Abstract
Previous research has identified a range of variables conducive to the self-organization of user groups for participatory resource management, including the physical and technical attributes of the resource, the characteristics of user groups and the nature of institutional arrangements. This paper focuses on household characteristics such as caste and income, and analyzes their impact on the probability of membership in the decision-making unit of local forest management institutions, drawing on primary data from a survey of eight community forest user groups in the mid-hills of Nepal. It shows in particular that members of households belonging to lower-caste groups have a lower probability of being elected as members of the executive committee of user groups. The participation of such households in village meetings, however, also increases the probability of membership within the executive decision-making unit, suggesting that household participation can help to achieve fairer forms of village-level collective action.
La recherche sur les groupes participatifs de gestion des ressources a identifié un large éventail de variables favorisant leur émergence, y compris les attributs physiques et techniques des ressources en question, les caractéristiques des membres utilisateurs, ainsi que la nature des arrangements institutionnels. Cet article se focalise sur certaines caractéristiques des ménages dont sont issus les membres utilisateurs de ces groupes, telles que la caste et le revenu, et analyse leur impact sur la probabilité d’adhésion à l’organe exécutif de groupes locaux de gestion de ressources forestière, en se basant sur des données primaires tirées d’un recensement de huit groupes dans des communautés de la zone des collines du Népal. Il est démontré que les membres de ménages appartenant aux groupes de caste inférieure ont une probabilité moindre d’être élu au comité de direction. Cependant, la simple participation de ces ménages aux réunions de leur groupe augmente la probabilité d’adhésion d’un de leur membre à l’organe exécutif, suggérant que la participation elle-même peut intrinsèquement promouvoir des formes d’action collective plus justes au niveau local.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We also considered implementing eight separate regressions corresponding to the eight different FUGs and locations. This empirical strategy is not, however, suitable in this setting. Pooling the data together, in addition to the advantage of inserting a fixed effect and tackling the endogeneity bias, allows us to use 283 observations. The number of observations per FUG ranges from 29 to 58.
See Wooldridge (2002, pp. 472–477) for details of this testing procedure.
The testing procedure is implemented on a linear probability model estimated with Two-Stage Least Squares. Although equivalent procedures for non-linear models were not at hand, the above results should provide reassurance that the instruments pass all the usual tests for the linear case.
Ostrom (1990) formulated eight design features for the successful CPR management of CPRs, or essential conditions that help to account for the success of local institutions. These design principles are clearly defined boundaries, congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions, collective-choice arrangements, monitoring, graduated sanctions, conflict-resolving mechanisms, minimal recognition of rights to organize and nested enterprises.
It should be noted that the empirical evidence presented in this paper relies on a cross-section analysis. Future effort is needed in collecting data with a time dimension. This would allow for the insertion of greater dynamism into the model, and also for the assessment of the way that past levels of household participation affect current involvement in FUGs. A time dimension would also control for unobserved households’ heterogeneity.
References
Adhikari, B. (2005) Poverty, property rights and natural resource: Understanding distributional implications of common property resource management. Environment and Development Economics 10: 7–31.
Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S. and Lovett, J.C. (2004) Household characteristics and forest dependency: Evidence from community-based forest management in Nepal. Ecological Economics 48 (2): 245–257.
Adhikari, B. and Lovett, J.C. (2006) Institutions and collective action: Does heterogeneity hinder community-based resource management? Journal of Development Studies 78 (1): 5–15.
Agrawal, A. and Ostrom, L. (2001) Collective action, property rights and decentralization in resource use in India and Nepal. Politics and Society 29 (4): 485–514.
Agrawal, A. and Ribot, J. (1999) Accountability in decentralization: A framework with South Asian and West African cases. Journal of Developing Areas 33 (Summer): 473–502.
Anderson, J., Clement, J. and Crowder, L.V. (1998) Accommodating conflicting interests in forestry: Concepts emerging from pluralism. Unasylva 194 (49): 3–10.
Baker, M. (1997) Persistence, Transformation and Demise within the Gravity Flow Irrigation Systems (Kuhls) of Kangra Valley, Himachal Pradesh, India. Workshop on ‘Co-operative Management of Water Resources in South Asia’ Centre for India and South Asia Research (CISA), University of British Columbia, in Vancouver, Canada, 15–17 December 1997.
Baland, J. and Platteau, J. (1996) Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is there a Role of Rural Communities? New York: FAO, Oxford University Press.
Beteille, A. (ed.) (1983) Equality and Inequality: Theory and Practice. Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
Bhatia, A. (1997) Power, Equity, Gender, and Conflicts in Common Property Resources in the Hindu Kush-Himalayas: Issues in Mountain Development. Kathmandu, Nepal: ICIMOD. Technical report 1997/7.
Campbell, B., Mandando, A., Nemarundwe, N., Jong, W., Luckret, M. and Matose, F. (2001) Challenges to proponents of common property resource systems: Despairing voices from the social forests of Zimbabwe. World Development 29 (4): 589–600.
Chapagain, D.P., Kanel, K.R. and Regmi, D.C. (1999) Current Policy and Legal Context of the Forestry Sector with Reference to the Community Forestry Programme in Nepal: A Working Review. Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepal–UK Community Forestry Project.
Collett, G., Chhetri, R., Jackson, W.J. and Shepherd, K.R. (1996) NACFP: Socio-Economic Impact Study. Canberra, ACT, Australia: ANUTECH Pty Ltd.
Dhakal, S. (2006) Politics Beyond the Political Sphere: Community Based Organizations and Local Democracy, Proceedings of the 19th European Conference on Modern South Asian Studies (ECMSAS); 27–30 June 2006, European Association for South Asian Studies (EASAS): Leiden, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Dirks, N.B. (2001) Caste of Minds: Colonization and the Making of Modern India. New Jersey, USA: Princeton University Press.
Fox, J.M. (1983) Managing Public Lands in a Subsistence Economy: The Perspective from a Nepali Village. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison: Madison-Wisconsin.
Gaiha, R., Imai, K. and Kaushik, P.D. (2001) On the targeting and cost-effectiveness of anti-poverty programme in rural India. Development and Change 32 (2): 309–342.
Graner, E. (1997) The Political Ecology of Community Forestry in Nepal. Saarbrucken: Verlag fur Entwickungspolitik.
Hildyard, N., Hegde, P., Wolverkamp, P. and Reddy, S. (1998) Same Platform, Different Train: The Politics of Participation. Corner House Briefing 04, The Corner House Station Road Sturminster Newton Dorset DT10 1YJ UK.
Hobley, M. (1990) Social Reality, Social Forestry: The Case of Two Nepalese Panchayats. Unpublished PhD thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.
Hsiao, C. (2003) Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Hughes, E. (1993) Status, property and forest management: Women’s role in community forestry in Nepal. TRI NEWS 12 (2): 46–49.
Jodha, N.S. (1986) Common property resources and the rural poor in dry regions of India. Economic and Political Weekly 21 (27): 169–181.
Joshi, A.L. (1997) Empowering local users in forest management in Nepal. Banko Janakari 7 (2): 32–38.
Kanel, K. (2008) So Far So Good: Next Steps in Community Forestry. In: R. Ghate, N.N. Jodha and P. Mukhopadhyay (eds.) Promise Trust and Evolution: Managing the Commons of South Asia. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.
Kanel, K.R. and Niraula, D.R. (2004) Can rural livelihoods be improved in Nepal through community forestry? Banko Jankari 14 (1): 19–24.
Lama, A. and Buchy, M. (2003) Gender, class, caste and participation: The case of community forestry in Nepal. Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 2002 9: 27.
Lawati, M. (2005) Towards a Democratic Nepal Inclusive Political Institutions for a Multicultural Society. New Delhi, India: Sage Publication.
Leach, M., Mearns, R. and Scoones, I. (1999) Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development 28 (4): 225–247.
NPC. (2007) Interim Plan: 2007. Kathmandu, Nepal: National Planning Commission.
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ostwald, M. and Baral, R. (2000) Local forest protection, gender and caste: Dhani Hill, Orissa, India. Human Geography 82 (3): 115–128.
Poffenberger, M. (1996) Valuing the Forest. In: M. Poffenberger and B. Mcgean (eds.) Village Voice, Forest Choice – Joint Forest Management in India. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
Pokharel, B. (1997) Community forestry and people’s livelihoods, http://www.livelihoods.org/post/Docs/Pokharel.rtf.
Pradhan, R. and Shrestha, A. (2005) Ethnic and Caste Diversity: Implications for Development. Working paper series no. 4, Asian Development Bank, Nepal Resident Mission, Kathmandu.
Richards, M., Kanel, K., Maharjan, M. and Davies, J. (1999) Towards Participatory Economic Analysis by Forest User Groups in Nepal. London, UK: ODI, Portland House, Stag Place.
Sethi, R. and Somanathan, E. (1996) The evolution of social norms in common property resource use. American Economic Review 86 (4): 766–788.
Sharma, A.R. (2002) Community Forestry from Wealth and Caste Perspective: Elvira Graner in The Dock, In: The Ninth Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property; 17–21 June 2002, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe. International Association for the Study of Commons (IASC): Indiana, USA.
Singh, N. (2004) Water Management Traditions in Rural India: Valuing the Unvalued. Sweden: Department of Land and Water Resources Engineering, Royal Institute of Technology.
Sundar, N. (1997) Subalterns and Sovereigns. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
Thapa, S., Shrestha, R.N. and Yadav, K.P. (1998) Socio-Economic Aspects of the Follow-up Forest Resource Assessment Study. Kathmandu, Nepal: Nepal–UK Community Forestry Project Report B/NUKCFP/55.
Tiwary, R. (2006) Explanations in resource inequality: Exploring scheduled caste position in water access structure. International Journal of Rural Management 2 (1): 85–106.
Varughese, J. and Ostrom, E. (2001) The contested role of heterogeneity in collective action: Some evidence from community forestry in Nepal. World Development 29 (5): 747–765.
Wade, R. (1988) Village Republics: Economic Conditions for Collective Action in South India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wooldridge, J. (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Massachusetts, USA: MIT Press.
Acknowledgements
We thank Arun Agrawal, Jan McAlpine, Nadeem Samnakay and Meeta Sainju Pradhan for their comments and advice. We thank two anonymous referees for their critical comments. The first author would like to acknowledge the research fellowship of the International Forestry Resources and Institutions program, under which this paper was prepared. The earlier version of this paper was presented at the 16th Annual Conference of the European Association of Environment and Resource Economists, 24–28 June 2008 in Gothenburg, Sweden.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Adhikari, B., Di Falco, S. Social Inequality, Local Leadership and Collective Action: An Empirical Study of Forest Commons. Eur J Dev Res 21, 179–194 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2008.16
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ejdr.2008.16