Comparing Forest Decentralization and Local Institutional Change in Bolivia, Kenya, Mexico, and Uganda
In this paper we assess the institutional and environmental impacts of forest decentralization in Bolivia, Kenya, Mexico, and Uganda. We develop theories of institutional impacts based upon the specific content of decentralization reforms. We classify each country’s reforms in terms of the creation/change in local user group empowerment and accountability mechanisms. Using data from the International Forestry Resources and Institutions Program, we estimate the effects of forest decentralization on local forest investments, rulemaking, wealth inequality, and forest conditions in the four countries. Some results support our theory, but the theory is insufficient to explain the full range of outcomes.
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.:
- Ribot, Jesse C. & Agrawal, Arun & Larson, Anne M., 2006. "Recentralizing While Decentralizing: How National Governments Reappropriate Forest Resources," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 1864-1886, November.
- Coleman, Eric A. & Steed, Brian C., 2009. "Monitoring and sanctioning in the commons: An application to forestry," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(7), pages 2106-2113, May.
- Krister Andersson & Clark C. Gibson, 2007. "Decentralized governance and environmental change: Local institutional moderation of deforestation in Bolivia," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 99-123.
- Alberto Abadie & David Drukker & Jane Leber Herr & Guido W. Imbens, 2004. "Implementing matching estimators for average treatment effects in Stata," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 4(3), pages 290-311, September.
- 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.
- 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.
- Andersson, Krister P., 2004. "Who Talks with Whom? The Role of Repeated Interactions in Decentralized Forest Governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 233-249, February.
- Hayes, Tanya M., 2006. "Parks, People, and Forest Protection: An Institutional Assessment of the Effectiveness of Protected Areas," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(12), pages 2064-2075, December.
- Gibson, Clark C. & Williams, John T. & Ostrom, Elinor, 2005. "Local Enforcement and Better Forests," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 273-284, February.
- Pellegrini, L., 2009. "Forest management in Bolivia, Honduras and Nicaragua : reform failures?," ISS Working Papers - General Series 18719, International Institute of Social Studies of Erasmus University Rotterdam (ISS), The Hague.
- Dilip Mookherjee & Pranab K. Bardhan, 2000. "Capture and Governance at Local and National Levels," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(2), pages 135-139, May.
- 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.
- Eric A. Coleman, 2009. "Institutional factors affecting biophysical outcomes in forest management," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(1), pages 122-146.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:40:y:2012:i:4:p:836-849. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.