2017
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3014135
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Natural Resource Ownership, Financial Gains, and Governance: The Case of Unconventional Gas Development in the UK and the US

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 64 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…subsurface makes extraction more desirable or efficient. Harleman and Weber (2017) describe four broad ownership regimes that vary based on public versus private ownership and local versus absentee ownership. Private resource ownership does not guarantee large local income gains.…”
Section: Resource Ownership Regimes and Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…subsurface makes extraction more desirable or efficient. Harleman and Weber (2017) describe four broad ownership regimes that vary based on public versus private ownership and local versus absentee ownership. Private resource ownership does not guarantee large local income gains.…”
Section: Resource Ownership Regimes and Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Private-absentee ownership, for example, would generate fewer local benefits than public-local ownership. Even in public-absentee regimes, central governments can redistribute ownership revenues to localities where extraction occurs as the UK government has proposed to do with tax revenues generated through shale gas development (Harleman and Weber 2017).…”
Section: Resource Ownership Regimes and Implicationsmentioning
confidence: 99%