|
Abstract:
|
"Much of the work conducted on common property resources has tended to focus on relatively undeveloped commons, where the imperative is to establish coordinated action between a single type of user of the resource. There are some exceptions to this. For example, Gupta examined the stratified social structure in Rajasthan and explained how it affected commons in terms of the different expectations of the different classes of users and the different animals that they depastured. Nevertheless, whilst his work covered different classes of commoners with different animals, it focused on a single use: that of grazing. As traditional commons in developing countries evolve, research which explains the persistence of commons with multiple ownership, use and management It structures will become increasingly relevant as a foundation for the theory of complex common property regimes.
This paper attempts to extend the simple analytical framework put forward by Oakerson and developed by Blaikie & Brookfield , Ostrom, and Tang, for application in more complex multiple-use common property resource situations in developed countries. As such, the framework must be capable of facilitating analysis of resource systems which support multiple types of uses by multiple types of communities/groups. Initial research suggests that six essential components must be incorporated in the framework. First, the physical and technological characteristics of the resource must be analysed with respect to different uses. Second, the multiple-use framework must facilitate analysis of the different communities involved in the use and management of the common property resource. Third, the framework should focus the researcher on how different types of users respond to different institutional arrangements through analysis of 'context-bound' factors. Fourth, the framework must comprise a multiple-level analytical tool in order to further an understanding of institutional evolution and the progression of institutional reform through different levels of the institutional arrangements. Fifth, the framework should incorporate different rule categories, in a generic fashion, at different levels of analysis. Finally, the framework must be capable of repetition through a succession of chosen time periods."
|