Advertisement

Journal of Bioeconomics

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 71–81 | Cite as

Sustainable cooperation needs tinkering with both rules and social motivation

  • Siegwart LindenbergEmail author
Article

“Coping with potential tragedies of the commons is never easy and never finished.” Elinor Ostrom (2005, p. 286)

The tragedy of the commons seems to be in large part a tragedy of cooperative systems that are taken over by the outside (Klooster 2000). The paradigmatic case is irrigation systems, for which there is overwhelming evidence that the farmer-managed systems (FMIS) outperform the (government)agency-managed systems (AMIS) on virtually all counts (Lam 1996; Ostrom, this issue). Cooperation is more effective and sustainable among the former compared to the latter. Dealing with this insight has changed institutional analysis in important ways and continues to exert pressure to adapt the behavioral theories to be able to cope with the intricacies of sustainable cooperation (see for example Anderies et al. 2011; Lindenberg and Foss 2011). Rules of the game are normally taken to constitute the game, so that if we want to study the dynamics of the game, we take the rules as given. More...

Keywords

Transformational Leader Internal Factor Social Motivation Common Pool Resource Joint Production 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abers, R. N. (2007). Organizing for governance: Building collaboration in Brazilian river basins. World Development, 35, 1450–1463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal, A., & Chhatre, A. (2006). Explaining success on the commons: Community. Forest governance in the Indian himalaya. World Development, 34, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahn, T. K., Ostrom, E., & Walker, J. (2010). A common-pool resource experiment with postgraduate subjects from 41 countries. Ecological Economics, 69, 2624–2633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderies, J. M., Janssen, M. A., Bousquet, F., Cardenas, J., Castillo, D., Lopez, M., Tobias, R., Vollan, B., & Wutich, A. (2011). The challenge of understanding decisions in experimental studies of common pool resource governance. Ecological Economics, 70, 1571–1579.Google Scholar
  5. Andersson, K. P. (2004). Who talks with whom? The role of repeated interactions in decentralized forest governance. World Development, 32, 233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Antinori, C., & Bray, D. B. (2005). Community forest enterprises as entrepreneurial firms: Economic and institutional perspectives from Mexico. World Development, 33, 1529–1543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics (Winter), 19–31.Google Scholar
  8. Cavalcanti, C., Engel, S., & Leibbrandt, A. (2013). Social integration, participation, and community resource management. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 65, 262–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleavenger, D. J., & Munyon, T. P. (2013). It’s how you frame it: Transformational leadership and the meaning of work. Business Horizon, 56, 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Falk, A., & Kosfeld, M. (2006). The hidden costs of control. American Economic Review, 96, 1611–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2001). Motivation crowding theory: A survey of empirical evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 589–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frieling, M., Lindenberg, S., & Stokman, F. N. (2012). Collaborative communities through coproduction: Two case studies. The American Review of Public Administration. doi: 10.1177/0275074012456897.
  13. Gibson, C. C., Williams, J. T., & Ostrom, E. (2005). Local enforcement and better forests. World Development, 33, 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2008). The spreading of disorder. Science, 322, 1681–1685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keizer, K., Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2013). The importance of demonstratively restoring order. PLoS One, 8(6), e65137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klooster, D. (2000). Institutional choice, community, and struggle: A case study of forest co-management in Mexico. World Development, 28, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., Fishbach, A., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 331–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lam, W. F. (1996). Improving the performance of small-scale irrigation systems: The effects of technological investments and governance structure on irrigation performance in Nepal. World Development, 24, 1301–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindenberg, S. (1975). Three psychological theories of a classical sociologist. Mens en Maatschappij, 50, 133–153.Google Scholar
  20. Lindenberg, S. (1998). Solidarity: Its microfoundations and macro-dependence. A framing approach. In P. Doreian & T. J. Fararo (Eds.), The problem of solidarity: Theories and models (pp. 61–112). Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.Google Scholar
  21. Lindenberg, S. (2012). How cues in the environment affect normative behavior. In L. Steg, A. E. van den Berg, & J. I. M. de Groot (Eds.), Environmental psychology: An introduction (pp. 119–128). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. Lindenberg, S., & Frey, B. (1993). Alternatives, frames, and relative prices: A broader view of rational choice. Acta Sociologica, 36, 191–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lindenberg, S., & Foss, N. (2011). Managing joint production motivation: The role of goal-framing and governance mechanisms. Academy of Management Review, 36(3), 500–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindenberg, S., & Steg, L. (2007). Normative, gain and hedonic goal frames guiding environmental behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 65(1), 117–137.Google Scholar
  25. Meinzen-Dick, R., Raju, K. W., & Gulati, A. (2002). What affects organization and collective action for managing resources? Evidence from canal irrigation systems in India. World Development, 30, 649–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mühlau, P., & Lindenberg, S. (2003). Efficiency wages: Signals or incentives? An empirical study of the relationship between wage and commitment. Journal of Management and Governance, 7, 385–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nunan, F. (2006). Empowerment and institutions: Managing fisheries in Uganda. World Development, 34, 1316–1332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24, 1073–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. The Journal of Economics Perspectives, 14, 137–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Prediger, S., Vollan, B., & Frölich, M. (2011). The impact of culture and ecology on cooperation in a common-pool resource experiment. Ecological Economics, 70, 1599–1608.Google Scholar
  32. Rustagi, D., Engel, S., & Kosfeld, M. (2010). Conditional cooperation and costly monitoring explain success in forest commons management. Science, 330, 961–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Varughese, G., & Ostrom, E. (2001). The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action. Some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World Development, 29, 747–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. White, T. A., & Runge, C. F. (1995). The emergence and evolution of collective action: Lessons from watershed management in Haiti. World Development, 23, 1683–1698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Witt, U. (1998). Imagination and leadership: The neglected dimension of an evolutionary theory of the firm. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 35, 161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations