Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:50:16.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exploiting common resources with capital-intensive technologies: the role of external forces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

STEFANIE ENGEL  and
RAMÓN LÓPEZ
STEFANIE ENGEL
Affiliation:
Chair of Environmental Policy and Economics, Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich, Universitaetstrasse 22, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland. Email: sengel@ethz.ch
RAMÓN LÓPEZ
Affiliation:
University of Maryland at College Park, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper focuses on the interactions between local communities having at least some degree of informal claims over natural resources and firms interested in commercially exploiting such resources, explicitly allowing for interventions by third parties interested in community welfare and environmental outcomes. Integrating conflict and bargaining theories, we develop a bargaining model with endogenous inside and outside options, in which the feasibility and outcomes of a potential bargaining game depend on the unraveling of a conflict stage and vice versa. The model implies that, contrary to the conventional bargaining model, distribution and efficiency cease to be separable. We show that certain third-party interventions in the bargaining process may have unexpected and counterproductive effects.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 13 , Issue 5: THE ECONOMICS OF POVERTY, ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE USE , October 2008 , pp. 565 - 589
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agrawal, A. (2001), ‘Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources’, World Development 29: 1649–1672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alston, L.J., Libecap, G.D., and Mueller, B. (1999a), ‘A model of rural conflict: violence and land reform policy in Brazil’, Environment and Development Economics 4: 135–160.Google Scholar
Alston, L.J., Libecap, G.D., and Mueller, B. (1999b), Titles, Conflict, and Land Use: The Development of Property Rights and Land Reform on the Brazilian Amazon Frontier, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelsen, A. (2001), ‘Playing games in the forest: state–local conflicts of land appropriation’, Land Economics 77: 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baland, J.M. and Platteau, J.P. (1996), Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is There a Role for Rural Communities?, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bardhan, P. (1993a), ‘Analytics of the institutions of informal cooperation in rural development’, World Development 21: 633–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardhan, P. (1993b), ‘Symposium on management of local commons’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 7: 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barr, C., Wollenberg, E., Limberg, G., Anau, N., Iwan, R., Sudana, M., Moeliono, M., and Djogo, T. (2001), ‘The impacts of decentralisation on forests and forest-dependent communities in Malinau District, East Kalimantan’, Decentralisation and Forests in Indonesia Series, Case Study 3, Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. (1985), ‘Bargaining and coalitions’, in Roth, A. (ed.), Game-Theoretic Models of Bargaining, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohn, H. and Deacon, R.T. (2000), ‘Ownership risk, investment, and the use of natural resources’, American Economic Review 90: 526–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bose, P. (1998), ‘Formal–informal sector interaction in rural credit markets’, Journal of Development Economics 56: 265–280.Google Scholar
Bray, D., Merino, L., Negreros, P., Segura, G., Torres, J.M., and Vester, H. (2003), ‘Mexico's community-managed forests as a global model for sustainable landscapes’, Conservation Biology 17: 672–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bulow, J. and Klemperer, P. (1999), ‘The generalized war of attrition’, American Economic Review 89: 175–189.Google Scholar
Bulow, J. and Rogoff, K. (1989), ‘A constant recontracting model of sovereign debt’, Journal of Political Economy 97: 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, P.S. (2004), ‘Hugging trees: claiming de facto property rights by blockading resource use’, Environmental and Resource Economics 27: 135–163.Google Scholar
Casson, A. and Obidzinski, K. (2002), ‘From new order to regional autonomy: shifting dynamics of ‘illegal’ logging in Kalimantan, Indonesia’, World Development 30: 2133–2151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, R.G. (1988), Applied Production Analysis: A Dual Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dixit, A. and Nalebuff, B. (1991), Thinking Strategically, New York: Norton, chapter 8.Google Scholar
Feder, G. and Feeny, G. (1991), ‘Land tenure and property rights: theory and implications for development policy’, The World Bank Economic Review 5: 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hotte, L. (2001), ‘Conflicts over property rights and natural-resource exploitation at the frontier’, Journal of Development Economics 66: 1–21.Google Scholar
Kaimowitz, D. (2002a), ‘When you decentralize, democratise’, CIFOR-POLEX electronic newsletter, October 15, 2002, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Google Scholar
Kaimowitz, D. (2002b), ‘In good times and bad: community–company partnerships’, CIFOR-POLEX electronic newsletter, 30 July 2002 Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia, http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Google Scholar
Kornhauser, L., Rubinstein, A., and Wilson, C. (1989), ‘Reputation and patience in the “war of attrition”’, Economica 56: 15–24.Google Scholar
Larson, A.M. and Ribot, J.C. (2004), ‘Democratic decentralization through a natural resource lens: an introduction’, The European Journal of Development Research 16: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D.R. (1995), ‘Native Americans and the environment: a survey of twentieth century issues’, American Indian Quarterly 19: 423–450.Google Scholar
Mayers, J. and Vermeulen, S. (2002), ‘Company–community forestry partnerships: from raw deals to mutual gains?’, Instruments for Sustainable Private Sector Forestry Series, London: International Institute for Environment and Development.Google Scholar
Muthoo, A. (1999), Bargaining Theory with Applications, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, C. (2004), ‘The role of collective action in determining the benefits from IPPK logging concessions: a case study from Sekatak, East Kalimantan’, Working Paper No. 28, Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor, Indonesia.Google Scholar
Resosudarmo, I.A.P. (2004), ‘Closer to people and trees: will decentralization work for the people and the forests of Indonesia?’, The European Journal of Development Research 16: 110–132.Google Scholar
Ribot, J. (2002), Democratic Decentralization of Natural Resources, Institutionalizing Popular Participation, Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Rubinstein, A. (1982), ‘Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model’, Econometrica 50: 97–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, P. (2000), ‘Democracy and environment: congruence or contradiction?’, Commons Southern Africa 2: 4–6.Google Scholar
World Development Report (2000)/2001, Attacking Poverty, World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
World Development Report (2003), Sustainable Development in a Dynamic World, World Bank, Washington, DC.Google Scholar