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Shivakumar, S. (2005). The constitution of development: Crafting capabilities for self-governance. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  95. Smoke, P. (2003). Decentralisation in Africa: Goals, dimensions, myths and challenges. Public Administration and Development, 23, 7–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Smoke, P., & Lewis, B. D. (1996). Fiscal decentralization in Indonesia: A new approach to an old idea. World Development, 24, 1281–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Sproule-Jones, M. (1993). Governments at work: Canadian parliamentary federalism and its public policy effects. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  98. Tang, S. Y. (1992). Institutions and collective action: Self-governance in irrigation. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press.Google Scholar
  99. Tang, S. Y. (1994). Institutions and performance in irrigation systems. In E. Ostrom, R. Gardner, & J. Walker (Eds.), Rules, games, and common-pool resources (pp. 225–245). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  100. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (1998). Capacity 21 program, 1998 annual report. New York, NY: UNDP.Google Scholar
  101. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2002). Human development report 2002. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Warren, D. M., & Issachar, J. D. (1983). Strategies for understanding and changing local revenue policies and practices in Ghana’s decentralization programme. World Development, 11, 835–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Wilson, J. A. (1990). Fishing for knowledge. Land Economics, 66, 12–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Wilson, J. A. (2002). Scientific uncertainty, complex systems, and the design of common-pool institutions. In National Research Council, Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolšak, P. C. Stern, S. Stonich, & E. Weber (eds.), The drama of the commons (pp. 327–359). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  105. Wirtshafter, R. M., & Shih, E. (1990). Decentralization of China’s electricity sector: Is small beautiful? World Development, 18, 505–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. World Bank. (1988). World development report 1988. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  107. World Bank. (1997). The world development report 1997: The state in a changing world. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  108. WRI (World Resources Institute). (2003). World resources: 2002–2004. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  109. Zaz Friz Burga, J. (2001). El Sueño Obcecabo. La Descentralización Política en la América Latina. Lima, Peru: Fondo Editorial Del Congreso de Perú.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Colorado at BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Workshop in Political Theory and Policy AnalysisIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations