IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v37y2009i8p1400-1410.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

"Custom" and Contestation: Land Reform in Post-Socialist Mongolia

Author

Listed:
  • Upton, Caroline

Abstract

Summary Current state and development-led land reform agendas encompass formal recognition of customary rights to an historically unprecedented degree. Through analysis of historical transformations in customary tenure amongst Mongolia's herders, this paper maps the dynamic interplay between state influences, customary rights and practice. It questions unrealistic dichotomies between "state" and "custom" in derivation of rights, though examining process of "institutional bricolage" at four case study sites. Results indicate the limitations of both state and particular manifestations of community-led land reform in promoting desirable or predictable trajectories of change, and the centrality of local reworkings of particular interventions in shaping actual practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Upton, Caroline, 2009. ""Custom" and Contestation: Land Reform in Post-Socialist Mongolia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 1400-1410, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:37:y:2009:i:8:p:1400-1410
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-750X(09)00055-2
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Arun Agrawal & Elinor Ostrom, 2001. "Collective Action, Property Rights, and Decentralization in Resource Use in India and Nepal," Politics & Society, , vol. 29(4), pages 485-514, December.
    2. Agrawal, Arun, 2001. "Common Property Institutions and Sustainable Governance of Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1649-1672, October.
    3. David Sneath, 2003. "Land use, the environment and development in post-socialist Mongolia," Oxford Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 441-459.
    4. Robin Mearns, 1996. "Community, collective action and common grazing: The case of post‐socialist Mongolia," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(3), pages 297-339.
    5. World Bank, 2001. "Mongolia : Participatory Living Standards Assessment 2000," World Bank Publications - Reports 15103, The World Bank Group.
    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. Rama, Klodjan & Theesfeld, Insa, 2011. "The Strengths and Weaknesses of Albania’s Customary Rules in Natural Resource Management in the Light of Devolution Policies," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 50(4), pages 1-19.
    2. Allison Hahn, 2018. "Complexity of Mongolian stakeholders’ dzud preparation and response," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 92(1), pages 127-143, November.
    3. Madalina Epure, 2013. "How Does the Changing Access to Resources Affect the Power and Authority of the Postsocialist Romanian State?," Journal of Economic Development, Environment and People, Alliance of Central-Eastern European Universities, vol. 2(1), pages 32-56, March.

    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. Undargaa, Sandagsuren & McCarthy, John F., 2016. "Beyond Property: Co-Management and Pastoral Resource Access in Mongolia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 367-379.
    2. Ulambayar, Tungalag & Fernández-Giménez, María E., 2019. "How Community-Based Rangeland Management Achieves Positive Social Outcomes In Mongolia: A Moderated Mediation Analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 93-104.
    3. 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).
    4. Madrigal, Róger & Alpízar, Francisco & Schlüter, Achim, 2010. "Determinants of Performance of Drinking-Water Community Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of Case Studies in Rural Costa Rica," RFF Working Paper Series dp-10-03-efd, Resources for the Future.
    5. Fernández-Giménez, María E. & Batkhishig, Baival & Batbuyan, Batjav & Ulambayar, Tungalag, 2015. "Lessons from the Dzud: Community-Based Rangeland Management Increases the Adaptive Capacity of Mongolian Herders to Winter Disasters," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 48-65.
    6. Theesfeld, Insa, 2004. "Constraints on Collective Action in a Transitional Economy: The Case of Bulgaria's Irrigation Sector," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 251-271, February.
    7. Klümper, Frederike & Theesfeld, Insa, 2017. "The land-water-food nexus: expanding the social-ecological system framework to link land and water governance," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 6(3), pages 1-16.
    8. Yeboah-Assiamah, Emmanuel & Muller, Kobus & Domfeh, Kwame Ameyaw, 2017. "Institutional assessment in natural resource governance: A conceptual overview," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-12.
    9. Bill Buffum, 2012. "Why is There No Tragedy in These Commons? An Analysis of Forest User Groups and Forest Policy in Bhutan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(7), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Rahman, H.M. Tuihedur & Hickey, Gordon M. & Sarker, Swapan Kumar, 2012. "A framework for evaluating collective action and informal institutional dynamics under a resource management policy of decentralization," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 32-41.
    11. Angelsen, Arild, 2007. "Forest cover change in space and time : combining the von Thunen and forest transition theories," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4117, The World Bank.
    12. Yuepeng Zhou & Xiaoping Shi & Dengyan Ji & Xianlei Ma & Satish Chand, 2019. "Property rights integrity, tenure security and forestland rental market participation: Evidence from Jiangxi Province, China," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 43(2), pages 95-110, May.
    13. Andersson, Krister P. & Gibson, Clark C. & Lehoucq, Fabrice, 2006. "Municipal politics and forest governance: Comparative analysis of decentralization in Bolivia and Guatemala," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 576-595, March.
    14. Turpie, Jane & Letley, Gwyneth, 2021. "Would community conservation initiatives benefit from external financial oversight? A framed field experiment in Namibia’s communal conservancies," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 142(C).
    15. Fekadu Beyene, 2009. "Collective action in water‐point management: The case of pastoral and agropastoral communities in eastern Ethiopia," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 33(3), pages 175-188, August.
    16. Xu, Tuoyuan & Zhang, Xiaoxiao & Agrawal, Arun & Liu, Jinlong, 2020. "Decentralizing while centralizing: An explanation of China's collective forestry reform since the 1980s," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    17. 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.
    18. Frederike Klümper & Insa Theesfeld, 2017. "The Land–Water–Food Nexus: Expanding the Social–Ecological System Framework to Link Land and Water Governance," Resources, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-16, July.
    19. Shrestha, Sujata & Shrestha, Uttam Babu, 2017. "Beyond money: Does REDD+ payment enhance household's participation in forest governance and management in Nepal's community forests?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 63-70.
    20. Poteete, Amy R. & Ostrom, Elinor, 2008. "Fifteen Years of Empirical Research on Collective Action in Natural Resource Management: Struggling to Build Large-N Databases Based on Qualitative Research," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 176-195, January.

    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:37:y:2009:i:8:p:1400-1410. 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.