A framework for analyzing institutional gaps in natural resource governance

Abstract

Abstract:In this paper, we present the Inter-Institutional Gap (IIG) framework as a novel approach to conceptualizing the often-overlooked interconnectivity of different rule-levels between formal and informal institutions in a natural resource system. This framework goes beyond the existing concepts of legal pluralism, institutional void, structural hole, and cultural mismatch, each of which offer valuable insights to particular gaps between formal and informal institutions, but do not sufficiently address the interaction at every rule level (i.e. constitutional choice, collective choice and operational choice rules). In order to demonstrate the potential of our framework for better understanding the underlying causes of inter-institutional gaps, we apply it to four case studies that encompass diverse geographical locations, governance levels, and social-ecological systems. Results reveal that institutional gaps tend to exist when there are unintended, unforeseen or hidden gaps between the different rule levels operating among the different institutions involved in governing a single resource system. More specifically we observe that: (i) inter-institutional gaps are co-existing, therefore if a certain gap is identified, other gaps may be expected; (ii) certain gaps may reveal latent gaps; and (iii) intermediaries may be key to addressing inter-institutional gaps. In many cases, sustainable natural resource management and regulation cannot be achieved without directly addressing the inter-institutional gaps that exist between formal and informal institutions operating in the same resource system. The framework facilitates analysis and understanding of multi-level governance structures in pursuit of addressing complex natural resource management issues.

Operationalizing the social-ecological systems framework in pond aquaculture

“…However, while ponds are easily distinguished with property rights, the canals exist as the jointly owned common infrastructure, and there is a lack of formal or informal institutional mechanisms to deal with its provision. Similarly, there is a lack of formal and informal rules-in-use for aquaculture and the mangrove forests in general, as well as for monitoring pond or social conditions which have been shown to be important determinants of whether institutions are likely to achieve desired outcomes (Ostrom et al 1994;Cox et al 2010;Rahman et al 2017). Some informal rules were mentioned but no enforcement or sanctioning has been observed or reported.…”

Elephant Crop Damage: Subsistence Farmers’ Social Vulnerability, Livelihood Sustainability and Elephant Conservation

“…This study assumed that the social livelihoods assets such as trust, commitment, cooperation and networking are accessed and influenced through applicable public and private structures and laws, policies, local cultures and institutional processes. As such, legitimate local institutions are intended to support customs, behavioral patterns and rules in natural resource (e.g., elephants) management by local actors [46].…”

Civil Society and Social Movements in Food System Governance

“…However, it should be noted that there is little evidence that polycentric governance has been widely accepted by formal institutions. Too often, formal institutions tend not to recognize the existing (often informal) selfgoverning processes of local communities or customary authorities (Rahman et al, 2017). Darnhofer and Strauss (2015, pp.…”