Working groups (10/29/13)
Co-Operative Institutions and the Bloomington School: A Mutually Reinforcing Relationship
Yüklə 172,72 Kb.
|
11 Co-Operative Institutions and the Bloomington School: A Mutually Reinforcing Relationship Coordinator: Keith Taylor (taylokea@indiana.edu) Abstract: Corporations are ubiquitous, diverse, and complex. Much of the research on corporations focuses on the investor-owned, for-profit corporate model. One corporate model receives very little attention in the scholarly literature and the public policy arena: the co-operative-owned, member-service-oriented corporate model. This working group will focus on the institutional design (artifact) and actor (artisan) implications of co-operative ownership by drawing on the institutional analysis and logics literature. The application of Bloomington School analytics will help to better understand co-operative institutional models from a more holistic perspective. Additionally, a better understanding of the co-operative institutional model promises to offer new contributions back to the overall Bloomington School program, as well as how varying institutional models may provide differing outcomes in given collective action dilemmas. 12 Current Trends in Using Experiments in Studying Collective Action and the Commons – Roundtable Panel Coordinators: Esther Blanco (esther.blanco@uibk.ac.at), Marco Janssen (marco.janssen@asu.edu), and Achim Schlüter (achim.schlueter@zmt-bremen.de) Abstract: There is an increasing use of experiments, in the lab and field, to study collective action related to a variety of commons. This is illustrated by the three working groups on experimental studies that are part of WOW5. In this panel we bring together the audience and presenters of the three working groups and invite a number of panelists to discuss a number of key questions relevant for the broader field of collective action and the commons. These questions include: How to scale up the insights of small-group experiments to policy interventions? How robust are insights from experiments for behavior outside the controlled environment? How to derive more insights into the decision making process during experiments (mental models)? Which methodological advances will be key in future experiments to study the commons? 13 Daniel Cole and Michael McGinnis’s new work on Lin’s work – Roundtable Panel – The Political Economy of Elinor Ostrom: A Compendium Coordinator: [no abstract, sent email 10/21/13] 14 Democracy and Sustainability: Linking Vincent and Lin's Works Coordinator: Tun Myint (tmyint@carleton.edu) [no abstract, sent email 10/20/13] 15 Empirical Assessment of Complex Social-Ecological Systems: Methodological Frontiers for Measuring Complexity and Change in Sustainable Resource Management Coordinators: Tanya Hayes (hayest@seattleu.edu) and Lauren Persha (lpersha@email.unc.edu) Abstract: Over the past several decades, the theoretical and conceptual literature on social-ecological systems has provided great insights into the complexity and dynamism involved in coupled human and natural systems. However, even in the presence of useful conceptual frameworks, empirically measuring and assessing this complexity and dynamism has proven to be a difficult task for researchers working on resource management issues in the field. The purpose of this working group is to discuss data gathering and analytical methods that may improve our ability to empirically measure some of the particularly challenging aspects of complex social-ecological systems – such as cross-scale interactions, and feedbacks among and between diverse actors and outcomes -- and to more robustly assess resource management arrangements. The working group objectives are twofold:
Working Group Structure: We propose that the working group meet in two 90 min sessions spread out over two days. In the first session, participants will give 10 minute presentations that focus on the empirical methods they use and questions they face in measuring theoretical concepts in complex social-ecological systems. This would be followed by a round-table discussion of means to address empirical challenges. The second 90 minute session would be a roundtable discussion in which participants would build off of challenges and proposed methods from the previous day’s discussion and draft an outline of a working paper on methods to empirically assess complex social-ecological systems. The participants will be open to recruitment and expressed interest. 16 Experiments on Destruction of Natural Resources Coordinator: Esther Blanco (esther.blanco@uibk.ac.at) Abstract: The working group will contain a set of recent papers providing an overview of different experimental designs for the study of degradation and/or destruction of natural resources. Changing climatic conditions are expected to affect the resilience of resources held in common, and consequently the complex endogenous relationship between resource use and resource degradation, extending the significance of these contexts. In such contexts, degradation and the potential destruction of the resource would imply the loss of economic rents that would accrue from future appropriation, and also the benefits of the broader ecological system which is dependent upon sustaining a sufficiently high level of quality of the commons. The goal of the working group is twofold: First, to present an overview of different approaches to examining degradation and/or destruction of natural resources, in particular as related to experimental design. Second, to provide an arena for an integrative discussion of different findings and policy implications. As discussed further below, the paper by Dutcher et al. addresses the implications of asymmetries in settings where investment in a "private fund", a "mitigation fund" (public good) and an "adaptation fund" (private) are available strategies for players; capturing the diversity of strategies discussed in climate negotiations. The paper of Blanco et al. also addresses the effect of asymmetries, in this case in appropriation games where both deterministic and probabilistic destruction of resources is possible. The 2009 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico serves as a particularly salient example of how some forms of resource appropriation may create resource degradation of a catastrophic nature, whereby in addition to the day to day (deterministic) degradation imposed on the ecosystem by oil drilling, the off-shore drilling introduced a level of uncertainty related to the possibility of ecosystem collapse accompanying a major oil spill. Lastly, switching the focus from the origins of destruction to its implications, the paper by Prediger et al. addresses the effect of exogenous degradation of resources on cooperative and spiteful behavior of pastoralists in southern Namibia. Other papers might be added upon approval of the "panel" and upon interest by authors to participate. Type of working group: Panel presentations Potential papers to be included:
Glenn Dutcher, University of Innsbruck Esther Blanco, University of Innsbruck Tobias Haller, University of Innsbruck Abstract: It comes as no surprise that a typical explanation for the failure of collective action to avoid catastrophes is the existence of free-riding incentive. Another potentially important, but often ignored, cause of failure is the heterogeneities in the vulnerability of each member to damages. This paper presents experimental findings on the influence of asymmetries in the relative damages from a catastrophe in a realistic setting where participants can invest in a private fund which generates positive gains, a public fund which reduces the probability of occurrence of the catastrophe to all (mitigation), and/or a fund which reduces the private damage in case of occurrence (adaptation). We find that those who face potentially larger amounts of damage contribute more to the collective action problem than those who suffer less damage. This result holds when comparing symmetric high damage groups to low damage groups and also when subjects are paired in asymmetric groups with low damage subjects. In asymmetric groups, we find the typical "poisoning of the well" to public goods contributions whereby high damage subjects reduce their contributions when paired with low damage subjects as compared to symmetric settings. Interestingly, groups use the private adaptation fund, but only to a limited extend.
Esther Blanco, University of Innsbruck, Austria; The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, USA Maria Claudia Lopez, Michigan State University, USA ; The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, USA James M. Walker, Department of Economics; The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, USA Abstract: This experimental study examines behavior in a linear appropriation game where the opportunity cost of conservation is systematically varied and where appropriation leads to probabilistic degradation in the value of the commons. In a menu of eight games without feedback, subjects make decisions in four treatment conditions varying the magnitude of the private benefits of appropriation, i.e. the opportunity cost of conservation, including both symmetric and asymmetric conditions. A parallel set of four treatments implement the same parameter variations in a setting where an additional cost in the form of probabilistic degradation of the commons is linked to group appropriation. By design, the second setting introduces endogenous uncertainty in the value of the opportunity cost of conservation. In summary, subjects systematically decrease appropriation the lower the opportunity cost of conservation in settings with and without probabilistic degradation. Additionally, in asymmetric treatments subjects appear to react primarily to their own marginal incentives rather than others. That is, holding marginal incentives constant, the data does not reveal statistically significant differences between symmetric and asymmetric settings. Lastly, the addition of probabilistic degradation leads to further decreases in appropriation. These decreases, however, are not large enough to offset decreases in expected efficiency due to expected losses in the value of the commons.
Sebastian Prediger, German Institute of Global and Area Studies Björn Vollan, University of Innsbruck Benedikt Herrmann, University of Nottingham Abstract: Using an experimental approach, this paper examines how scarcity of natural resources affects people’s readiness to cooperate and to engage in antisocial behaviour. The experiments were carried out with pastoralists from southern Namibia whose livelihoods are highly dependent on grazing availability on their collectively used rangelands. We split the study region into two areas according to exogenous differences in biomass production, a high-yield and a low-yield area, and conduct a one-shot public goods experiment and the joy-of-destruction experiment with pastoralists from both areas. Results from the joy-of-destruction experiment reveal that a substantial fraction of people is willing to reduce another subject’s income, although this comes at an own cost. We show that this kind of spiteful behaviour occurs twice as often in the area where resources are scarcer and hence competitive pressure is higher. By contrast, levels of cooperation are very similar across areas. This indicates that scarcity does not hamper cooperation, at least as long as a sub-survival level has not been reached. Our data further reveal a coexistence of prosocial and antisocial behaviour within individuals, suggesting that people’s motivations depend on the experimental environment they are acting in. One possible explanation is that subjects are ready to cooperate when substantial net gains can be realized, but turn to spiteful money burners when there is no scope for efficiency improvements and the risk of “falling behind” is particularly salient. Goal of the group: Present an overview of different approaches to destruction of natural resources and alternative experimental designs; discuss the different findings and policy implications from an integrative perspective. 17 Extending the Design Principles to the Study of Land Trusts and Land Protection Coordinators: James Farmer (jafarmer@indiana.edu) and Tatyana B. Ruseva (rusevatb@appstate.edu) Abstract: Throughout the past three decades local, state, regional, and national land trusts have dramatically increased their capacity to preserve land and to provide ecosystem services, many of which represent common pool resources (CPRs) and/or public goods. We believe the underlying institutional design of land trusts in the United States has enabled their continued growth and success, and supported the conservation and provision of valuable natural resources. In this working group we will discuss how land trusts, as voluntary self-organized initiatives, exemplify Ostrom’s design principles. We use case examples and evidence from land trusts in the Midwest, Southeast, and Western parts of the United States to compare key institutional dimensions in land trust design and operation. Our goals are to better understand: (a) which of the eight/eleven design principles (as per Cox et al. 2010) are most applicable to land trusts, and (b) how this relates to land trust ability to grow and achieve social and ecological outcomes. Insights and implications for the governance of social-ecological systems will be discussed (e.g. social capital, networking activities, investment activities, nested levels of rules). 18 External Induction and Support of Collective Action Coordinator: Kinga Boenning (k.boenning@gmail.com) Abstract: Over the past decades scholars have gathered quite extensive knowledge on the conditions of successful collective action, focusing especially on local management of natural resources. At the same time, international organizations, states and various organizations run major programs on supporting collective action. Such efforts involve bodies and organizations like the World Bank, the European Union, single states, but also consultancies, NGOs and activists, and they target a variety of CPRs as well as other contexts with broader goals such as regional development. While we have growing knowledge on the conditions of self-organizations of local communities, we do not know much on if and how collective action can be successfully supported, or even initiated, from the outside. Can an intentional support or induction of self-organization from the outside lead to the positive results of durable, successful collective action, and if so, under which conditions? The session presents and invites papers, that deal with
With regard to all three of these layers, we will want to assess, to which extend frameworks, theories and models of self-organization in the context of CPRs can support us in analyzing results of intentional, external support of collective action, and where we need to complement them by referring to other theories and models. The Working Group aims at both reflecting on what we know so far about the results of intentional external support for collective action, as well as on discussing needs for future research. With currently four papers being under discussion for presentation in the working group, additional contributions to the topic are highly welcome. 19 Federalism and Conflict: Looking into Polycentrism Coordinator: Katharine Farrell (katharine.farrell@qub.ac.uk) Abstract: At this WOW, both the Workshop and the WOW will be without the physical company of two of their most instrumental initiators – Elinor and Vincent Ostrom. The ideas and contributions of Elinor Ostrom will, undoubtedly, play a central role in the discussions and experiences of WOW5 and will be of interest for this Working Group as well. However, we would also like to explore concrete ways in which future work, building upon and contributing toward the discourses associated with the Workshop, might employ the ideas of Vincent Ostrom. In particular, we would like to discuss, in detail: if, and if so how and why federalism might be a particularly suitable governing format for facilitating the peaceful, democratic, social-ecologically sustainable resolution of major national and international natural resource use conflicts? The aims of the Working Group would be primarily theoretical – informed by the famous comment of Lewin “there is nothing so practical as a good theory,” which the corresponding author of this proposal first heard, as a comment from Elinor Ostrom, some years ago.1 Rather than setting out to resolve the institutional problem(s) or even to model social-ecological-systems structure of major national and international natural resource use conflicts, the Working Group would take a step back: to explore the abstract and conceptual relationships between the 1. biophysical, 2. social, 3. economic and 4. institutional complexities of these conflicts. Discussion, would be informed, empirically, through reference to five concrete cases of nationally and internationally entailed natural resource use conflicts, illustrating three distinct situation types: Gold Mining – in Colombia and Peru [where previously non-economic diffuse deposits have recently become economic, due to the spike in international gold prices, exploitation of these deposits, which involves pit as opposed to shaft mining, is being vigorously pursued] Land Use – in Tanzania and Tibet2 [the land use practices of nomadic and transhumant peoples are increasingly coming into conflict with the expectations and land use demands of settled peoples, in ways that are systematically related to changes in national and international demand for land that was once viewed by settled peoples as uninhabitable] Water Use – in Spain [a largely semi-arid country, with most of its surface water deriving from in country mountain based river systems, water use conflicts and cooperation are both common and historical. Rapid internationalization of the Spanish economy, post-Franco, is placing new pressures on established conventions for sharing water use.] The approach to comparing these cases would be informed by the presumption that, in spite of the major ontological and epistemological constraints, the four types of complexity noted above can be discussed comparatively using hierarchy theory, which is required to distinguish between, for example, the fluid dynamics of small and large scale systems – i.e. capillarity and the flight of bumble bees. Practically, the Working Group would take, as the starting point for discussion, Part II of the second book of the collection of Vincent Ostrom’s work recently put out by Barbara Allen.3 Anticipated outputs of the Working Group would be: 1. reflections on the plausibility of the working hypothesis – that federalism might be a particularly suitable governing format for facilitating the peaceful, democratic, social-ecologically sustainable resolution of major national and international natural resource use conflicts? 2.a. in the event that the Working Group finds this proposition to hold merit, the elaboration of theoretical strands and proposition, suitable for empirical testing, in which it is suggested how and why federalism might be expected to do so; or 2.b. in the event that the Working Group finds that this proposition does not appear to hold merit, reflections on why this conclusion has been reached and what it implies; at least one academic paper, reflecting this work. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoreticalpapers (D. Cartwright, Ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row as cited in Greenwald, Anthony G. (2012) “There Is Nothing So Theoretical as a Good Method.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(2):99-108. 2 Tibet case material will be included with the kind permission of Jampel dell’Angelo. 3 The Quest to Understand Human Affairs, Volume 2: Essays on Collective, Constitutional and Epistemic Choice 20 Field-Based Research on Adaptive Governance of Forest Commons: Theoretical and Methodological Challenges Coordinator: Krister Andersson (anderssk@colorado.edu) Abstract: The proposed working group will discuss field-based research strategies that seem particularly conducive to developing new knowledge about the conditions under which effective local governance arrangements of forest ecosystems are likely to emerge. We explore complex adaptive systems theory and consider a series of specific dynamic relationships that seem particular important for an advanced understanding of disparities in the effectiveness of locally-developed adaptive governance systems. The participants in the working group currently work together as part of an NSF-funded project that use behavioral field data in Uganda and Bolivia to test hypotheses related to the economic heterogeneity and cultural values and beliefs as drivers of home-grown systems for adaptive governance. In this working group, the participants will present preliminary analytical results with the intention of stimulating a discussion on the role of both theoretical and methodological choices in field-based research on common pool resource governance. 21 Food Policy and Local Governance Coordinator: Gustavo Gordillo (gusto.gustavo@gmail.com) The global food crisis is serious: according to FAO, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, since the 2008 global food crisis, food prices have risen steadily without any signals of stabilization or decline. Moreover, as a result of this phenomenon, the number of hungry people around the world has remained static at over one billion, even though the number of people in extreme poverty has fallen. This global change, driven and fed both by macro trends related to globalization and the dismantling of rural sector during the eighties has shown the worst side of easy recipes (solutions) and blind faith in not only the market, but also in the state. Furthermore this change has shown the need to address the particular situation of the regions in order to face the world’s food crisis. In this context, innovative responses are emerging. Many of them are based on the idea of giving a substantial amount of power and responsibilities to local government levels, i.e. around local governance. This is to allow the combination of old practices and ideas focused on small-scale agriculture, regional development and community decision making with new technologies of information and communication technologies (ICTs), sustainability and human rights. What are the challenges and opportunities of this new approach? Can we articulate a hyperlocal response to a global problem? Can ICTs contribute to rural development? Can sustainability be achieved through communal practices? These are some of the questions that we will investigate. 22 (The) Governance of Infrastructures: Applying a Social-Ecological System Approach Coordinator: Rolf Künneke (r.w.kunneke@tudelft.nl) Abstract: This session addresses the possible application of Ostrom’s SES/ IAD framework to the case of infrastructures. The SES/ IAD framework is developed for the analysis of the sustainability of social-ecological systems. Can it be argued that governance issues of infrastructures are comparable to those associated with social-ecological systems? How can the SES/ IAD framework be re-interpreted for the case of infrastructures? The most promising prospect of applying this approach is the development of new insights into the governance of re-regulated infrastructures, where neither markets nor governmental regulation seems to provide satisfactory remedies. Is there a ‘third way’ for infrastructures as well, in which there is more room for decentralization and even self-governance? 23 Governance of Knowledge Commons (GKC) Coordinator: Charles Schweik (schweik@pubpol.umass.edu) Abstract: How are knowledge, information, and other shared intellectual resources governed? The goal of this WOW5 Discussion Group is to investigate governance mechanisms in knowledge or cultural commons. There are many, disparate examples of these types of commons, from patent pools, Wikipedia, and open source software, to rock music jamband communities, medieval guilds and modern research universities. The GKC Discussion Group will seek to better understand how such commons work, where they come from, what contributes to their durability and effectiveness, and what undermines them. These are all questions that have been at the heart of the Workshop institutionalist research approach that has been extremely successful in analyzing the successes and failures of natural resource commons arrangements. In addition, the group will discuss how the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework could be suitably adapted for analysis of knowledge commons. To facilitate this discussion, we have set up the website: http://knowledge-commons.net/ Background reading: Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment Volume 95 Number 4 (May 2010) of the Cornell Law Review http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/05/cornell-law-review-volume-95-number-4-may-2010.html (Lead article by Madison, Frischmann, and Strandburg, with response articles by six authors including Lin Ostrom and Thrainn Eggertsson). Summary from The Legal Workshop by Madison, Frischmann, and Strandburg, 2010. http://legalworkshop.org/2010/05/17/cornell-post 24 How Does Research on CPRs and Collective Action Translate into Practice? Working Group on the Interface of Research and Practice Coordinator: Kinga Boenning (k.boenning@gmail.com) Abstract: Many scholars of CPRs and collective action would postulate the common body of literature to be of high importance for real-world-problems. At the same time, while there are of course positive examples, many would agree that the results of that work is not much known neither to actors who are self-organizing, nor to those who aim at supporting self-organization, and either not known or not much followed by those dealing with broad conditions that affect collective action. Additionally, conferences repeatingly see statements postulating a higher involvement of practitioners in such events, supported by some and contested by others. From this, there evolve some questions regarding 1) our ambition as researchers to reach practitioners 2) ways of bridging the knowledge needs of diverse groups of practitioners and research 3) future research we might want to pursue on the perception and application of our findings among practitioners. The working group aims at discussing those and other questions related to the interface of science on CPR/ collective action and practice. It invites papers and presentation, as well as participants without a paper, who are interested in the topic and want to discuss practical or research implications. Short presentations are invited outlining own research on this topic, selected findings from academic literature on the interface of research and practice from other scientific disciplines and communities, or own experiences and thoughts with regard to the topic. Presentations would take 5-10 minutes, with ample time planned for a common discussion. Depending on the interest of the participants of the working group, the focus will be on one or several of the following questions:
(Where) do we see own benefits for us as researchers for devoting time to a more intensive communication with practitioners (and if so, with whom)? To which extend do current systems of scientific (peer) evaluation and career paths encourage or discourage collaboration and linkages of scientists and practitioners?
Persons interested in this topic are encouraged to send a short abstract/ outline. In case you don’t want to present, but are interested in participating in the working group and have an interest in a specific aspect of the topic, please feel free to send a short notice, indicating your background and what’d be most important for you in the discussion to k.boenning@gmail.com . 25 Informing Nonprofit and Voluntary Action Studies through the Work of Elinor and Vincent Ostrom Coordinators: Brenda Bushouse (bushouse@polsci.umass.edu), Brent Never (neverb@umkc.edu), and Robert Christensen (rc@gua.edu) Elinor (1933-2012) and Vincent Ostrom (1919-2012) left a lasting impact across a host of academic disciplines and fields including political science, economics, public policy, environmental science, anthropology, psychology, and informatics. Over the course of six decades, the Ostroms cultivated diverse streams of theoretical and empirical work seeking to comprehend how humans develop systems of rules and norms to solve complex problems and how they behave within those systems. Much of their work focuses on self-organization, voluntary behavior, collaboration, and non-governmental institutions and yet there has been scant attention from scholars of nonprofit and voluntary action studies. To bridge this gap, a special issue of Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly (NVSQ) is being developed with paper authors who are making the connections between Workshop framework and concepts such as IAD, SES, IGT, polycentricity, institutional design with nonprofit scholars research on voluntarism, civil society, nonprofit organizations. NVSQ is a leading outlet of scholarship and discussion focusing on nonprofit organizations, philanthropy, and voluntarism and this volume, funded generously by the Workshop, opens connections that we believe will be a fruitful path for pursuing research. The WOW5 working group includes co-editors Brenda Bushouse (University of Massachusetts) and Brent Never (University of Missouri-Kansas City) and authors of papers submitted for the NVSQ special issue. At the time of the WOW5 the final acceptances for the NVSQ special issue may not be decided; Full papers were submitted to the editors on October 15th, we will complete our reviews by November 15th, and authors will submit their papers to NVSQ for peer review by December 15th. Because of this timing, we are inviting paper authors to participate in the working group with the caveat that their papers may not be included in the special issue. We extended the invitation to all paper authors but expect that those attending will be (1) near Bloomington (Siddiki, Noonan, Gazley) and (2) Workshop alumni (Yandle, Lam) and former Workshop scholars (Aligicia). But other paper authors may choose to participate as well. The objective of the session will be to move beyond the NVSQ special issue to (1) develop research agendas for areas of convergence identified by the paper authors and (2) design new research projects to address areas of convergence yet to be explored. 26 Peace Building, Security and Development in Africa Coordinator: Bamidele Olowu (bamidele.olowu@yahoo.com) Peace is an essential public good but most societies especially in Africa lack this precondition for all forms of societal progress. While conflicts and wars exist in other countries of the globe, inflicting untold hardships, misery and damage to lives and property, many countries in Africa have remained fragile. Even ostensibly stable countries are undermined by severe internal feuds between diverse communal and primordial groups. Some of these conflicts have persisted for decades in open and more subtle forms in the various sub-regions of the continent. Clearly, some of these challenges and perennial conflicts can benefit from alternative institutional possibilities. At a time when many close observers of Africa see a rising African economic prospects, there is also strong consensus that the failure of basic services persist and that the inability of those charged with responsibility for governance to harness the fresh opportunities for Africa from globalization in a sustainable basis. The Ostroms’ writings and studies showed that institutions are critical to peace, human security and development. Hence, the critical importance they gave to institutional analysis and the possibilities of concurrent polycentric orders within and outside the public realm. This session will focus on the possible contributions of institutional analysis and polycentricity to peace, security and the governance of state and public services which are the sine qua non for sustainable development in Africa as in other countries around the world. The session will discuss comparative and case studies of the application of polycentricity in the organization of communities, sub-national institutions, countries and the international system and the co-production of services. Propositions for articles are welcomed from all and sundry on this broad theme and sub-themes including those suggested below:
27 Institutions, Behavior, and Policy Outcomes Coordinators: Salvador Espinosa (Salvador.espinosa@sdsu.edu) and Saba Siddiki (ssiddiki@iupui.edu) Abstract: This group is interested in the effect of alternative institutional arrangements on behavior, and its possible impact on policy outcomes. Our goal is to uncover important theoretical relationships between these intertwined factors. We use the IAD’s approach to institutional analysis as a foundation, but we draw leverage from other theoretical and methodological approaches, such as behavioral law and economics, behavioral finance, experimental economics, sociology, among others. The group will discuss readings, share ideas, and explore topics for joint collaboration. The members of the group will interact online, using tools like Twitter, Dropbox, Google Docs, and videoconferencing. One of the objectives of this group is to organize a panel for the Workshop on the Ostrom Workshop (WOW5) conference that will take place in Bloomington in 2014. Note: The group will start meeting in January 2014. Please contact Dr. Espinosa (salvador.espinosa@sdsu.edu) or Dr. Siddiki (ssiddiki@iupui.edu) if you want to participate. 28 Knowledge Systems for Sustainability Coordinators: Molly Jahn (mjahn@cals.wisc.edu) and David LeZaks (lezaks@wisc.edu) The Knowledge Systems for Sustainability Collaborative (KSS), links research communities with a wide variety of private sector players and public agencies to produce more far-sighted practices for using land, water, and energy in ways that guard the future of those resources and of future generations. A knowledge system brings together data and information from various arenas to help decision makers gain a better understanding of the sustainability implications of their decisions more holistically. In the 21st century, we are in need of new perspectives, tools and approaches to using resources strategically that such that we will continue to obtain what we need from the Earth and at the same time minimize damage to the environment. KSS is a global network of partners working across disciplinary boundaries to adapt, adopt, and invent ways to make the transition from economies focused on maximum production and consumption, at whatever cost, to ones that deliver sustainable livelihoods for all. It seeks to build new knowledge systems to guide decision makers at all levels in devising workable long-term, large-scale strategies for meeting needs for food, materials, energy, water, and security. During a visit in June 2011 and the ensuing dialogue Prof. Lin Ostrom was instrumental in setting up the theoretical foundation that KSS stands on. Her insights and have led to KSS to evolve into an unconventional, yet effective mechanism to shift businesses, governments, academics toward decisions that will ultimately lead to more sustainable outcomes for people and the ecosystems they depend on. 29 Lab, Field or Natural Field Experiments for Analyzing Governance of CPR Resources? Coordinator: Achim Schlüter (achim.schlueter@zmt-bremen.de) Abstracts: Experiments have become an important tool for analysing the governance of CPR resources. Since the beginning of those experiments, they have largely diversified. From CPR-games to public good games, to trust, time preference and other experiments. From static to dynamic experiments. Using pen and paper, computers, internet or apps, many things are possible today. From highly controlled lab experiments, to field, to natural field or natural experiments. All those alternatives are suitable in different circumstances trying to optimize, for example, the often given trade-off between internal and external validity. First of all this session presents current research going on in the field, using the different techniques mentioned above. Having presented the various approaches, will allow us to synthesis and reflect on future directions of experimental research on CPR governance, which then will be done in the round table discussion, which takes place together with the three working groups on experiments. Papers so far:
Other papers hopefully might be added upon approval of the "panel" and upon interest by authors to participate. 30 Learning about the Large-Scale Commons through the Social-Ecological Systems Meta-Analysis Database (SESMAD) Coordinator: Michael Schoon (michael.schoon@asu.edu) Abstract: The Social-Ecological Systems Meta-Analysis Database or SESMAD project builds on the tradition of meta-analysis projects of the Ostrom Workshop and seeks to see how the findings from CPR theory developed at small-scales over the past decades scale up to larger systems. The project codes studies of cases across 200 variables taken from the Social-Ecological Systems Framework to provide a launching point for theory building within several of the broad topical areas of past CPR studies – water, forests, fisheries, and protected areas. It also enables hypothesis testing within and across these categories. The project has recently completed a special issue based on pilot cases in each of the topical areas set for publication in February 2014. Current work is on expanding the library of cases coded within each of the topical areas. The project team has 15 members with interests and expertise across the CPR spectrum. Several from the project team will serve as panelists. This working group proposes a 3-hour panel. The first 90 minutes would consist of 10 minute presentations from the papers listed below followed by an open discussion. The second 90-minute session would focus on the development of a comparative study based on the intermediate findings of the 5 topical area papers presented in the first half of the session as well as drawing on some of the ideas from the Villamayor-Tomas methodological paper. 31 Michael McGinnis’s Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. 3 vols. – Roundtable Panel Coordinator: Barbara Allen (ballen@carleton.edu) [no abstract, sent email 10/20/13] 32 Multi-Level Governance of Natural Resources: Closing the Gap Between Institutional Arrangements and Policies Responding to Complex Socio-Ecological Contexts Coordinator: Carolina Navarrete Frías (c.navarrete@cgiar.org) Context Up to date, there has been extensive empirical evidence documenting institutions and arrangements that are unfit to meet the challenges associated with natural resource management and conservation. Such misfits have been manifested through inadequate institutional responses considering the specific physical and social contexts; institutions that don’t respond to the changes in socio-ecological systems; institutions and institutional arrangements that cannot link across scales or between socio-ecological systems, etc. While researchers, practitioners and policy-makers have tried to provide adequate responses to such misfits via decentralized, adaptive arrangements and multi-level governance initiatives, on-the-ground realities have repeatedly confirmed the elusiveness of such concepts. When it comes to transferring theory into practice, several questions remain unanswered: who to give voice to, how should coordination of actors unfold? How do environmental decisions transition into governance outcomes? How should different development sectors be integrated and prioritized, in order to guarantee the sustainability of complex socio-ecological systems? How to better integrate local collective systems and social organizations of natural resource management and conservation with other levels of decision making? How should national, regional, and local policies be harmonized, so as to respond to challenges that occur within and outside their jurisdictions? Objectives In the context of the multi-level governance debate that questions the role of state and non-state actors as new models of democratization and civic engagement, the aim of the suggested working group/ paper is to gather empirical and interdisciplinary insights into the practical application and impacts of multi-level governance (MLG) initiatives for natural resources management and conservation. The working group aims to achieve several specific objectives:
Conveners: The Working Group will be facilitated by a research team from the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT) led by Dr. Andrew Jarvis, Director of the Decision and Policy Analysis Research Area in CIAT- Colombia (http://dapa.ciat.cgiar.org/). 33 Paul Dragos Aligica’s Institutional Diversity and Political Economy: The Ostroms and Beyond – Roundtable Panel Coordinator: Filippo Sabetti (filippo.sabetti@mcgill.ca) Paul Dragos Aligica’s book is worth considering for a roundtable for it teaches us about how to present and extend the challenging ideas that have come out of the research tradition of the Workshop developed by Vincent and Elinor Ostrom and associates. The study suggests how we can go beyond the conceptions of order developed by Adam Smith and Hobbes alike and, equally, beyond the theoretical frameworks of State and Market. Revealing a profound grasp of philosophy, economics and political science, Aligica’s study captures with new clarity and precision the distinctive and fundamental patrimony of ideas and practice in the work of Vincent and Elinor Ostrom, pointing to new directions of research on what it means to be self-governing. 34 Polycentric Organization and Evolution in Socio-Ecological Systems Coordinator: Franz Gatzweiler (gatzweiler@gmail.com) The relations between social and ecological systems are complex and interdependent. Societies are constantly challenged by valuing, monitoring, adjusting and responding to social and environmental changes. Making decisions requires solving trade-offs such as uniformity and variety, freedom and regulation, or effectiveness and efficiency. How those decisions should be made is strongly debated and not independent from mental models, experiences and ideologies. While conventional collective action theory argues for global initiatives to solve global problems such as greenhouse gas emissions, others argue for local action and others again for action at multiple scales in polycentrically organized societies. Not all societies though function as coherently organized systems. Relationships between the nature of the produced externalities and the type of coordination mechanisms are not straightforward. This working group therefore aims at exploring the links between types of behavior and action, governance and organization of society. The working group invites papers which contribute to answering the questions of how societies change organizationally and institutionally in order to cope with social and environmental problems such as poverty, inequality, biodiversity loss or land degradation. Papers which contribute to topics of decentralization, transition and transformation, institutional change and organization, valuation and societal feedback mechanisms. 35 Polycentricity and Environmental Federalism Coordinators: Mark Stephan (stephanm@vancouver.wsu.edu) and Troy Abel (abelt@wwu.edu) Abstract: Over ten years ago Elinor Ostrom and others suggested the need to scale up theory and analysis on the drama of the commons. This working group is meant to serve as forum for those scholars attempting to theorize and empirically test solutions to the commons struggles of complex non-local environmental problems (e.g, climate change, water resource management, toxic pollution). These problems are significant governance challenges presumably demanding national and international actions. Ironically, in North America, the federal governments’ roles have been limited while many provinces, states and localities are recognized leaders. Few studies have examined these governance arrangements and their environmental results with a comprehensive combination of theory, statistical modeling, and case study analysis. The working group will use the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework (with special attention to polycentricity) to investigate and expand our understanding of the federated nature of environmental governance. The hope for the group is that it will first push the frontiers of the IAD framework into the analysis of non-local, and multilevel comparative policy settings. It is also the intent of the working group to promote research linking governance with trends in environmental conditions. Ideally this working group’s efforts will result in important guidance for the design and implementation of environmental problem governance arrangements among cross-national, national and state/provincial policy makers. The group will begin networking and planning in January 2014 for a panel at the Workshop on the Ostrom Workshop (WOW5) conference that will take place in Bloomington in 2014. 36 Polycentricity Theory in Water Governance Coordinators: Bryan Bruns (bryanbruns@yahoo.com) and Raul Pacheco-Vega (raul.pacheco-vega@cide.edu) Abstract: Polycentricity theory has been applied since the early 1960s to a variety of problems, including metropolitan service delivery, intergovernmental coordination in police reform, shifts in land use, water governance and (more recently) climatic change. This Thematic Group intends to discuss recent empirical case studies of application of polycentric governance. The Thematic Group is open (but not limited) to discussions of theoretical innovations in how polycentricity theory is applied to resource governance. The scope for this session includes water supply, sanitation and wastewater, irrigation, environmental flows, and other aspects of water use and governance. The goal of this Thematic Group is to offer a forum to discuss ideas on establishing a research agenda for the next 10 years on polycentric water governance. 37 Post-Conflict Challenges in Land Governance and Reform Coordinator: Jeanette Carter (carter.jeanette@gmail.com) Abstract: The Governance and Land Commissions of Liberia propose a working group for WOW focusing on post-conflict challenges in land governance and reform. As Liberia emerged from more than a decade of violent conflict in 2003 and with the inauguration of a democratically-elected president in 2006, land governance and the need for land reform emerged as major challenges facing the Liberian state and people. The Liberian experience in dealing with these challenges will be documented in this case study. The issues and challenges faced in Liberia are similar to those in other post-conflict societies. The effort in Liberia, initially led by the Governance Commission, has been led by the Land Commission since its establishment in 2009. With a broad mandate, the Land Commission has focused on securing land tenure and access to land for the people of Liberia. Underlying the work of the commission was been the insistence upon an empirically-based and participatory approach. Resolving the complex issues in the land sector is central to providing the basis for sound economic growth and development .
Crafting the institutional framework within which land can most effectively be managed is an on-going task for the Land Commission and its partners. A strong emphasis has been placed upon national ownership of the process. The international donor community has been strongly encouraged to support the national process by providing support for those activities which have been identified as critical to the process. While Liberia has made significant progress, considerable work remains to be done. By proposing this working group, the Governance and Land Commissions encourage contributions from others who are coping with similar issues. 38 Power in Institutions and Institutional Analysis Coordinator: Prakash Kashwan (prakash.kashwan@uconn.edu) Abstract: Institutional analysis has contributed path break insights to our understanding of the conditions that enable groups of individuals to overcome social dilemmas. Even as a diverse array of scholars and voices have engaged with the theories of collective action, more work is needed to illuminate the processes and dynamics that unfold within local groups and between different stakeholders. This working group is intended to help contribute to theoretically rigorous and policy relevant conceptualization of ‘power’ in institutional analysis. How do power asymmetries affect the deliberation, design, and enforcement of institutions? How do power and power asymmetries affect institutions intended primarily for regulatory goals? More importantly, what do we learn by conceptualizing ‘power’ as a ‘resource’? For instance, in cases where conflicts of interests cannot be avoided, the ability of collective to exercise regulatory power over members is central to the success of regulatory institutions. Similarly, ‘power’ is integral to the notion of ‘leadership’ and to the ability of leaders to lead effectively. On the other hand, regulatory institutions and leadership position are also susceptible to ‘capture’. How do we conceptualize these different implications of ‘power’ for institutional analysis? We intend to conceptualize power through twin lenses of political dimensions of institutions (which relates to the interests actors have in capturing or manipulating institutions), and policy dimensions of institutions (i.e. institutions as tools that helps regulate, distribute, govern etc.). In each of these situations, power is important, but has very different implications. The Working Group participants will examine how our understanding of the micro-foundations of institutional theories, i.e. choice and choice sets, incentives, reciprocity, trust, monitoring and enforcement, and compliance can be improved by incorporating power as an analytical tool. In other words, how might incorporation of power help us sharpen our understanding of the complexities surrounding the concepts that are at the very foundation of institutional analysis? How might field research and analytical approaches be bolstered to account for the effects of power in the realms as diverse as collective action and coercive regulation? Participants also intend to engage with the recent developments in the theory of power including the third face of power, and the ‘beyond faces’ arguments. Which of the various conceptions of power might be more amenable to integrate with the theories of institutional analysis? How may power be incorporated into Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) Framework? How might the questions of structure and agency be illuminated by combining an examination of power relations with institutional analysis? Or are these two concepts derived from fundamentally different sets of epistemological and ontological perspectives, and hence, essentially incommensurable? Papers for the Working Group Studying power with the social-ecological system framework Graham Epstein, Indiana University Multi-level governance and power: Strategies and processes of decentralization Gustavo A. García López, Department of Natural and Environmental Resources, Puerto Rico Integrating Power in Institutional Analysis by Revisiting the Microfoundations Prakash Kashwan, University of Connecticut, Storrs Conceptualizing Leadership in Large-N studies of Resource Governance Insa Theesfeld, University of Halle-Wittenberg Institutions and Power in Subnational Biopolitics in India Pronoy Rai, University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign TBD Claudia Konrad, Indian University, Bloomington 39 Radical Commons Coordinator: Ryan Conway (rtconway@indiana.edu) Abstract: This group seeks to explore the material potentiality of commons as loci of political prefiguration, where people can experiment with self-organization & new relationships through shared experiences of things they manifest together. Further, this group seeks to address two gaps in our understanding of the commons: (1) An unwarranted gap in the political philosophy of the commons: a lack of conversation between the Tocquevillian associationalism favored at the Ostrom Workshop and the Marxist autonomism explored by a global network of commons practitioners and theorists. (2) A lack of application of rigorous Workshop methods to topics of political implication and political contention, namely: sites of commoning behaviors, social arrangements, and spatial resources unique to social movements and generalized social struggle, including but not limited to: occupied public squares and parks, pools of debt & risk, pools of material waste, squatted buildings, and autonomous zones. 40 Religion and Federalism Coordinator: Tun Myint (tmyint@carleton.edu) [no abstract, sent email 10/20/13] 41 Scoping the Tools for Institutional Analysis of Social-Ecological Technical Systems (SETS): The Workshop in Institutional Analysis of Social-Ecological and Technical Systems (WINS) at IRI THESys, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Coordinator: Andreas Thiel (a.thiel@staff.hu-berlin.de) Abstract: Overarching motivation This working group aims at introducing participants of the WOW5 to a newly founded Workshop in Institutional Analysis of Social-Ecological Systems (WINS) at the IRI THESys (Integrated Research Institute on the Transformation of Human Environmental Systems) at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. One of the founding goals of WINS is to refine our understanding of frameworks to better develop open-ended, interdisciplinary discourse and research program on SETS, with specific relevance to the green sectors. Drawing on the work of Ostrom and colleagues, we argue that doing and communicating research on complex SETS requires a conscious choice of frameworks. When we look at settings of great relevance for the study of human-environmental interactions (e.g. green sectors such as agriculture, forestry, mining, conservation, energy production…) we encounter a number of frameworks of potential usefulness; however, the criteria to select those that best fit our research are, in our understanding, less clear. With the overall agenda of WINS in mind, the working group wants to further outline that problematique, for then launching a first discussion of strategies that researchers could adopt in order to address the multitude of frameworks to study SETS. Against this background the working group will consist of two sessions: 1. Characterizing the problematique; 2. Navigating frameworks for the analysis of SETS. Yüklə 172,72 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|