Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal

By Arun Agrawal, Elinor Ostrom. 2001

691 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/166f24d2e6a846950424aba890fecdb943e0081c

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Global and Planetary Change

1. K. Andersson
2. Insa Theesfeld
3. S. Engel
4. T. Sikor
5. Jun He
6. Guillaume Lestrelin
7. Arun Agrawal
8. A. Larson

In Political Science and International Relations

1. K. Andersson
2. G. Dahal
3. Jun He
4. S. Engel
5. Insa Theesfeld
6. K. Gupta
7. D. Barry
8. Tan Nguyen

In Sociology and Political Science

1. G. Dahal
2. Jun He
3. S. Engel
4. Insa Theesfeld
5. K. Gupta
6. D. Barry
7. Tan Nguyen
8. B. Behera

Citations in the corpus

• Legal Pluralism and Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Mali (2008, neutral): “Yet the outcomes of decentralized NRM have not met initial expectations.”
• Understanding decentralized forest governance: an application of the institutional analysis and development framework (2006, positive): “Resource-user participation may require national government recognition of local political authority to adopt the rules agreed upon in the participatory decision-making forum, something that is not always the case in decentralized systems (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Agrawal & Ostrom, 2001; Smoke, 2003).”
• Research, part of a Special Feature on A Framework for Analyzing, Comparing, and Diagnosing Social-Ecological Systems Applying the social-ecological system framework to the diagnosis of urban lake commons in Bangalore, India (2014, neutral): “In most cases, users of urban commons lack formal ownership over the lands they access, but frequently have access to other bundles of property rights; that is, withdrawal, management, and/or exclusion (Agrawal and Ostrom 2001, Colding 2012).”
• Decentralization and Participation: The Governance of Common Pool Resources in Nepal’s Terai (2005, positive): “Governments play a role in decentralizing decision making and policy implementation to achieve diverse goals: among them social development , democratic participation, resource management, and service provision (Agrawal & Ostrom, 2001; De Vries, 2000; Willis, Christopher da, & Haggard, 1999).”
• Who talks with whom? The role of repeated interactions in decentralized forest governance (2004, positive): “…depends on the degree to which local governments involve local resource users in political decision making and are downwardly accountable to these users (e.g., Agrawal & Ostrom, 2001; Blair, 2000; Crook & Manor, 1998; de Oliveira, 2002; Larson, 2002; Pacheco, 2000; Ribot, 2002; Singleton, 1998).”
• Reflecting on the next generation of models for community-based natural resources management (2010, neutral): “This moves the conceptualization from one centred largely around handing over responsibilities to community agencies towards greater recognition and enactment of rights of communities to resources and land (Agrawal & Ostrom 2001; Kull 2002).”
• Institutional analysis of evolution of joint forest management in India: A new institutional economics approach (2006, positive): “In some cases, their share of the proceeds from government timber harvests is limited, and has been reduced after successful protection (Agrawal and Ostrom, 2002).”
• Property Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis Revisited (2017, positive): “Rights of physical access may not be too important as a separable right in many situations (cf. Agrawal & Ostrom, 2001: 489).”
• Does community forest management provide global environmental benefits and improve local welfare (2012, neutral): “Other variables that may determine the success of a project include physical features (such as project size) and community context (such as resource scarcity and dependency; Agrawal and Chhatre 2006; Behera 2009; Brown and Lassoie 2010; Hayes and Persha 2010).”
• New Rights for Forest-Based Communities? Understanding Processes of Forest Tenure Reform (2010, positive): “Management refers to “the right to regulate internal use patterns or transform the resource” (Agrawal and Ostrom 2001: 489), which could include tree planting, timber management or conversion to agriculture.”
• Decentralization of forest administration in Indonesia: implications for forest sustainability, economic development and community livelihoods (2006, neutral): “In cases where local elites have been strong and/or traditionally marginalized groups have been unable to organize themselves, decentralization has often strengthened pre-existing power relations, rather than promoting democratic decision-making processes (Agrawal and Ostrom 2001; Utting 1993).”