IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i13p7363-d586287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economies of Scale and Perceived Corruption in Natural Resource Management: A Comparative Study between Ukraine, Romania, and Iceland

Author

Listed:
  • Johanna Gisladottir

    (Faculty of Political Science, University of Iceland, 102 Reykjavik, Iceland
    Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland, 102 Reykjavik, Iceland
    Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Sigurbjörg Sigurgeirsdottir

    (Faculty of Political Science, University of Iceland, 102 Reykjavik, Iceland)

  • Kristín Vala Ragnarsdóttir

    (Institute of Earth Sciences, University of Iceland, 102 Reykjavik, Iceland)

  • Ingrid Stjernquist

    (Department of Physical Geography, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to enhance understanding of factors that undermine sustainable management of renewable resources by identifying and analyzing the main drivers and dynamics involved, with a focus on the role of corruption perceptions and its implications. To shed light on the research question, we chose to perform a comparative study of three different resource sectors in European countries that are ranked differently on the Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International, namely fisheries in Iceland, forestry in Romania, and arable soils in Ukraine. We conducted 40 in-depth semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders to explore assumptions on individual actions and behavior in the sectors. The interviews were analyzed using a qualitative coding procedure based on causal loop diagrams, a method from system dynamics. The results indicate that even though the cases are different, they share a similar outcome, in that privatization of the resource and consolidation of companies took place, along with perceived risk of both unsustainable resource management practices and corruption. Our findings suggest that the underlying similarities of the cases are that privatization occurred around the same time in early 1990s, when neoliberal economic ideology influentially held up the idea that private ownership meant better management. What followed was a transition to economies of scale that ultimately resulted in dominance of large vertically integrated companies in the sectors. The resulting inequalities between large and small actors in the renewable resource management systems serve to increase the risk for unsustainable management decisions as well as increase perceptions of corruption risks, especially amongst smaller actors in the sectors.

Suggested Citation

  • Johanna Gisladottir & Sigurbjörg Sigurgeirsdottir & Kristín Vala Ragnarsdóttir & Ingrid Stjernquist, 2021. "Economies of Scale and Perceived Corruption in Natural Resource Management: A Comparative Study between Ukraine, Romania, and Iceland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-26, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:13:p:7363-:d:586287
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7363/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/13/7363/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eythórsson, Einar, 2000. "A decade of ITQ-management in Icelandic fisheries: consolidation without consensus," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 483-492, November.
    2. Arvind K. Jain, 2001. "Corruption: A Review," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 71-121, February.
    3. Siry, Jacek P. & Cubbage, Frederick W. & Ahmed, Miyan Rukunuddin, 2005. "Sustainable forest management: global trends and opportunities," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 551-561, May.
    4. Adrian Neacsa & Mirela Panait & Jianu Daniel Muresan & Marian Catalin Voica, 2020. "Energy Poverty in European Union: Assessment Difficulties, Effects on the Quality of Life, Mitigation Measures. Some Evidences from Romania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-28, May.
    5. Lambsdorff,Johann Graf, 2007. "The Institutional Economics of Corruption and Reform," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521872751, October.
    6. Corbett A. Grainger & Dominic P. Parker, 2013. "The Political Economy of Fishery Reform," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 5(1), pages 369-386, June.
    7. Marian Drăgoi & Veronica Toza, 2019. "Did Forestland Restitution Facilitate Institutional Amnesia? Some Evidence from Romanian Forest Policy," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-19, June.
    8. Nichiforel, Liviu & Keary, Kevin & Deuffic, Philippe & Weiss, Gerhard & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Winkel, Georg & Avdibegović, Mersudin & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Feliciano, Diana & Gatto, Paola & Gorriz Mi, 2018. "How private are Europe’s private forests? A comparative property rights analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 535-552.
    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. Byrne, Conor & Oostdijk, Maartje & Agnarsson, Sveinn & Davidsdottir, Brynhildur, 2024. "The Transitional Gains Trap in Grandfathered Individual Transferable Quota Fisheries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    2. Makarenko, Inna & Plastun, Alex & Mazancovа, Jana & Juhaszova, Zuzana & Brin, Pavlo, 2022. "Transparency of agriculture companies: rationale of responsible investment for better decision making under sustainability," Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, Agricultural and Resource Economics: International Scientific E-Journal, vol. 8(2), June.
    3. Johanna Gisladottir & Sigurbjörg Sigurgeirsdottir & Ingrid Stjernquist & Kristin Vala Ragnarsdottir, 2022. "Approaching the Study of Corruption and Natural Resources through Qualitative System Dynamics," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, July.
    4. Francesco Riccioli & Mario Cozzi, 2021. "Modelling the Economic, Social and Environmental Components of Natural Resources for Sustainable Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-3, August.

    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. Lurdes Martins & Jorge Cerdeira & Aurora A.C. Teixeira, 2020. "Does corruption boost or harm firms’ performance in developing and emerging economies? A firm‐level study," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(8), pages 2119-2152, August.
    2. John Bone & Dominic Spengler, 2014. "Does Reporting Decrease Corruption?," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 26(1-2), pages 161-186, January.
    3. Eugen Dimant & Guglielmo Tosato, 2018. "Causes And Effects Of Corruption: What Has Past Decade'S Empirical Research Taught Us? A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 335-356, April.
    4. Andra-Cosmina Albulescu & Michael Manton & Daniela Larion & Per Angelstam, 2022. "The Winding Road towards Sustainable Forest Management in Romania, 1989–2022: A Case Study of Post-Communist Social–Ecological Transition," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-29, July.
    5. Pellegrini Lorenzo & Luca Tasciotti, 2019. "Corruption: Public and Private," Working Papers 220, Department of Economics, SOAS University of London, UK.
    6. Dominic Spengler, 2012. "Endogenising Detection in an Asymmetric Penalties Corruption Game," Discussion Papers 12/20, Department of Economics, University of York.
    7. Roberto Dell’Anno, 2020. "Corruption around the world: an analysis by partial least squares—structural equation modeling," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 184(3), pages 327-350, September.
    8. Herrmann, Konstantin & Emrich, Eike & Frenger, Monika & Rasche, Christoph, 2018. "First step developing a early-warning system against corruption for sports associations," Working Papers of the European Institute for Socioeconomics 24, European Institute for Socioeconomics (EIS), Saarbrücken.
    9. Davide Torsello & Bertrand Venard, 2015. "The Anthropology of Corruption," Post-Print hal-01238748, HAL.
    10. Toke S. Aidt, 2011. "Corruption and Sustainable Development," Chapters, in: Susan Rose-Ackerman & Tina Søreide (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, Volume Two, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Carol M. Sánchez & Kevin Lehnert., 2018. "Firm-level trust in emerging markets: the moderating effect on the institutional strength- corruption relationship in Mexico and Peru," Estudios Gerenciales, Universidad Icesi, vol. 34(147), pages 127-138, May.
    12. Grießhaber, Nicolas & Geys, Benny, 2011. "Civic engagement and corruption in 20 European democracies," Discussion Papers, Research Professorship & Project "The Future of Fiscal Federalism" SP II 2011-103, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    13. Spengler Dominic, 2014. "Endogenous Detection of Collaborative Crime: The Case of Corruption," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(2), pages 201-217, July.
    14. Byrne, Conor & Oostdijk, Maartje & Agnarsson, Sveinn & Davidsdottir, Brynhildur, 2024. "The Transitional Gains Trap in Grandfathered Individual Transferable Quota Fisheries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).
    15. Johanna Gisladottir & Sigurbjörg Sigurgeirsdottir & Ingrid Stjernquist & Kristin Vala Ragnarsdottir, 2022. "Approaching the Study of Corruption and Natural Resources through Qualitative System Dynamics," Resources, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-15, July.
    16. Nichiforel, Liviu & Duduman, Gabriel & Scriban, Ramona Elena & Popa, Bogdan & Barnoaiea, Ionut & Drăgoi, Marian, 2021. "Forest ecosystem services in Romania: Orchestrating regulatory and voluntary planning documents," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    17. Blackburn, Keith & Forgues-Puccio, Gonzalo F., 2009. "Why is corruption less harmful in some countries than in others?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 797-810, December.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:13:p:7363-:d:586287. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.