IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v107y2021ics026483771930170x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

From elite-driven to community-based governance mechanisms for the delivery of public goods from land management

Author

Listed:
  • Ratinger, Tomáš
  • Čamská, Klára
  • Pražan, Jaroslav
  • Bavorová, Miroslava
  • Vančurová, Iva

Abstract

Several non-governmental initiatives have emerged in the Czech Republic in recent years with the aim to organise the provision of public goods or ecosystem services from agriculture and forestry. These initiatives are usually started by activists (elites) and take forms such as foundations or trust funds, but often present themselves as collective actions of communal interests. This paper sets out to present four cases of such efforts and to show their common and contrasting features in light of their relevance to local needs and possible integration in the future CAP framework. A particular focus is on the community-based character of these initiatives for the provision of public goods. This is done by examining the necessary conditions for the success of collectively managed common pool resources. The research shows that elite-driven non-governmental organisations often emerge because of a lack of interest on the part of public bodies and because local communities do not have the capacity to set up a collective action for the provision of environmentally and socially “beneficial outcomes” (ESBO). The investigated NGOs, however, soon came into conflict with non-involved actors. To improve the governance mechanism, an extension towards a community-based collective action is proposed. However, each step of such a transition is a challenge for the initiatives of the presented case studies. The first critical issue is to find a common interest among actors. Similarly, “sharing power” represents a struggle which consequently delays progress in creating effective internal governance. The difficulty in progressing towards community-based collective action is amplified by the uncertainty concerning property rights induced by the activities of the NGOs and unfavourable socioeconomic and institutional conditions. Finding that the private initiatives are far from being able to transform into community-based collective action, we propose to launch a measure of institutional funding for the coordination and management of their projects – similar to LEADER but more concentrated in scope.

Suggested Citation

  • Ratinger, Tomáš & Čamská, Klára & Pražan, Jaroslav & Bavorová, Miroslava & Vančurová, Iva, 2021. "From elite-driven to community-based governance mechanisms for the delivery of public goods from land management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:107:y:2021:i:c:s026483771930170x
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104560
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026483771930170X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104560?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. Prazan, Jaroslav & Theesfeld, Insa, 2014. "The role of agri-environmental contracts in saving biodiversity in the post-socialist Czech Republic," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 8(1), pages 1-25.
    3. Gray, Steven & Chan, Alex & Clark, Dan & Jordan, Rebecca, 2012. "Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social–ecological decision-making: Benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 88-96.
    4. Frey, Ulrich J. & Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Theesfeld, Insa, 2016. "A continuum of governance regimes: A new perspective on co-management in irrigation systems," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 73-81.
    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. Eloi Laurent & Jean Jouzel, 2018. "The Well-being Transition: Measuring what counts to protect what matters," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03458057, HAL.
    2. Moeliono, Moira & Brockhaus, Maria & Gallemore, Caleb & Dwisatrio, Bimo & Maharani, Cynthia D. & Muharrom, Efrian & Pham, Thuy Thu, 2020. "REDD+ in Indonesia: A new mode of governance or just another project?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    3. Górriz-Mifsud, Elena & Olza Donazar, Luis & Montero Eseverri, Eduardo & Marini Govigli, Valentino, 2019. "The challenges of coordinating forest owners for joint management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 100-109.
    4. McCloskey Deirdre Nansen, 2018. "The Two Movements in Economic Thought, 1700–2000: Empty Economic Boxes Revisited," Man and the Economy, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Martin G. Kocher & Fangfang Tan & Jing Yu, 2018. "Providing Global Public Goods: Electoral Delegation And Cooperation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 381-397, January.
    6. Wilson Charles Wilson & Maja Slingerland & Frederick P. Baijukya & Hannah Zanten & Simon Oosting & Ken E. Giller, 2021. "Integrating the soybean-maize-chicken value chains to attain nutritious diets in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(6), pages 1595-1612, December.
    7. Jorge M. Streb & Gustavo Torrens, 2011. "Meaningful talk," CEMA Working Papers: Serie Documentos de Trabajo. 443, Universidad del CEMA, revised May 2017.
    8. Andy Gouldson & Rory Sullivan, 2014. "Understanding the Governance of Corporations: An Examination of the Factors Shaping UK Supermarket Strategies on Climate Change," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(12), pages 2972-2990, December.
    9. David Klenert & Franziska Funke & Linus Mattauch & Brian O’Callaghan, 2020. "Five Lessons from COVID-19 for Advancing Climate Change Mitigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 76(4), pages 751-778, August.
    10. Thomas Vendryes, 2014. "Peasants Against Private Property Rights: A Review Of The Literature," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 971-995, December.
    11. Michael Peneder & Spyros Arvanitis & Christian Rammer & Tobias Stucki & Martin Wörter, 2022. "Policy instruments and self-reported impacts of the adoption of energy saving technologies in the DACH region," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 49(2), pages 369-404, May.
    12. Meyer, Camille, 2020. "The commons: A model for understanding collective action and entrepreneurship in communities," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 35(5).
    13. Haucap, Justus, 2017. "The rule of law and the emergence of market exchange: A new institutional economic perspective," DICE Discussion Papers 276, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    14. Hervé Charmettant & Yvan Renou, 2021. "Cooperative conversion and communalization: Closely observed interactions between the material and the mental," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 92(1), pages 55-77, March.
    15. Sophie King & Peter Kasaija, 2018. "State-movement partnership in Uganda: Co-producing an enabling environment for urban poverty reduction?," Global Development Institute Working Paper Series esid-098-18, GDI, The University of Manchester.
    16. Snower, Dennis J., 2019. "Toward global paradigm change: Beyond the crisis of the liberal world order," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 13, pages 1-19.
    17. Nomfundo Sibiya & Mikateko Sithole & Lindelani Mudau & Mulala Danny Simatele, 2022. "Empowering the Voiceless: Securing the Participation of Marginalised Groups in Climate Change Governance in South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-20, June.
    18. Natalia Ciobanu & Ali Kerem Saysel, 2021. "Using social–ecological inventory and group model building for resilience assessment to climate change in a network governance setting: a case study from Ikel watershed in Moldova," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 1065-1085, January.
    19. Bluffstone, Randy & Dannenberg, Astrid & Martinsson, Peter & Jha, Prakash & Bista, Rajesh, 2020. "Cooperative behavior and common pool resources: Experimental evidence from community forest user groups in Nepal," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    20. William J. Luther, 2021. "Behavioral and Policy Responses to COVID-19: Evidence from Google Mobility Data on State- Level Stay-at-Home Orders," Journal of Private Enterprise, The Association of Private Enterprise Education, vol. 36(Fall 2021), pages 67-89.

    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:lauspo:v:107:y:2021:i:c:s026483771930170x. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.