Community Driven Development, Collective Action and Elite Capture in Indonesia

By Aniruddha Dasgupta, Victoria A. Beard. 2007

489 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Development, Economics and Econometrics, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/77b3457f92dd8cd27dc47ddfd85453e74b71ebde

How researchers see this paper

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

In Development

In Economics and Econometrics

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Community-Based Rural Tourism in Inter-Organizational Collaboration: How Does It Work Sustainably? Lessons Learned from Nglanggeran Tourism Village, Gunungkidul Regency, Yogyakarta, Indonesia (2018, background): “Dasgupta and Beard [29] argue that the application of the idea of community-based development is a response to top-down development approaches that are considered undemocratic and centralistic.”
Assessing community-based conservation projects: A systematic review and multilevel analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic outcomes (2013, background): “Because elite capture of benefits has been found to be a core obstacle to effective decentralization of resource management [55-57] economic benefits must also be equitably distributed among community members, with no capture of benefits by community elites.”
The empty rhetoric of poverty reduction at the base of the pyramid (2012, background): “In some cases, ‘benevolent’ elite control rather than ‘pernicious’ elite capture may be observed (see Dasgupta and Beard, 2007; and Fritzen, 2007 for evidence from Indonesia).”
Who Is at the Wheel When Communities Drive Development? Evidence from the Philippines (2009, background): “For example, in their analysis of the Jamaica Social Investment Fund (JSIF), Dasgupta and Beard (2007) showed that 80% Please cite this article in press as: Labonne, J., & C nities ..., World Development (2008), doi:10.1016/j. of households express satisfaction with the project outcome.”