IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v93y2017icp337-349.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Property Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis Revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Sikor, Thomas
  • He, Jun
  • Lestrelin, Guillaume

Abstract

More than two decades ago, Schlager and Ostrom (1992) developed ‘a conceptual schema for arraying property-rights regimes that distinguishes among diverse bundles of rights’. The conceptual framework has profoundly influenced research on natural resource governance, common property, and community resource management. However, currently natural resource governance has changed dramatically, challenging the applicability of the conceptual schema. There are now many more social actors involved in resource management than the local communities at the focus of original analysis. Additionally, resource management increasingly provides access to various kinds of benefits from outside the immediate context, including indirect benefits such as payments for environmental services and results-based payments for REDD+. These changes demand addition of new property rights to the original framework. This paper updates the conceptual schema in reaction to changes in natural resource governance, proposing three specific modifications on the focus of use rights, control rights and authoritative rights to come up with a framework that distinguishes eight types of property rights. We apply the framework to three purposefully selected governance interventions in China and Laos that include the provision of indirect benefits in addition to the direct benefits derived by local people from natural resources. The empirical application shows how contemporary governance changes may not lead to local people’s outright dispossession, since they continue to possess direct use rights to natural resources. However, local people may be excluded from control and authoritative rights, which are exercised exclusively by state agencies and international actors. The latter make available indirect benefits to local people, which may or may not translate into use rights in the sense of policy-based entitlements. The empirical insights suggest the possibility of a wider trend of ‘compensated exclusions’ in natural resource governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Sikor, Thomas & He, Jun & Lestrelin, Guillaume, 2017. "Property Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis Revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 337-349.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:93:y:2017:i:c:p:337-349
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16305800
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.032?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. Bray, David Barton & Antinori, Camille & Torres-Rojo, Juan Manuel, 2006. "The Mexican model of community forest management: The role of agrarian policy, forest policy and entrepreneurial organization," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 470-484, June.
    2. Baland, Jean-Marie & Bardhan, Pranab & Das, Sanghamitra & Mookherjee, Dilip, 2010. "Forests to the People: Decentralization and Forest Degradation in the Indian Himalayas," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 1642-1656, November.
    3. Esteve Corbera & Katrina Brown, 2010. "Offsetting Benefits? Analyzing Access to Forest Carbon," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(7), pages 1739-1761, July.
    4. Bennett, Michael T., 2008. "China's sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 699-711, May.
    5. Bromley, Daniel W & Hodge, Ian, 1990. "Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural Policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 17(2), pages 197-214.
    6. Fortmann, Louise, 1995. "Talking claims: Discursive strategies in contesting property," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1053-1063, June.
    7. Ribot, Jesse C. & Agrawal, Arun & Larson, Anne M., 2006. "Recentralizing While Decentralizing: How National Governments Reappropriate Forest Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1864-1886, November.
    8. Smith, Joyotee & Colan, Violeta & Sabogal, Cesar & Snook, Laura, 2006. "Why policy reforms fail to improve logging practices: The role of governance and norms in Peru," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 458-469, June.
    9. 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.
    10. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801, September.
    11. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    12. Matthew Leggett & Heather Lovell, 2012. "Community perceptions of REDD+: a case study from Papua New Guinea," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 115-134, January.
    13. Agarwal, Bina, 2001. "Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1623-1648, October.
    14. Mohammed, Abrar Juhar & Inoue, Makoto, 2014. "Linking outputs and outcomes from devolved forest governance using a Modified Actor-Power-Accountability Framework (MAPAF): Case study from Chilimo forest, Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 21-31.
    15. Vivek N. Mathur & Stavros Afionis & Jouni Paavola & Andrew J. Dougill & Lindsay C. Stringer, 2014. "Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: towards multi-level climate justice," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 42-62, January.
    16. Wollenberg, Eva & Moeliono, Moira & Limberg, Godwin & Iwan, Ramses & Rhee, Steve & Sudana, Made, 2006. "Between state and society: Local governance of forests in Malinau, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 421-433, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Lucungu, Prince Baraka & Dhital, Narayan & Asselin, Hugo & Kibambe, Jean-Paul & Ngabinzeke, Jean Semeki & Khasa, Damase P., 2022. "Local perception and attitude toward community forest concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    2. Ameha, Aklilu & Nielsen, Oystein Juul & Larsen, Helle Overgard, 2014. "Impacts of access and benefit sharing on livelihoods and forest: Case of participatory forest management in Ethiopia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 162-171.
    3. Prakash Kashwan, 2016. "Integrating power in institutional analysis: A micro-foundation perspective," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 5-26, January.
    4. Chankrajang, Thanyaporn, 2019. "State-community property-rights sharing in forests and its contributions to environmental outcomes: Evidence from Thailand's community forestry," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 261-273.
    5. Davis, Emily Jane & Hajjar, Reem & Charnley, Susan & Moseley, Cassandra & Wendel, Kendra & Jacobson, Meredith, 2020. "Community-based forestry on federal lands in the western United States: A synthesis and call for renewed research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. 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.
    7. Coleman, Eric A. & Fleischman, Forrest D., 2012. "Comparing Forest Decentralization and Local Institutional Change in Bolivia, Kenya, Mexico, and Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 836-849.
    8. Skutsch, Margaret & Turnhout, Esther, 2020. "REDD+: If communities are the solution, what is the problem?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).
    9. Pandit, Ram & Bevilacqua, Eddie, 2011. "Forest users and environmental impacts of community forestry in the hills of Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 345-352, June.
    10. Saeed, Abdul-Razak & McDermott, Constance & Boyd, Emily, 2018. "Examining equity in Ghana's national REDD+ process," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 48-58.
    11. Ghebru, Hosaena, 2015. "Is There a Merit to the Continuum Tenure Approach? A Case of Demand for Land Rights Formulation in Rural Mozambique," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211683, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Sirisha C. Naidu, 2005. "Heterogeneity and Common Pool Resources: Collective Management of Forests in Himachal Pradesh, India," Others 0511004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Lambini, Cosmas Kombat & Nguyen, Trung Thanh, 2014. "A comparative analysis of the effects of institutional property rights on forest livelihoods and forest conditions: Evidence from Ghana and Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 178-190.
    14. Jagger, Pamela, 2014. "Confusion vs. clarity: Property rights and forest use in Uganda," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 32-41.
    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. Gakou-Kakeu, Josiane & Di Gregorio, Monica & Paavola, Jouni & Sonwa, Denis Jean, 2022. "REDD+ policy implementation and institutional interplay: Evidence from three pilot projects in Cameroon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    17. Lucungu, Prince Baraka & Dhital, Narayan & Asselin, Hugo & Kibambe, Jean-Paul & Ngabinzeke, Jean Semeki & Khasa, Damase P., 2022. "Local citizen group dynamics in the implementation of community forest concessions in the Democratic Republic of Congo," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    18. Wasilewski, Adam & Sikor, Thomas, 2003. "Institutional Options for the Protection of Open Space: Evidence from Poland," Discussion Papers 18887, CEESA: Central and Eastern European Sustainable Agriculture International Research Project.
    19. Rahut, Dil Bahadur & Ali, Akhter & Behera, Bhagirath, 2015. "Household participation and effects of community forest management on income and poverty levels: Empirical evidence from Bhutan," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 20-29.
    20. Stibniati S Atmadja & Erin O Sills, 2016. "What Is a “Community Perception” of REDD+? A Systematic Review of How Perceptions of REDD+ Have Been Elicited and Reported in the Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.

    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:93:y:2017:i:c:p:337-349. 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.