Ostrom’s Design Principles as Steering Principles for Contractual Governance in “Hotbeds”

Haryanto, Taufik; Zeben, Josephine van; Purnhagen, Kai P.

doi:10.24259/fs.v6i1.17993

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 71 publications

(178 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Commoning scholarship argues that commons studies applying frameworks from design principles or using the institutional analysis and development (IAD) are prone to view power relations less explicitly, internally, and in relation to outside parties. Instead, commoning studies place greater focus on the institutional arrangements internal to commons group alongside the technical and managerial aspects of commons (Caffentzis, 2012;Hall et al, 2014;Haryanto et al, 2022;Mudliar & Koontz, 2021;Saunders, 2014). Diverse members can come together to initiate commoning (inclusive); change over time; in constant interaction with outside actors, institutions, contexts (Bresnihan & Byrne, 2015;DeVore, 2017;Gibson-Graham et al, 2016;Kamath & Dubey, 2020;Noterman, 2016).…”

Section: Commoning As a Set Of Collective Inclusive And Diversely Mot...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Placing the Commoning First: Getting Beyond the Patronage Trap in Natural Resource Decentralization Policies

Sirimorok,

Fisher,

Verheijen

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on the commons have been an inspiration for initiatives on natural resource decentralization over the past three decades. Researchers are increasingly recognizing however, that these commons initiatives are mostly failing to support rights, improve livelihoods, and conserve natural resources. These “commons projects,” defined as approaches that claim to devolve natural resource governance to local institutions, have their origins in various formulations of theories of the commons but are usually interpreted and applied by states and donor organizations. This paper identifies and analyzes deficiencies in theories of the commons through the slight but significant refocusing on perspectives of commoning. We found that commons scholarship lacks a grounding in power relations, and furthermore, tends to portray commons-governing groups as homogenous communities enacting long-established practices. Conversely, a commoning perspective provides a more dynamic and relational approach, and thus distinctly centers political dimensions of collective practices among diverse groups of citizens. We also extend this argument by showing that a fundamental shift in understanding commoning will help advocate for, and anticipate what commoners can actually do in regions of the Global South undergoing widespread enclosures in the face of powerful informal patronage networks controlled by state power actors and interests.

show abstract

Section: Commoning As a Set Of Collective Inclusive And Diversely Mot...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Placing the Commoning First: Getting Beyond the Patronage Trap in Natural Resource Decentralization Policies

Sirimorok,

Fisher,

Verheijen

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Participation is a critical indicator for this principle in promoting an effective institution (Haryanto et al, 2022;Van Ast et al, 2014). It empowers people to mobilize their capacities, be it social actors managing projects, making decisions, and controlling activities (Wells et al, 1992).…”

Section: Principle 3: Collective-choice Arrangementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Indigenous Forest Management in Mount Merapi National Park Based on Ostrom’s Design Principles

Depari

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite their abundant potential to support the current understanding of environmental changes and improve natural resource management, Indigenous Peoples remain excluded from policymaking. Such marginalization partly stems from the formal government-driven adoption of colonial-style controls over natural resources, which historically had marginalized local populations politically and economically. Using the case of the Pelemsari sub-village, this article attempts to analyze the robustness of Common-Pool Resource institutions in Mount Merapi National Park according to Ostrom’s design principles. The methods used for this purpose are participant observation, document reviews, and semi-structured interviews. The research findings indicate social capital as the main factor that contributes to the local institution’s robustness. Nevertheless, the principles corresponding to authority suggest challenges of engaging communities in reforestation and conservation programs. The shortcomings in these principles contributed to the people’s slow recovery and ongoing degradation of forest diversity in Mount Merapi after the eruption in 2010.

show abstract

Navigating emergent effects in off-grid systems: Ostrom's design principles and rural energy policy implications

Namujju

2024

Energy Research & Social Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ostrom’s Design Principles as Steering Principles for Contractual Governance in “Hotbeds”

Cited by 4 publications

References 71 publications

Placing the Commoning First: Getting Beyond the Patronage Trap in Natural Resource Decentralization Policies

Placing the Commoning First: Getting Beyond the Patronage Trap in Natural Resource Decentralization Policies

Assessing Indigenous Forest Management in Mount Merapi National Park Based on Ostrom’s Design Principles

Navigating emergent effects in off-grid systems: Ostrom's design principles and rural energy policy implications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About