IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A comparative analysis of the effects of institutional property rights on forest livelihoods and forest conditions: Evidence from Ghana and Vietnam

Listed author(s):
  • Lambini, Cosmas Kombat
  • Nguyen, Trung Thanh

Effective institutional property rights are increasingly becoming an important part in the allocation of scarce forest resources and to combat the “tragedy of the commons” thesis. Our paper outlines conceptual, analytical and theoretical aspects of forest institutional property rights and an empirical synthesis of main findings from institutional property rights effectiveness in a cross-country comparative context. The paper employs property rights based framework coupled with some New Institutional Economics (NIE) debates as a diagnostic framework for understanding forest property rights. The Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF) provides empirically insights into how “forest institutional property rights” impact on forest communities' livelihoods and management. Our analysis provides support for the argument that forest institutional property rights play important role in the livelihoods of forest dependent communities and in forest management, but that can be context specific as showcased in our findings. Finally, the paper makes some recommendations in institutional analysis of forest property rights, such as strong and clearly defined property rights, integration of formal and informal rights and suggests strong linkage between institutional property rights and sustainable livelihoods as a “panacea” for sustainable forest livelihoods and management in developing countries.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Forest Policy and Economics.

Volume (Year): 38 (2014)
Issue (Month): C ()
Pages: 178-190

in new window

Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:38:y:2014:i:c:p:178-190
DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.09.006
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Nguyen, Trung Thanh & Bauer, Siegfried & Uibrig, Holm, 2010. "Land privatization and afforestation incentive of rural farms in the Northern Uplands of Vietnam," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(7), pages 518-526, September.
  4. Teye, Joseph Kofi, 2013. "Analysing forest resource governance in Africa: Proposition for an integrated policy network model," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 63-70.
  5. Konrad Hagedorn, 2008. "Particular requirements for institutional analysis in nature-related sectors," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 357-384, September.
  6. Radoslav S. Dimitrov, 2005. "Hostage to Norms: States, Institutions and Global Forest Politics," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 5(4), pages 1-24, November.
  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. Trung Thanh Nguyen, 2012. "Land Reform and Farm Production in the Northern Uplands of Vietnam," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 26(1), pages 43-61, March.
  9. Nguyen, Tan Quang, 2006. "Forest devolution in Vietnam: Differentiation in benefits from forest among local households," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 409-420, June.
  10. Philippe Delacote, 2012. "Forests and Development: Local, National, and Global Issues," Post-Print hal-01072288, HAL.
  11. Peter Hough, 2003. "Poisons in the System: The Global Regulation of Hazardous Pesticides," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 3(2), pages 11-24, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:38:y:2014:i:c:p:178-190. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.