Can Notions of Common Property and the Common Good Survive? The Consequences of Classical Economics for Karamojong Nomadic Pastoralists

dc.contributor.authorKnighton, Benen_US
dc.coverage.countryUgandaen_US
dc.coverage.regionAfricaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-07-31T14:32:30Z
dc.date.available2009-07-31T14:32:30Z
dc.date.issued2006en_US
dc.date.submitted2006-09-25en_US
dc.date.submitted2006-09-25en_US
dc.description.abstract"Despite the attempt of the Government of Uganda to grant private land titles in Karamoja, communal grazing rights are very much perpetuated by traditional politics and religion in Karamojong culture. Far from being in decline, the pastoralist range management system is in expansionist mode with more livestock and more herders than ever before. However this system is a threat to the new world order for three reasons. It is inimical to capitalist development as the Karamojong are most reluctant to commoditize their wealth in cattle or to cut themselves off from cattle- based livelihoods and values. They carry small arms to protect their herds and sometimes to acquire cattle from their enemies. They do not subscribe to national or international goals of economic development, refusing a sedentary lifestyle compatible with Ugandan norms of 'civilization', so that their continuing identity may survive with surprising autonomy. Basic to the discrepancy between local and Western notions of what is sustainable are different notions of livestock and space. Karamojong notions of freedom is the treasured right of each herd-owner or herder of a family herd to decide on a daily basis when and where herds should graze. This usually involves a 'tracking' strategy, seeking grazing areas with the optimum rainfall, nutrients, and minerals at any particular time. Any imposed restriction on grazing in order to protect pastures is regarded as a social threat. Western concepts of rangeland managements derive from the agrarian and industrial revolutions when British land tenure was transformed by enclosure, at great social cost, to ensure that there were private returns to investment to land, so that those who did not invest in land improvement did not suffer from the externalities of public benefits. Commons therefore came to be seen as threats to property and as public 'bads', standing in the way of progress including improved cattle breeding and productivity."en_US
dc.identifier.citationconfdatesJune 19-23, 2006en_US
dc.identifier.citationconferenceSurvival of the Commons: Mounting Challenges and New Realities, the Eleventh Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Propertyen_US
dc.identifier.citationconflocBali, Indonesiaen_US
dc.identifier.citationmonthJuneen_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10535/831
dc.subjectIASCen_US
dc.subjectpastoralismen_US
dc.subjectcommon pool resourcesen_US
dc.subjectcommon gooden_US
dc.subjectland tenure and useen_US
dc.subjectlivestocken_US
dc.subjectpublic goods and badsen_US
dc.subjectnomadsen_US
dc.subjectKaramojong (African people)en_US
dc.subject.sectorGrazingen_US
dc.subject.sectorGeneral & Multiple Resourcesen_US
dc.submitter.emailelsa_jin@yahoo.comen_US
dc.titleCan Notions of Common Property and the Common Good Survive? The Consequences of Classical Economics for Karamojong Nomadic Pastoralistsen_US
dc.typeConference Paperen_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Knighton_ben.pdf
Size:
203.89 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections