Ownership: An Overview<sup>1</sup>

Geisler, Charles

doi:10.1111/j.1549-0831.1993.tb00510.x

Cited by 20 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We argue that the definition of the commons should expand to include: (1) common or connected interests within other forms of property (public, private); (2) the interdependencies among discrete units or forms of property (public-private-communal), including externalities; and (3) other types of common goods that are not forms of natural capital, but nevertheless influence natural resource management. This builds upon the work of authors who have illustrated the prevalence of other forms of property within the commons (Dahlman 1980) and those illustrating the interpenetration of public and private property (Geisler 1993;Sikor 1998b).…”

Section: What Is Governed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While government has a crucial role to play for Coase (assigning and enforcing individual property rights), the focus is rather on the limitations of government knowledge and foresight in designing effective incentives or regulations to guide individual behaviour. We argue that the nature of contemporary natural resource conflicts, inequities and inefficiencies, as well as the deficiencies of unitary institutional arrangements in many contexts, often require compound or "hybrid" governance regimes involving complementarities among individual, State and communal governance (see also Dahlman 1980;Geisler 1993;Fairfax et al 2004). In other words, too doctrinaire a commitment to self-organization or unitary forms of governance may overlook other governance arrangements that in combination might work better.…”

Section: Who Governs?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…So, too, are the myriad of informal means through which diverse property types, decision-making units and property regimes interact (Dahlman 1980;Vondal 1987;Geisler 1993;Sikor 1998b;Raymond and Fairfax 2002). Furthermore, we risk losing the explanatory power of common property theory for a whole set of problems characterizing contemporary landscapes -where externalities and economic inefficiencies resulting from non-cooperation and aversion are the norm.…”

Section: Implications For Property Rights and Institutional Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These debates have often hinged on an assumption of neat boundaries between different forms of resource tenure (public, private, communal). While there is a growing body of literature acknowledging the linkages and blurred boundaries between discrete property types, rights holders and property regimes 1 (Vondal 1987;Bruce et al 1993;Geisler 1993;Ostrom 1994;Quiggin 1995;Schmid 2001;Fairfax et al 2004;Shahar 2008;Sikor 2008b), these categories continue to frame many of the academic debates on natural resource tenure and governance. In this paper, we argue that many contemporary natural resource management challenges do not fall within neatly inscribed units or categories of resource ownership or governance, but are characterized rather by their interdependencies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

“Hybrid institutions”: Applications of common property theory beyond discrete tenure regimes

German

Keeler

2009

Int J Commons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Property rights theory has contributed a great deal to global understanding of the factors shaping the management, governance and sustainability of discrete property regimes (individual, State, commons). Yet as the commons become increasingly altered and enclosed and management challenges extend beyond the boundaries of any given unit of property, institutional theory must extend beyond discrete property regimes. This paper argues that as natural resource management challenges grow more complex and interconnected, common property theory in the Ostrom tradition remains an essential component of successful management solutions -for common pool resources, public and private goods alike. Building on the commons and externality literature in general, and the Ostrom and Coasean traditions in particular, we propose the use of the term "hybrid institution" to explore the governance of common or connected interests within and between diverse property regimes. Following a general introduction to a set of propositions for encompassing this expanded realm of application of commons theory, we use the literature on integrated natural resource management to frame the scope of "commons" issues facing rural communities today. Empirical and action research from eastern Africa and logical arguments are each used to illustrate and sharpen the focus of our propositions so that they can be tested and refined in future research. This analysis demonstrates the instrumental potential of the concept of hybrid institutions as a framework for shaping more productive engagements with seemingly intractable natural 572 Laura Anne German and Andrew Keeler resource management challenges at farm and landscape scale. Our analysis suggests that central elements of the Ostrom and Coasean traditions can be complementary explanatory lenses for contemporary resource conflict and management.

show abstract

Section: What Is Governed?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Who Governs?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications For Property Rights and Institutional Theorymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

“Hybrid institutions”: Applications of common property theory beyond discrete tenure regimes

German

Keeler

2009

Int J Commons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A central constraint to examining ownership of land is that data are extremely difficult to come by (Geisler 1993) and there is a natural tendency to study that which is most easily measured (Wollenberg 2000). A full year of effort was needed to compile our database due to resistance in some county courthouses despite the public nature of property tax records.…”

Section: Centrality Of Landmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taking Goldschmidt to the Woods: Timberland Ownership and Quality of Life in Alabama*

Bailey¹,

Gopaul

Thomson³

et al. 2020

Rural Sociology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use a database of property tax records for 13.6 million acres representing every parcel of privately owned timberland in 48 rural Alabama counties to test two hypotheses inspired by Walter Goldschmidt relating land ownership and quality of life. Our data show private ownership is highly concentrated and 62 percent is absentee owned. We employed Pearson correlations alongside Poisson and negative binomial regression models to estimate influence of both concentrated private ownership and absentee ownership of timberland. Our findings support Goldschmidt-inspired hypotheses that concentrated and absentee ownership of timberland exhibit a significant adverse relationship with quality of life as measured by educational attainment, poverty, unemployment, food insecurity, eligibility for free or reduced price lunch at public schools, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program participation, and population density. Low property taxes in Alabama limit the ability of local governments to generate revenue to support public education or meet other infrastructural or service needs in rural areas. We call on rural sociologists and kindred spirits to pay more attention to the fundamental importance of land ownership which shapes the foundations of power and inequality affecting rural life in America and beyond.

show abstract

Factors affecting mobile home prevalence in the United States: Poverty, natural amenities, and employment in natural resources

Brooks

Mueller

2020

Population Space and Place

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mobile home residence in the United States is associated with negative social, economic, and health-related outcomes. However, although research on mobile home residence at the individual level has been performed, a geographic understanding of mobile home prevalence in the United States remains absent from the literature.Therefore, the purpose of our analysis was to evaluate the county-level drivers of mobile home prevalence in the continental United States in 2015. The influence of five groups of variables-demographic, economic, housing, industry and occupation, and natural amenities-were assessed in a series of nested ordinary least squares regressions. Additionally, the full model was run as a spatial lag regression to control for spatial autocorrelation. Our results indicate that the primary drivers of mobile home prevalence in U.S. counties were the percent of population in near poverty, the labour force participation rate, and the percent of the population employed in natural resource occupations.

show abstract

Ownership: An Overview¹

Cited by 20 publications

References 4 publications

“Hybrid institutions”: Applications of common property theory beyond discrete tenure regimes

“Hybrid institutions”: Applications of common property theory beyond discrete tenure regimes

Taking Goldschmidt to the Woods: Timberland Ownership and Quality of Life in Alabama*

Factors affecting mobile home prevalence in the United States: Poverty, natural amenities, and employment in natural resources

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Ownership: An Overview1

Cited by 20 publications

References 4 publications

“Hybrid institutions”: Applications of common property theory beyond discrete tenure regimes

“Hybrid institutions”: Applications of common property theory beyond discrete tenure regimes

Taking Goldschmidt to the Woods: Timberland Ownership and Quality of Life in Alabama*

Factors affecting mobile home prevalence in the United States: Poverty, natural amenities, and employment in natural resources

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Ownership: An Overview¹