IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/agrebk/qt8qh479p8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Mexican Common Property Forestry Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Antinori, Camille M.
  • Rausser, Gordon C.

Abstract

This report summarizes preliminary findings of the Mexican National Database and Community Survey Project which examines linkages between institutional characteristics in Mexico’s common property forestry sector and economic and environmental outcomes. Framing the Mexican agrarian community as a unit of analysis characterized by its history, individual members, resources, civic structure and property rights, we use institutional economic analysis to motivate project design and research on three aspects of Mexican community forestry governance: first, how communities have engaged forest resources to participate in forestry markets; second, how internal models of forestry management are reflect historical circumstances and practices, policy trends and managerial preferences that are independent of vertical integration levels; third, correlation among market participation, internal organization and performance outcomes such as conservation levels, wealth and income indicators and public and private goods investment. The project employs unique community-level survey data collected in Durango and Michoacan between 2005 and 2007 to summarize basic statistics to describe the sector from the point of view of the project’s objectives. Preliminary results reveal an inverse relationship between integration into production chains and material wealth measures, no correlation between internal governance models and vertical integration, and significant regional variation in institutional characteristics. The emerging profile shows continually evolving and varied common property institutions and questions “one-size-fits-all” business models, pointing to the need for more specific understandings of the community forestry sector. The lessons learned can be applied to address the future role of “community” in Mexican economic and environmental policy, and, on a larger scale, the meaning of community forestry management in sustainable development strategies.

Suggested Citation

  • Antinori, Camille M. & Rausser, Gordon C., 2010. "The Mexican Common Property Forestry Sector," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt8qh479p8, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
  • Handle: RePEc:cdl:agrebk:qt8qh479p8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/8qh479p8.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    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. Gordillo de Anda, Gustavo & Janvry, Alain de & Sadoulet, Elisabeth, 1998. "Between political control and efficiency gains: the evolution of agrarian property rights in Mexico," Revista CEPAL, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL), December.
    3. Zusman, Pinhas, 1992. "Constitutional selection of collective-choice rules in a cooperative enterprise," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 353-362, May.
    4. Hoddinott, John & Haddad, Lawrence James & Besley, Tim & Adato, Michelle, 2001. "Participation and poverty reduction," FCND discussion papers 98, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    5. Globerman, Steven & Schwindt, Richard, 1986. "The organization of vertically related transactions in the Canadian forest products industries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 7(2), pages 199-212, June.
    6. Wunder, Sven, 2001. "Poverty Alleviation and Tropical Forests--What Scope for Synergies?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 1817-1833, November.
    7. Jodha, N.S., 1992. "Common Property Resources; A Missing Dimension of development Strategies," World Bank - Discussion Papers 168, World Bank.
    8. Bardhan, Pranab, 2000. "Irrigation and Cooperation: An Empirical Analysis of 48 Irrigation Communities in South India," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(4), pages 847-865, July.
    9. Klooster, Daniel, 2000. "Institutional Choice, Community, and Struggle: A Case Study of Forest Co-Management in Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 1-20, January.
    10. Peter Vitaliano, 1983. "Cooperative Enterprise: An Alternative Conceptual Basis for Analyzing a Complex Institution," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 65(5), pages 1078-1083.
    11. Klaus Deininger & Bart Minten, 2002. "Determinants of Deforestation and the Economics of Protection: An Application to Mexico," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(4), pages 943-960.
    12. Masako Fujiie & Yujiro Hayami & Masao Kikuchi, 2005. "The conditions of collective action for local commons management: the case of irrigation in the Philippines," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 33(2), pages 179-189, September.
    13. Henry G. Manne, 1965. "Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(2), pages 110-110.
    14. Dani Rodrik, 2004. "Institutions and Economic Performance - Getting Institutions Right," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 2(2), pages 10-15, October.
    15. Perez-Cirera, Vanessa & Lovett, Jon C., 2006. "Power distribution, the external environment and common property forest governance: A local user groups model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 341-352, September.
    16. Fama, Eugene F & Jensen, Michael C, 1983. "Separation of Ownership and Control," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 301-325, June.
    17. Silke J. Forbes & Mara Lederman, 2010. "Does vertical integration affect firm performance? Evidence from the airline industry," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 41(4), pages 765-790, December.
    18. Dayton-Johnson, Jeff, 2000. "Determinants of collective action on the local commons: a model with evidence from Mexico," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 181-208, June.
    19. Henry G. Manne, 1965. "Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 73(4), pages 351-351.
    20. Angelsen, Arild & Kaimowitz, David, 1999. "Rethinking the Causes of Deforestation: Lessons from Economic Models," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 14(1), pages 73-98, February.
    21. repec:ces:ifodic:v:2:y:2004:i:2:p:14567797 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Camille Antinori & Gordon C. Rausser, 2008. "Ownership and Control in Mexico's Community Forestry Sector," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 101-136, October.
    23. Leffler, Keith B & Rucker, Randal R, 1991. "Transactions Costs and the Efficient Organization of Production: A Study of Timber-Harvesting Contracts," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(5), pages 1060-1087, October.
    24. Camille Antinori & Gordon Rausser, 2007. "Collective choice and community forestry management in Mexico: An empirical analysis," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 43(3), pages 512-536.
    25. Fritzen, Scott A., 2007. "Can the Design of Community-Driven Development Reduce the Risk of Elite Capture? Evidence from Indonesia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1359-1375, August.
    26. Gibson, Clark C. & Williams, John T. & Ostrom, Elinor, 2005. "Local Enforcement and Better Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 273-284, February.
    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. Vega, Dora Carias & Keenan, Rodney J., 2014. "Transaction cost theory of the firm and community forestry enterprises," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1-7.
    2. Runyan, Christiane W. & D'Odorico, Paolo & Shobe, William, 2015. "The economic impacts of positive feedbacks resulting from deforestation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 93-99.
    3. Engbring, Gretchen & Hajjar, Reem, 2022. "Conflicts between core purposes: Trade-offs associated with organizational shifts in Mexican community forest enterprises," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    4. Carias Vega, Dora & Keenan, Rodney J., 2016. "Transaction costs and the organization of CFEs: Experiences from ejidos in Quintana Roo, Mexico," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-8.
    5. Ojha, Hemant R. & Ford, Rebecca & Keenan, Rodney J. & Race, Digby & Carias Vega, Dora & Baral, Himlal & Sapkota, Prativa, 2016. "Delocalizing Communities: Changing Forms of Community Engagement in Natural Resources Governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 274-290.

    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. Antinori, Camille M. & Rausser, Gordon C., 2003. "Does Community Involvement Matter? How Collective Choice Affects Forests in Mexico," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt83j385n0, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    2. Carias Vega, Dora & Keenan, Rodney J., 2016. "Transaction costs and the organization of CFEs: Experiences from ejidos in Quintana Roo, Mexico," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-8.
    3. Pak Hung Au & Yuk‐Fai Fong & Jin Li, 2020. "Negotiated Block Trade And Rebuilding Of Trust," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 61(2), pages 901-939, May.
    4. Timothy J. Brailsford & Barry R. Oliver & Sandra L. H. Pua, 2002. "On the relation between ownership structure and capital structure," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 42(1), pages 1-26, March.
    5. Martin Conyon & Annita Florou, 2002. "Top executive dismissal, ownership and corporate performance," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(4), pages 209-225.
    6. R. Abdul Rahman & R.J. Limmack, 2004. "Corporate Acquisitions and the Operating Performance of Malaysian Companies," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3‐4), pages 359-400, April.
    7. Kajisa, Kei & Palanisami, Kuppannan & Sakurai, Takeshi, 2006. "The Dissemination of Private Wells and Double Tragedies: The Overexploitation of Groundwater among Well Users and Increased Poverty among Non-Well Users in Tamil Nadu, India," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25682, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Yasuyuki Sawada & Ryuji Kasahara & Keitaro Aoyagi & Masahiro Shoji & Mika Ueyama, 2013. "Modes of Collective Action in Village Economies: Evidence from Natural and Artefactual Field Experiments in a Developing Country," Asian Development Review, MIT Press, vol. 30(1), pages 31-51, March.
    9. Ghazala Mansuri, 2004. "Community-Based and -Driven Development: A Critical Review," The World Bank Research Observer, World Bank, vol. 19(1), pages 1-39.
    10. Muurling, Rutger & Lehnert, Thorsten, 2004. "Option-based compensation: a survey," The International Journal of Accounting, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 365-401.
    11. Wang, Sen & Bogle, Tim & van Kooten, G. Cornelis, 2012. "Forestry and the New Institutional Economics," Working Papers 130818, University of Victoria, Resource Economics and Policy.
    12. David Gindis, 0. "On the origins, meaning and influence of Jensen and Meckling’s definition of the firm," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 72(4), pages 966-984.
    13. Bushman, Robert M. & Smith, Abbie J., 2001. "Financial accounting information and corporate governance," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1-3), pages 237-333, December.
    14. Jennifer Alix-Garcia & Craig McIntosh & Katharine R. E. Sims & Jarrod R. Welch, 2013. "The Ecological Footprint of Poverty Alleviation: Evidence from Mexico's Oportunidades Program," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(2), pages 417-435, May.
    15. Joshua Rosett, 1989. "Do Union Wealth Concessions Explain Takeover Premiums? The Evidence on Contract Wages," NBER Working Papers 3187, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. repec:ipg:wpaper:2014-591 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Howell, Jason W., 2017. "The survival of the U.S. dual class share structure," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 440-450.
    18. Charlie Weir & David Laing & Mike Wright, 2005. "Incentive Effects, Monitoring Mechanisms and the Market for Corporate Control: An Analysis of the Factors Affecting Public to Private Transactions in the UK," Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(5‐6), pages 909-943, June.
    19. Pradiptarathi PANDA & Jinesh PANCHALI, 2019. "Corporate ownership structure and performance: An enquiry into India," Theoretical and Applied Economics, Asociatia Generala a Economistilor din Romania / Editura Economica, vol. 0(4(621), W), pages 93-110, Winter.
    20. Nguyen, Thi Tuyet Mai, 2017. "An examination of independent directors in Vietnam," OSF Preprints ay6dv, Center for Open Science.
    21. Inder K. Khurana & Wei Wang, 2019. "International Mergers and Acquisitions Laws, the Market for Corporate Control, and Accounting Conservatism," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(1), pages 241-290, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social and Behavioral Sciences;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cdl:agrebk:qt8qh479p8. 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dabrkus.html .

    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.