Democratic Decentralisation of Natural Resources: Institutional Choice and Discretionary Power Transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa

By J. Ribot. 2003

381 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Development, Safety Research, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d4d6a4c38dd63974e022dbd21012e1deec94265c

How researchers see this paper

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

In Development

1. A. Larson
2. F. Nunan
3. J. Lund
4. T. Treue
5. Christophe Béné
6. E. Allison
7. J. Ribot
8. Arun Agrawal

In Safety Research

1. Christophe Béné
2. A. Larson
3. F. Nunan
4. E. Allison
5. J. Lund
6. T. Treue
7. J. Ribot
8. Arun Agrawal

In Sociology and Political Science

1. A. Larson
2. F. Nunan
3. J. Lund
4. T. Treue
5. Christophe Béné
6. Martin D. Robards
7. E. Allison
8. J. Ribot

Citations in the corpus

• Decentralisation and forest management in Latin America: towards a working model (2003, background): “Ribot (2003) argues that downwardly accountable and representative local authorities need discretionary powers ‘over the resources that affect their constituencies in order to become legitimate actors around which civic organisations and citizens rally for justice, sustainable livelihoods and…”
• An analysis of power dynamics within innovation platforms for natural resource management (2014, background): “Fiszbein (1997, 3 cited in Ribot 2003, 61) highlights that in some cases, the inability to conduct effective participatory approaches may not be due to a lack of capacity but, rather, poorly designed incentives.”
• Empowerment and Institutions: Managing Fisheries in Uganda (2006, background): “…management of natural resources they use and often rely on for their livelihoods was strongly encouraged through the rhetoric of the 1980s and early 1990s, of sustainable development driven by locally derived solutions (Blaikie, 2003; Fabricius, 2004; Leach, Mearns, & Scoones, 1997; Ribot, 2003).”
• Recentralizing while decentralizing: How national governments reappropriate forest resources (2006, background): “But case studies of decentralization reforms suggest that the necessary institutional arrangements for the desired outcomes are rarely observed (Agrawal, 2001; Agrawal & Ribot, 1999; Larson & Ferroukhi, 2003; Ribot, 2002, 2003, 2004; Ribot & Larson, 2005).”
• Increasing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food security (2007, background): “Experience suggests, however, that reducing the capacities of the governmental agencies as part of decentralization reforms is a recipe for disaster (Ribot, 2003; Crook and Sverrisson, 2001; Manor 1999).”
• Are we getting there? Evidence of decentralized forest management from the Tanzanian Miombo woodlands (2008, background): “Decentralized forest management might hold special qualities in this reg ard, because forests can be sources rather than sinks of public revenue thus representing an opport unity for local governments to generate their own means with which to govern and thereby (potentially) enhance their legitimacy”
• The importance of social drivers in the resilient provision of ecosystem services (2011, background): “…governance approach offers opportunities for greater democratic participation by groups that would have been disenfranchised under top-down policies (as suggested by Ribot, 2003), while benefiting state authorities under fiscal pressures to ensure the continued flow of ecosystem services.”
• Introduction: Institutional Choice and Recognition in the Formation and Consolidation of Local Democracy (2008, background): “Democratic local government is rarely given the means—discretionary authority, technical support, equipment or finances—to represent or to engage local people in public affairs (Crook & Manor 1998; Ribot 2003).”