Collective Action and Property Rights for Poverty Reduction: A Review of Methods and Approaches

Abstract

This article provides a review of literature on the relationship between poverty and the institutions of collective action and property rights, as outlined in the conceptual framework of Di Gregorio et al. (2008). Using the elements of the framework as a guide, it offers an overview of how researchers and practitioners identify and evaluate these concepts. The article emphasises the multidimensionality of poverty and the necessity of applying various approaches and tools to conceptualising and measuring it. In addition to highlighting the crucial role that institutions play in poverty reduction, it shows power relations and the political context to be of fundamental importance in poverty‐related studies.

Bumbling Bureaucrats, Sluggish Courts and Forum-Shopping Elites: Unending Conflict and Competition in the Transition to Private Property

“…Creating a different set of property rights is more difficult than is often assumed, yet many studies intent on demonstrating the impacts of property rights changes tend to overlook the dynamics of change, which can influence overall outcomes (Anderson and Hill, 2003;Libecap, 2003;Mwangi, 2007a;Finley-Brook and Offen, 2009). Because access to land and resources is key to the ability of the rural poor to generate livelihoods, persistent conflict creates uncertainty that undermines livelihoods and depresses incentives to invest in sustainable land management practices (see Mwangi and Markelova, 2009, for a review of effects of tenure insecurity in developing countries). Moreover, such conflicts create animosities, potentially jeopardizing reciprocal relationships and ties, which are important for smoothing out the negative effects of different types of shocks, including shocks caused by environmental variability (McCarthy and Di Gregorio, 2007;Eriksen and Lind, 2009).…”

Collective management of natural resources in a vulnerable environment: case studies from coastal Bangladesh

“…The attributes of these resource users influencing 16 collective action include ethnicity, education, wealth, group identity, extent of interaction, past history of collective activities, the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the group in terms of assets, interests, and identity, mutual obligations and interdependence, and social capital. As Ratner et al (2013b) point out, these characteristics can be interrelated, as when ethnicity is correlated with wealth.…”

“…People with common problems and aspirations pursue collective action to meet certain goals effectively as they are not able to meet their goals as individuals (Barham and Chitemi 2009). In general, poor people lack assets, are more vulnerable to risk, lack power, and have limited ability to influence policy and practices (Mwangi and Markelova 2009). There is a large literature on the many roles 2 of collective action to support poor rural people, such as facilitating access to and defending resources (Adato et al 2006), increasing negotiating power (Pandolfelli et al 2007), and improving market access (Kruijssen et al 2007).…”

“…Within 5 years of shrimp cultivation the trees died, cows were sold, all the fish disappeared except shrimp." 16 Landowning villagers reported that before shrimp cultivation they could supply food for their families without going to the market as they had rice in storage, vegetables in the houseyard, fish in ponds, and livestock. They added that, although they had more money with shrimp cultivation, they had to spend more as they needed to buy food that they had previously produced.…”

“…However, there was wide consensus among different classes of informant about the impact of large-scale shrimp farming on these other sources of livelihood. 16 Interview with a middle farmer in his home in Laxmikhola, 18 August 2013. 87 same time, shrimp farming was less labour-intensive than rice or other crops, adversely affecting employment for landless workers and small farmers who also worked as agricultural labourers.…”