Collective Action and Property Rights for Poverty Reduction

Mwangi, Esther; Markelova, Helen; Meinzen-Dick, Ruth Suseela

doi:10.9783/9780812207873

Cited by 8 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 113 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hirschnitz-Garbers and Stoll-Kleemann (2010) argue that protected areas outcomes should be assessed using indicators of biocultural diversity, participation and meaningful voice in decision-making, and indicators of class, education, income, ethnicity, and gender. Mwangi et al (2012) analyze case studies with attention to the relative bargaining power of smallholders, and the conditions that contribute to elite capture of decentralized natural resource management regimes. These measures and approaches to power can further unpack the details of participatory process, and attributes of processes that help managers and resource users navigate tradeoffs and synergies in CPR and SES management.…”

Section: Gaps In the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Defining Success in the Commons: Addressing Problem Orientations, Multidimensionality, Norms, and Tradeoffs

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commons and social-ecological systems research examines institutional arrangements for governing natural resources to improve social and ecological outcomes. However, no universal definition of success exists. We examine the CPR and SES synthesis literature to identify trends, gaps and challenges for examining success. We address: (1) gaps in the literature, (2) multidimensionality and tradeoffs, and (3) and the link between problem orientation and definitions of success. To do this we conduct a comprehensive review of Large-N studies, metaanalyses and systematic reviews of CPR and SES governance (n = 45). We found seven dimensions of success, corresponding to collective choice, constitutional and operational levels, temporal dimensions, and socioeconomic outcomes. Most studies did not address power and tradeoffs, or specify the social groups to whom success would apply. The majority of studies defined success in one dimension, most often demand-side provisioning (e.g., productivity or biodiversity). A regression analysis suggests that studies on rangelands or grasslands, correlative studies, and/or studies of state property systems (i.e., protected areas) were more likely to use fewer dimensions of success. Problem orientations often did not correlate with dimensions of success considered in a study, suggesting that measures of success often cannot adequately address the full suite of problems recognized in synthesis research. This presents a significant challenge for collective action among scholars who aim to develop general knowledge on SES and CPR governance. We discuss exemplary studies that measure success as multidimensional, address power and tradeoffs, and conclude with four recommendations for advancing the analysis of success.

show abstract

Section: Gaps In the Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%