IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v77y2016icp367-379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond Property: Co-Management and Pastoral Resource Access in Mongolia

Author

Listed:
  • Undargaa, Sandagsuren
  • McCarthy, John F.

Abstract

A critique of property theory points to the limitations of policies that seek to specify property rights, to strengthen or to re-establish common property institutions. Drawing on property theory and its critique, this paper presents a detailed case study of two waves of reform that attempted to reorganize property relations in Mongolia. Despite their analytical sophistication, property theories face particular challenges when translated into policy prescriptions. Reforms need to build on a broader understanding of the practices and mechanisms involved in governing resources, thereby providing a means to improve resource management.

Suggested Citation

  • Undargaa, Sandagsuren & McCarthy, John F., 2016. "Beyond Property: Co-Management and Pastoral Resource Access in Mongolia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 367-379.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:77:y:2016:i:c:p:367-379
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X1500193X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 641-672, June.
    2. Kurt Hall & Frances Cleaver & Tom Franks & Faustin Maganga, 2014. "Capturing Critical Institutionalism: A Synthesis of Key Themes and Debates," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 26(1), pages 71-86, January.
    3. Arun Agrawal & Elinor Ostrom, 2001. "Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal," Politics & Society, , vol. 29(4), pages 485-514, December.
    4. Agrawal, Arun, 2001. "Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1649-1672, October.
    5. Agrawal, Arun & Gibson, Clark C., 1999. "Enchantment and Disenchantment: The Role of Community in Natural Resource Conservation," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 629-649, April.
    6. Jerome Ballet & Kouamekan J-M. Koffi & K. Boniface Komena, 2009. "Co-Management of Natural Resources in Developing Countries: the Importance of Context," Economie Internationale, CEPII research center, issue 120, pages 53-76.
    7. Nixson, Frederick & Walters, Bernard, 2006. "Privatization, Income Distribution, and Poverty: The Mongolian Experience," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(9), pages 1557-1579, September.
    8. Sikor, Thomas & Müller, Daniel, 2009. "The Limits of State-Led Land Reform: An Introduction," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1307-1316, August.
    9. Caroline Humphrey, 1978. "Pastoral Nomadism in Mongolia: The Role of Herdsmen's Cooperatives in the National Economy," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 9(1), pages 133-160, January.
    10. David Sneath, 2003. "Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 441-459.
    11. Robin Mearns, 1996. "Community, collective action and common grazing: The case of post‐socialist Mongolia," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 297-339.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tugjamba, Navchaa & Walkerden, Greg, 2021. "Traditional and modern ecosystem services thinking in nomadic Mongolia: Framing differences, common concerns, and ways forward," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    2. Tan, S., 2018. "Grassland rental markets and herder technical efficiency: ability effect or resource equilibration effect?," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277077, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Allington, Ginger R.H. & Fernández-Giménez, María E. & Reid, Robin & Ulambayar, Tungalag & Angerer, Jay & Jamsranjav, Chantsallkham & Baival, Batkhishig & Batjav, Batbuyan, 2024. "Context matters: Rethinking resource governance theories for Mongolian pastoral systems," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    4. Zhang, Ruxin & Tan, Shuhao & Hannaway, David & Dai, Weizhu, 2020. "Multi-household grassland management pattern promotes ecological efficiency of livestock production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    5. Tan, Shu-hao & Zhang, Ru-xin & Tan, Zhong-chun, 2018. "Grassland rental markets and herder technical efficiency: ability effect or resource equilibration effect?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 135-142.
    6. Kaoru Kakinuma & Aki Yanagawa & Takehiro Sasaki & Mukund Palat Rao & Shinjiro Kanae, 2019. "Socio-ecological Interactions in a Changing Climate: A Review of the Mongolian Pastoral System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(21), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Ulambayar, Tungalag & Fernández-Giménez, María E., 2019. "How Community-Based Rangeland Management Achieves Positive Social Outcomes In Mongolia: A Moderated Mediation Analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 93-104.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Upton, Caroline, 2009. ""Custom" and Contestation: Land Reform in Post-Socialist Mongolia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1400-1410, August.
    2. Ulambayar, Tungalag & Fernández-Giménez, María E., 2019. "How Community-Based Rangeland Management Achieves Positive Social Outcomes In Mongolia: A Moderated Mediation Analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 93-104.
    3. Fernández-Giménez, María E. & Batkhishig, Baival & Batbuyan, Batjav & Ulambayar, Tungalag, 2015. "Lessons from the Dzud: Community-Based Rangeland Management Increases the Adaptive Capacity of Mongolian Herders to Winter Disasters," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 48-65.
    4. Visser Oane & Schoenmaker Lotte, 2011. "Institutional Transformation in the Agricultural Sector of the former Soviet Bloc," Eastern European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 17(2011), pages 21-53, January.
    5. Yeboah-Assiamah, Emmanuel & Muller, Kobus & Domfeh, Kwame Ameyaw, 2017. "Institutional assessment in natural resource governance: A conceptual overview," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-12.
    6. Nunan, Fiona & Hara, Mafaniso & Onyango, Paul, 2015. "Institutions and Co-Management in East African Inland and Malawi Fisheries: A Critical Perspective," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 203-214.
    7. Prakash Kashwan, 2016. "Integrating power in institutional analysis: A micro-foundation perspective," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 5-26, January.
    8. Petrick, Martin & Gramzow, Andreas, 2012. "Harnessing Communities, Markets and the State for Public Goods Provision: Evidence from Post-Socialist Rural Poland," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(11), pages 2342-2354.
    9. Andersson, Krister P. & Gibson, Clark C. & Lehoucq, Fabrice, 2006. "Municipal politics and forest governance: Comparative analysis of decentralization in Bolivia and Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 576-595, March.
    10. Rizwana Alam & Jon C. Lovett, 2019. "Prospects of Public Participation in the Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces in Lahore: A Discourse Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-28, June.
    11. Dhakal, Maheshwar & Masuda, Misa, 2009. "Local pricing system of forest products and its relations to equitable benefit sharing and livelihood improvement in the lowland community forestry program in Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 221-229, July.
    12. Purnamita Dasgupta, 2007. "Common Property Resources as Development Drivers: A Study of Fruit Cooperative in Himachal Pradesh: India," Working Papers id:917, eSocialSciences.
    13. Sirisha C. Naidu, 2005. "Heterogeneity and Common Pool Resources: Collective Management of Forests in Himachal Pradesh, India," Others 0511004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Okumu, Boscow & Muchapondwa, Edwin, 2020. "Determinants of successful collective management of forest resources: Evidence from Kenyan Community Forest Associations," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    15. Long, Hexing & de Jong, Wil & Yiwen, Zhang & Liu, Jinlong, 2021. "Institutional choices between private management and user group management during forest devolution: A case study of forest allocation in China," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    16. Madrigal, Róger & Alpízar, Francisco & Schlüter, Achim, 2010. "Determinants of Performance of Drinking-Water Community Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of Case Studies in Rural Costa Rica," RFF Working Paper Series dp-10-03-efd, Resources for the Future.
    17. Dambala Gelo & Steven F. Koch & Edwin Muchapondwah, 2013. "Do the Poor Benefit from Devolution Policies? Evidences from Quantile Treatment Effect Evaluation of Joint Forest Management," Working Papers 201388, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    18. Lemeilleur, Sylvaine & Allaire, Gilles, 2019. "Participatory Guarantee Systems for organic farming: reclaiming the commons," Working Papers MOISA 292325, Institut National de la recherché Agronomique (INRA), UMR MOISA : Marchés, Organisations, Institutions et Stratégies d'Acteurs : CIHEAM-IAMM, CIRAD, INRA, Montpellier SupAgro, Montpellier, France.
    19. Beitl, Christine M., 2014. "Adding Environment to the Collective Action Problem: Individuals, Civil Society, and the Mangrove-Fishery Commons in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 93-107.
    20. H. Carolyn Peach Brown & James P. Lassoie & Steven A. Wolf, 2007. "An analytic approach to structuring co–management of community forests in Cameroon," Progress in Development Studies, , vol. 7(2), pages 135-154, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:77:y:2016:i:c:p:367-379. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.