IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/wdevel/v93y2017icp337-349.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Property Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis Revisited

Author

Listed:
  • Sikor, Thomas
  • He, Jun
  • Lestrelin, Guillaume

Abstract

More than two decades ago, Schlager and Ostrom (1992) developed ‘a conceptual schema for arraying property-rights regimes that distinguishes among diverse bundles of rights’. The conceptual framework has profoundly influenced research on natural resource governance, common property, and community resource management. However, currently natural resource governance has changed dramatically, challenging the applicability of the conceptual schema. There are now many more social actors involved in resource management than the local communities at the focus of original analysis. Additionally, resource management increasingly provides access to various kinds of benefits from outside the immediate context, including indirect benefits such as payments for environmental services and results-based payments for REDD+. These changes demand addition of new property rights to the original framework. This paper updates the conceptual schema in reaction to changes in natural resource governance, proposing three specific modifications on the focus of use rights, control rights and authoritative rights to come up with a framework that distinguishes eight types of property rights. We apply the framework to three purposefully selected governance interventions in China and Laos that include the provision of indirect benefits in addition to the direct benefits derived by local people from natural resources. The empirical application shows how contemporary governance changes may not lead to local people’s outright dispossession, since they continue to possess direct use rights to natural resources. However, local people may be excluded from control and authoritative rights, which are exercised exclusively by state agencies and international actors. The latter make available indirect benefits to local people, which may or may not translate into use rights in the sense of policy-based entitlements. The empirical insights suggest the possibility of a wider trend of ‘compensated exclusions’ in natural resource governance.

Suggested Citation

  • Sikor, Thomas & He, Jun & Lestrelin, Guillaume, 2017. "Property Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis Revisited," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 337-349.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:wdevel:v:93:y:2017:i:c:p:337-349
    DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.12.032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16305800
    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. 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. 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.
    3. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801, December.
    4. Baland, Jean-Marie & Bardhan, Pranab & Das, Sanghamitra & Mookherjee, Dilip, 2010. "Forests to the People: Decentralization and Forest Degradation in the Indian Himalayas," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 38(11), pages 1642-1656, November.
    5. 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.
    6. Matthew Leggett & Heather Lovell, 2012. "Community perceptions of REDD+: a case study from Papua New Guinea," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 115-134, January.
    7. Agarwal, Bina, 2001. "Participatory Exclusions, Community Forestry, and Gender: An Analysis for South Asia and a Conceptual Framework," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1623-1648, October.
    8. Mohammed, Abrar Juhar & Inoue, Makoto, 2014. "Linking outputs and outcomes from devolved forest governance using a Modified Actor-Power-Accountability Framework (MAPAF): Case study from Chilimo forest, Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 21-31.
    9. Vivek N. Mathur & Stavros Afionis & Jouni Paavola & Andrew J. Dougill & Lindsay C. Stringer, 2014. "Experiences of host communities with carbon market projects: towards multi-level climate justice," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 42-62, January.
    10. Bennett, Michael T., 2008. "China's sloping land conversion program: Institutional innovation or business as usual?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 699-711, May.
    11. Bromley, Daniel W & Hodge, Ian, 1990. "Private Property Rights and Presumptive Policy Entitlements: Reconsidering the Premises of Rural Policy," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Foundation for the European Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 17(2), pages 197-214.
    12. Fortmann, Louise, 1995. "Talking claims: Discursive strategies in contesting property," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(6), pages 1053-1063, June.
    13. 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.
    14. Wollenberg, Eva & Moeliono, Moira & Limberg, Godwin & Iwan, Ramses & Rhee, Steve & Sudana, Made, 2006. "Between state and society: Local governance of forests in Malinau, Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 421-433, June.
    15. Smith, Joyotee & Colan, Violeta & Sabogal, Cesar & Snook, Laura, 2006. "Why policy reforms fail to improve logging practices: The role of governance and norms in Peru," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 458-469, June.
    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. Gustafsson, Maria-Therese & Scurrah, Martin, 2019. "Strengthening subnational institutions for sustainable development in resource-rich states: Decentralized land-use planning in Peru," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 133-144.
    2. Ali, Amjad & Zulfiqar, Kalsoom, 2018. "An Assessment of Association between Natural Resources Agglomeration and Unemployment in Pakistan," MPRA Paper 87968, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Poncian, Japhace & Jose, Jim, 2019. "National resource ownership and community engagement in Tanzania's natural gas governance," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    4. Punjabi, Bharat & Johnson, Craig A., 2019. "The politics of rural–urban water conflict in India: Untapping the power of institutional reform," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 182-192.
    5. Buckley, R.C. & Guitart, D. & Shakeela, A., 2017. "Contested surf tourism resources in the Maldives," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 185-199.
    6. Kansanga, Moses Mosonsieyiri & Luginaah, Isaac, 2019. "Agrarian livelihoods under siege: Carbon forestry, tenure constraints and the rise of capitalist forest enclosures in Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 131-142.
    7. Erbaugh, James T., 2019. "Responsibilization and social forestry in Indonesia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    8. Theesfeld, Insa, 2018. "From Land to Water Grabbing: A Property Rights Perspective on Linked Natural Resources," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 62-70.
    9. Dhiaulhaq, Ahmad & McCarthy, John F. & Yasmi, Yurdi, 2018. "Resolving industrial plantation conflicts in Indonesia: Can mediation deliver?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 64-72.
    10. Ida Nadia S. Djenontin & Samson Foli & Leo C. Zulu, 2018. "Revisiting the Factors Shaping Outcomes for Forest and Landscape Restoration in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Way Forward for Policy, Practice and Research," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(4), pages 1-34, March.
    11. Audi, Marc & Ali, Amjad, 2019. "Aggregate and Disaggregate Natural Resources Agglomeration and Foreign Direct Investment in France," MPRA Paper 93460, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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:93:y:2017:i:c:p:337-349. 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). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/worlddev .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.