Natural Resources and Decentralization in Nicaragua: Are Local Governments Up to the Job?

By A. Larson. 2002

239 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Demography, Finance, Global and Planetary Change

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3839e34e6c98fca34e380ae0d4b251611b4a5785

How researchers see this paper

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

In Demography

1. K. Andersson
2. Elinor Ostrom
3. P. R. Oyono
4. C. Gibson
5. L. Tacconi
6. Paul J. Ferraro
7. Arun Agrawal
8. J. Cinner

In Finance

1. K. Andersson
2. P. R. Oyono
3. Elinor Ostrom
4. L. Tacconi
5. C. Gibson

In Global and Planetary Change

1. K. Andersson
2. Elinor Ostrom
3. L. Tacconi
4. Sven Wunder
5. Subhrendu K. Pattanayak
6. Arun Agrawal
7. Paul J. Ferraro
8. J. Ribot

Citations in the corpus

• Understanding decentralized forest governance: an application of the institutional analysis and development framework (2006, background): “…performance affect overall governance outcomes (i.e., Crook & Manor, 1998; Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Pacheco, 2000; Agrawal & Ostrom, 2001; Larson, 2002), most of this extant work focuses exclusively on the performance of a single local organization such as a village council, a municipal…”
• Evaluation of biodiversity policy instruments: what works and what doesn't? (2012, background): “municipalities, communities), decentralization measures create positive incentives for sustainable natural resource use as the benefits from the latter are shared among those who bear the costs of protection (Larson, 2002).”
• Who talks with whom? The role of repeated interactions in decentralized forest governance (2004, background): “…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).”
• Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective (2008, methodology): “In the search for viable explanations to the variable outcomes of decentralized resource governance, most existing empirical studies consider the local government administration as the appropriate unit of analysis (i.e., Blair 2000; Fiszbein 1997; Larson 2002 ).”
• Recentralizing while decentralizing: How national governments reappropriate forest resources (2006, background): “The devolution of management responsibilities without corresponding funds to carry them out is common (Larson, 2002; Ribot, 1995a).”
• One step forward, two steps back? Paradoxes of natural resources management decentralisation in Cameroon (2004, background): “Equally, Kouna (2001) reports on the proliferation of fictional projects, the funding for which is released but misappropriated by the municipal and administrative authorities.”
• Decentralization, forests and livelihoods: Theory and narrative (2007, background): “Second, the debate over decentralized forest management has focused particularly on the relationship between decentralization and forest management (Kaimowitz et al., 1998; Casson, 2001; Larson, 2002; Andersson, 2003; Gibson and Lehoucq, 2003; Pierce Colfer and Capistrano, 2005).”
• Profiling Local-Level Outcomes of Environmental Decentralizations: The Case of Cameroon’s Forests in the Congo Basin (2005, background): “Kassibo (2004). Social and policy researchers paying attention to these decentralization experiments all over the world have identified five types of outcomes likely to be produced by decentralization processes ( Larson, 2002; Manor, 1999; Ribot, 2002, 2004).”
• Decentralization's Effects on Educational Outcomes in Bolivia and Colombia (2008, unknown): “Other authors, such as Andersson (2004), Larson (2002), McCarthy (2004), and Nygren (2005), are more cautious, arguing broadly that decentralization is a complex, problematic phenomenon, but may ultimately have positive effects on local welfare.”
• Decentralized governance and environmental change: Local institutional moderation of deforestation in Bolivia (2007, background): “Such works generally analyze how local institutional arrangements influence the local governments’ administrative performance, such as public participation (Blair, 2000; Fiszbein, 1997; Larson, 2002; O’Neill, 2003), downward accountability (Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Crook & Manor, 1998; Smoke, 2003), r”