Skip to main content

Flexibilité des règles et participation individuelle à l’action collective: Cas de l’Union des Groupements de Producteurs du Périmètre irrigué de Malanville au Bénin

The European Journal of Development Research volume 27, pages 745–761 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

This article analyses the determinants of individual participation in collective irrigation management, in terms of the payment of fees and participation in collective maintenance. It is based on a case study of the Union des Groupements de Producteurs du Périmètre Irrigué de Malanville (General Union of Producers of the irrigated perimeter in Malanville, UGPPM) in Benin. Data was collected through a survey sent to a random sample of 183 respondents, each belonging to one of five producers’ cooperatives within the UGPPM. The statistical results indicate that cooperative members who have large families or are dissatisfied with the financial management of the UGPPM do not pay irrigation fees; whereas female and elderly cooperative members, and those who perceive the UGPPM decision-making process as autocratic, do not regularly participate in collective maintenance activities. The socio-cultural homogeneity of the UGPPM sustains the flexibility of rules and facilitates free riding.

Abstract

Le présent article analyse les déterminants de la participation individuelle à la gestion collective des systèmes d’irrigation en termes de paiement des redevances et de participation aux travaux collectifs d’entretien à travers le cas de l’Union des Groupements de Producteurs du Périmètre irrigué de Malanville (UGPPM) au Bénin. Les données ont été collectées avec un questionnaire adressé à 183 coopérateurs choisis aléatoirement au sein de cinq groupements mutualistes de producteurs de l’UGPPM et un focus group. Les résultats statistiques ont montré d’une part que les coopérateurs ayant une charge familiale élevée, ou ceux percevant la gestion financière des responsables comme défaillante, ne paient pas leurs redevances réglementaires. D’autre part, les femmes, les coopérateurs anciens dans le périmètre, ou ceux percevant les processus de prise de décisions comme autocratiques ne participent pas régulièrement aux travaux collectifs d’entretien. L’homogénéité socio-culturelle de l’UGPPM supporte une telle flexibilité des règles favorisant le comportement de passager clandestin.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Références

  • Agrawal, A. (2001) Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Development 29 (10): 1649–1672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A. and Goyal, S. (2001) Group size and collective action: Third party monitoring in common pool resources. Comparative Political Studies 34 (1): 63–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andreoni, J., Harbaugh, W. and Vesterlund, L. (2003) The carrot or the stick: Rewards, punishments, and cooperation. American Economic Review 93 (3): 893–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baland, J.M. and Platteau, J.P. (1996) Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role of Communities? Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baland, J.M. and Platteau, J.P. (1999) The ambiguous impact of inequality on local resource management. World Development 27 (4): 773–788.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandiera, O., Banka, I. and Rasul, I. (2005) Cooperation in collective action. Economics of Transition 13 (3): 473–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, P.K. (1993) Analytics of the institutions of informal cooperation in rural development. World Development 21 (4): 633–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, P.K. (2000) Irrigation and cooperation: An empirical analysis of 48 irrigation communities in South India. Economic Development and Cultural Change 48 (4): 847–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardhan, P.K. and Dayton-Johnson, J. (2001) Unequal irrigators: Heterogeneity and commons management in large-scale multivariate research. In: E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, P.C. Stern, S. Stonich and E.U. Weber (eds.) The Drama of the Commons. Washington DC: National Academics Press, pp. 87–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, T., Collion, M., De Janvry, A., Rondot, P. and Sadoulet, E. (2008) Do village organizations make differences in African rural development? A study for Senegal and Burkina-Faso. World Development 36 (11): 2188–2204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daghfous, N. and Saadi, M. (2013) L’implantation de l’Approche Relationnelle dans les Institutions Financières: Les facteurs de succès, les freins et les bénéfices recherchés. Papier présenté au 81e Congrès de l‘Association Canadienne-Française pour l’Avancement des Sciences (ACFAS); 6–10 Mai, Québec, Canada.

  • Dayton-Johnson, J. (2000) Determinants of collective action on local commons: A model with evidence from Mexico. Journal of Development Economics 62 (1): 181–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, E. and Gachter, S. (2000) Cooperation and punishment in public experiments. American Economic Review 90 (4): 980–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita, M., Hayami, Y. and Kikuchi, M. (1999) The conditions of collective action for local commons management: The case of irrigation in the Philippines. Paper presented at World Bank Seminar; 1 September, Washington DC.

  • Gallati, J. (2008) Towards an improved understanding of free-riding in collective irrigation systems: Proposition of a basic system dynamics model. Paper presented at 26th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society; 20–24 July, Athens, Greece.

  • Jayaraman, T.K. (1982) Irrigators’ organisations for better water management: A case study of attitudes of irrigators from Gujarat state, India. Agricultural Administration 10 (3): 189–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jodha, N. (2008) Rural commons and livelihood strategies in dry regions of India. The European Journal of Development Research 20 (4): 597–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalkheili, T.A. and Zamani, H.G. (2009) Farmer participation in irrigation management: The case of Doroodzan irrigation dam network, Iran. Agricultural Water Management 96: 859–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, W.F. (1996) Institutional design of public agencies and coproduction: A study of irrigation associations in Taiwan. World Development 24 (6): 1039–1054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masclet, D., Moussair, C., Stucker, S. and Villeval, M.-C. (2003) Monetary and nonmonetary punishment in the voluntary contribution mechanism. American Economic Review 93 (1): 366–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mc Kean, M. (1998) Common Property: What is It, What is It Good for, and What Makes it Works? In: C. Gibson, M. Mc Kean and E. Ostrom (eds.) Forest Resources and Institutions. Working Paper 3. Rome: FAO.

  • Meinzen-Dick, R.S. and Knox, A. (2001) Collective action, property rights, and devolution of natural resources management: A conceptual framework. In: R.S. Meinzen-Dick, A. Knox and M. Di Gregorio (eds.) Collective Action, Property Rights, and Devolution of Natural Resources Management: Exchange of Knowledge and Implications for Policy. Feldafing, Germany: Zentralstelle für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft, pp. 40–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meinzen-Dick, R.S., Raju, K.V. and Gulati, A. (2002) What affects organization and collective action for managing resources? Evidence from canal irrigation systems in India. World Development 30 (4): 649–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mwangi, E. (2009) Property rights and governance of Africa’s rangelands: A policy overview. Natural Resources Forum 33 (2): 160–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakano, Y. and Otsuka, K. (2011) Determinants of household contributions to collective irrigation management: The case of Doho Rice Scheme in Uganda. Environment and Development Economics 16 (5): 527–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, Jr. M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press, pp. 5–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1985) Are Successful Efforts to Manage Common Pool-Resources a Challenge to the Theories of Garret Hardin and Olson Mancur? Working Paper W85-31. Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University.

  • Ostrom, E. (1992) Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems. San Francisco, CA: ICS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2000) Collective action and the evolution of social norms. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14 (3): 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pretty, J. (2003) Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 32 (5652): 1912–1914.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakurai, T. (2002) Quantitative analysis of collective action: Methodology and challenges. Paper presented at CAPRI Workshop on Collective Action; 25–28 February, Nairobi, Kenya.

  • Sefton, M., Shupp, R. and Walker, J.M. (2001) The effects of rewards and sanctions in the provision of public goods. Mimeo, Indiana University.

  • Sserunkuuma, D., Ochom, N. and Ainembabazi, H. (2003) Collective Action in Canal Irrigation Systems Management: The Case of Doho Scheme in Uganda. Research for project funded under the competitive grants program of the Vision 2020 Network for East Africa of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).

  • Suresh Kumar, D. and Palanisami, K. (2009) An economics inquiry into collective action and households behaviour in watershed management. India Journal of Agricultural Economics 64 (1): 108–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svendsen, M., Trava, J. and Johnson, III S.H. (1997) Participatory Irrigation Management: Benefits and Second Generation Problems. Lessons from an International Workshop at Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT); 9–15 February, California, Colombia. Economics Development Institute of the World Bank International Irrigation Management Institute.

  • Tole, L. (2010) Reforms from the ground up: A review of community-based forest management in tropical developing countries. Environmental Management 4 (6): 1312–1331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uphoff, N. and Wijayaratna, C.M. (2000) Demonstrated benefits for social capital: The productivity of farmer organisations in Gal Oya, Sri Lanka. Word Development 28 (11): 1875–1890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Varughese, G. and Ostrom, E. (2001) The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: Some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World Development 29 (5): 747–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, R. (1987) The management of common property resources: Collective action as an alternative to privatization or state regulation. Cambridge Journal of Economics 11 (2): 95–106.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Parakou, Parakou, Bénin

    Kouété P Jimmy & Ismail Moumouni

Authors
  1. Kouété P Jimmy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ismail Moumouni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ismail Moumouni.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jimmy, K., Moumouni, I. Flexibilité des règles et participation individuelle à l’action collective: Cas de l’Union des Groupements de Producteurs du Périmètre irrigué de Malanville au Bénin. Eur J Dev Res 27, 745–761 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2014.56

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2014.56

Keywords

  • action collective
  • participation individuelle
  • systèmes d’irrigation
  • homogénéité socio-culturelle
  • flexibilité des règles
  • Bénin