Home About us Contact | |||
Community Governance (community + governance)
Selected AbstractsSocial Capital And Community Governance*THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL, Issue 483 2002Samuel Bowles Community governance is the set of small group social interactions that, with market and state, determine economic outcomes. We argue (i) community governance addresses some common market and state failures but typically relies on insider-outsider distinctions that may be morally repugnant and economically costly; (ii) the individual motivations supporting community governance are not captured by either selfishness or altruism; (iii) communities, markets and states are complements, not substitutes; (iv) when poorly designed, markets and states crowd out communities; (v) some distributions of property rights are better than others at fostering community governance; and (vi) communities will probably increase in importance in the future. [source] Payments for Ecosystem Services in Nicaragua: Do Market-based Approaches Work?DEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE, Issue 3 2010Gert Van Hecken ABSTRACT The concept of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) is gaining increasing attention among scholars as well as conservation and development practitioners. The premises of this innovative conservation approach are appealing: private land users, usually poorly motivated to protect nature on their land, will do so if they receive payments from environmental service buyers which cover part of the land users' opportunity costs of developing the land. However, this article warns against an over-enthusiastic adoption of a one-sided market-based PES approach. Based on a field study of the Regional Integrated Silvopastoral Approaches to Ecosystem Management Project (RISEMP), one of the main PES pilot projects in Nicaragua, it suggests that a mixture of economic and non-economic factors motivated farmers to adopt the envisaged silvopastoral practices and that the actual role of PES is mistakenly understood as a simple matter of financial incentives. The authors argue that PES approaches should be understood as a part of a broader process of local institutional transformation rather than as a market-based alternative for allegedly ineffective government and/or community governance. [source] Social Capital And Community Governance*THE ECONOMIC JOURNAL, Issue 483 2002Samuel Bowles Community governance is the set of small group social interactions that, with market and state, determine economic outcomes. We argue (i) community governance addresses some common market and state failures but typically relies on insider-outsider distinctions that may be morally repugnant and economically costly; (ii) the individual motivations supporting community governance are not captured by either selfishness or altruism; (iii) communities, markets and states are complements, not substitutes; (iv) when poorly designed, markets and states crowd out communities; (v) some distributions of property rights are better than others at fostering community governance; and (vi) communities will probably increase in importance in the future. [source] Problems of Indigenous Community Councils in North AustraliaAUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Issue 4 2006Chris Adepoyibi Since 1978 community councils have been able to directly qualify for Northern Territory government funding. Community councils have therefore become instruments for community governance as well as being responsible for delivering municipal services to Northern Territory Indigenous communities. The effectiveness of these councils are influenced by the community/cultural environment and the strategic environment. A community council plays an important role in negotiations between these two environments. The article observes that there is a strong separation of responsibilities in communities between those relating to municipal services and those relating to community/cultural issues and suggests a realignment of supervisory authority and de-concentration of responsibilities within community councils. [source] From Community to Public Safety Governance in Policing and Child ProtectionCANADIAN REVIEW OF SOCIOLOGY/REVUE CANADIENNE DE SOCIOLOGIE, Issue 4 2008JOHN EDWARD DEUKMEDJIAN L'interopérabilité grandissante entre le maintien de l'ordre et la protection de l'enfant au Canada et au Royaume-Uni semble indiquer que nous nous trouvons au milieu d'un changement gouvernemental passant de la gouvernance communautaire à une gouvernance de la sécurité publique. En effet, les discours mettant l'accent sur l'expertise locale en maintien de l'ordre et en protection de l'enfant se sont grandement transformés en raison des critiques sur le manque d'interdépendance entre les organismes. Les deux pays ont maintenant créé des bases de données interinstitutionnelles pour la gestion des personnes à risque. Cette intégration administrative engendre différentes formes de réglementations. Les auteurs concluent leur article en soutenant que cet ethos émergeant peut être conceptualisé comme une rationalité gouvernementale naissante. The growing interoperability between policing and child protection in Canada and the United Kingdom suggests that we are in the midst of a governmental shift from community governance to public safety governance. Indeed, discourses emphasizing local expertise in policing and child protection have largely muted because of criticisms over the lack of interagency interconnectedness. Both countries have now developed national interagency databases for the management of persons of risk. This institutional integration engenders different forms of regulation. We conclude by arguing that this emergent ethos may be conceptualized as a nascent governmental rationality. [source] Empowering Pyromaniacs in Madagascar: Ideology and Legitimacy in Community-Based Natural Resource ManagementDEVELOPMENT AND CHANGE, Issue 1 2002Christian A. Kull Development practitioners frequently rely on community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) as an approach to encourage equitable and sustainable environmental resource use. Based on an analysis of the case of grassland and woodland burning in highland Madagascar, this article argues that the success of CBNRM depends upon the real empowerment of local resource users and attention to legitimacy in local institutions. Two key factors , obstructive environmental ideologies (,received wisdoms') and the complex political and social arena of ,community' governance , challenge empowerment and legitimacy and can transform outcomes. In Madagascar, persistent hesitancy among leaders over the legitimate role of fire has sidetracked a new CBNRM policy called GELOSE away from one of its original purposes , community fire management , towards other applications, such as community management of forest exploitation. In addition, complications with local governance frustrate implementation efforts. As a result, a century-long political stalemate over fire continues. [source] |