Institutional design India a b s t r a c tCommons scholarship seems preoccupied with self-governance. It focuses on showing that common pool resource (CPR) appropriators do not always need outsider-assistance in order to stay clear of the tragedy of the commons. However, at the same time we observe the presence of a large number of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that consider community organisation -i.e. the organisation of collective action in community institutions -their core business. In this research we firstly develop and apply a framework to analyse the activities of 20 NGOs in India and compare these to indicators for collective action in a community-led CPR governance context, derived from the commons literature. Secondly, we assess variation in NGOs' approaches to institutional change, by developing and applying a typology that distinguishes between (i) perspectives that see institutional change as predominantly determined by structure (institutional design) or agency (institutional crafting), respectively, and between (ii) perspectives that perceive institutions as either subjective or objective to the institutional change agent, respectively. Our results show that NGOs do not get involved in activities aimed at influencing functioning collective action such as crafting or designing rules. They do involve themselves in activities aimed at strengthening durable collective action such as forest management trainings. Furthermore, all NGOs show a predominantly subjective approach to institutional change. Their long-term focus puts the communities themselves firmly in the institutional change agent position. The results along the design-crafting dimension show more diversity and dynamicity. Eight NGOs in our sample take a strong institutional crafting approach to their work, whereas only three focus predominantly on institutional design and nine show elements of both crafting and designing. The majority of the NGOs highlighted how their approach can change depending on the stage in the intervention. Our results highlight the dynamic and diverse institutional settings the NGOs operate in which both moderates their approach to institutional change and determines their choice of specific activities.

No abstract

External actor interventions in community forest management (CFM) attempt to support communities with developing forest institutions and/ or improving their livelihoods portfolio. Common pool resource (CPR) scholars Uniting forest and livelihood outcomes? 533 argue that forest institutions are required to prevent overharvesting of the forest resource stock (appropriation dilemma), and to encourage investment in its maintenance (provision dilemma). The sustainable livelihoods approach (SLA) has been widely used to analyse the influence of interventions on rural livelihoods portfolios. As interventions in CFM span the academic divide between CPR and SLA literatures, analysis of such interventions through either a CPR or SLA lens risks overlooking intervention activities, significant outcomes of the intervention, and the interplay between these outcomes. We propose here an analytical framework which combines CPR and SLA insights and ascertain its applicability by analysing interventions in a forest dependent community in Andhra Pradesh, India. We developed multiple indicators to measure the community's ability to deal with appropriation and provision dilemmas, and their livelihoods portfolio. Using data from forest plots, household questionnaires, focus group meetings and interviews, we analysed the intervention approaches, activities and outcomes. Our results show that a community's ability to deal with appropriation and provision dilemmas both affects, and is affected by its livelihoods portfolio. These intricate and dynamic interplays strongly influence the direct and indirect outcomes of intervention activities. Incorporating the synergy between the CPR and SLA perspectives in our analytical framework led us to a much more nuanced understanding of intervention approaches, activities and outcomes than would have otherwise been gained from a single perspective framework.Keywords: Common pool resources, community forestry, India, interventions, rural development, sustainable livelihoods Acknowledgements: We are extremely grateful to all the community members in East Godavari, Andhra Pradesh for sharing their experiences with us, logistical support and hospitality. We also greatly appreciate the time and patience shown by the external actors at the heart of this research whose honest responses to our questions enabled us to gain valuable insights into their daily work. We thank the reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.

Forest policy implementation is a political endeavor involving both state and non-state actors. We observe that civil society organizations (CSOs) often federate into civil society-led coalitions (CSCs) in order to shape forest policies in their favor. They appear to be successful in doing this during the policy design phase but we know little about whether they are able to see through to implementation the changes they have put in motion. Analyzing CSC strategies during policy implementation could help to explain variation in the extent to which forest policies are successfully implemented. This paper analyzes the strategy choices and potential impact during policy implementation of a loose CSC comprised of CSOs, activists, people's movements, researchers, and lawyers that advocates for the full implementation of the Forest Rights Act in India. Drawing from the Advocacy Coalition Framework's focus on belief systems, complemented by insights from political ecology and civil society/social movements literature, we develop a framework to analyze CSC strategy choices. Our analysis is conducted at the national level and in two states, Andhra Pradesh and Odisha. We employ qualitative research methods, including 38 interviews with CSC and non-CSC members, and a comprehensive analysis of the main CSC listserv and 1000 relevant English language newspaper articles. Our study reveals that the CSC employs a range of conflictive and collaborative strategies in its attempts to influence state-led implementation processes, at both national and state levels. It draws on a loose, heterogeneous network with ability to connect internally and a clear moral justification of its involvement in FRA implementation. However the diverse range of views on the implementation issues held by CSC members, lack of dedicated funding for coordination, limited legitimacy in the eyes of some state actors and a constricting wider institutional setting, impedes the CSC's ability to make coalition-level strategy decisions. Our results lead us to argue that CSCs are undoubtedly active in forest policy implementation at the national level and in the two states analyzed, though limited coordination of strategies potentially restricts their impact on the policy implementation process.

The commons literature tends to treat community development as one of the independent variables that can explain variation in commons governance outcomes. The community development literature treats community development as its primary dependent variable, and studies how it can be achieved. We feel that the obvious complementarity between both traditions has up till now not been taken full advantage of. The purpose of this paper is to begin defining a common ground where both literatures can work together. We identify a big potential and an urgent need for complementary research on questions related with community development efforts that target collective action potential and self-governance capacity of commoners.