2019
DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2018.1559381
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Towards a Theory of Claim Making: Bridging Access and Property Theory

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Examples of the former are state laws concerning tenure and mineral rights. Those for the latter are rules or claims on common property (Garrett et al, 2013;Kronenburg García & van Dijk, 2020;Osabuohien, 2014), gender distinctions applied to input access (Radel et al, 2012), or expectations about loaning or renting land to extended family members (Laney & Turner, 2015). The absence of rules and/or attempts to circumnavigate rules through clandestine activities or during times of violent conflict also fall within the institution element (e.g., Baumann & Kuemmerle, 2016;Chiodelli & Moroni, 2015;Sesnie et al, 2017), although land-use theory and models have been slow to incorporate explanations of such processes (Tellman et al, 2020).…”
Section: Proposed Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Examples of the former are state laws concerning tenure and mineral rights. Those for the latter are rules or claims on common property (Garrett et al, 2013;Kronenburg García & van Dijk, 2020;Osabuohien, 2014), gender distinctions applied to input access (Radel et al, 2012), or expectations about loaning or renting land to extended family members (Laney & Turner, 2015). The absence of rules and/or attempts to circumnavigate rules through clandestine activities or during times of violent conflict also fall within the institution element (e.g., Baumann & Kuemmerle, 2016;Chiodelli & Moroni, 2015;Sesnie et al, 2017), although land-use theory and models have been slow to incorporate explanations of such processes (Tellman et al, 2020).…”
Section: Proposed Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By focusing only on income streams and cash flows, this approach does not capture broader dimensions of livelihoods. Livelihood frameworks recognize the activities, capabilities, and assets or capitals (financial, human, natural, physical, and social) required to make a living (Sen 1984, Chambers and Conway 1992, Scoones 1998, De Haan and Zoomers 2005, including claims and access to those resources (Ribot andPeluso 2003, Kronenburg García andvan Dijk 2019). Various studies have documented the processes of dispossession that restrict farmers' access to these livelihood assets, for instance through "land grabs" (e.g., Hall et al 2011, Kenney-Lazar 2012.…”
Section: Limitations Of This Approach and Broader Aspects Of Livelihood Vulnerabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3 On the other hand, frontiers generate new sets of opportunities and simultaneously spaces for negotiations for a range of social actors to access resources they previously were denied off or were only recently discovered. The socio-political struggles for Independence in Namibia in 1990, or for a new democratic dispensation in neighbouring South Africa from 1994 onwards, created new frontier moments that gave way to a political order that initiated new institutional orderings that are based on (1) different property regimes (Von Benda-Beckmann, Von Benda-Beckmann, & Wiber, 2006b), (2) new forms of authority (Sikor & Lund, 2009), and (3) the connected struggles for legitimacy over the ability to define proper uses and users (Kronenburg García & van Dijk, 2019;Long, 2001). In the spirit of Kopytoff (1987) the frontier creates spaces of socio-and political negotiations.…”
Section: Frontiermentioning
confidence: 99%