People, Institutions and Agroecosystems in Transition

dc.contributor.authorGatzweiler, Franz W.en_US
dc.contributor.authorHagedorn, Konraden_US
dc.contributor.authorSikor, Thomasen_US
dc.coverage.regionEuropeen_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-07-31T14:28:43Z
dc.date.available2009-07-31T14:28:43Z
dc.date.issued2002en_US
dc.date.submitted2002-11-06en_US
dc.date.submitted2002-11-06en_US
dc.description.abstract"This paper aims at explaining the role and importance of the evolution of institutions for sustainable agrienvironments during the transition process by referring to examples of agri-environmental problems faced in Central and Eastern European countries. It is often stated that the replacement of institutional structures in post socialist countries would bring a unique opportunity to implement new policies and institutions needed to ensure that economic growth is environmentally sustainable. This idea stems from the assumption that the breakdown of the socialist system resembles that (of the Schumpeterian type) of creative destruction - a process that incessantly revolutionizes economic structures from within. However, not all kinds of institutions, especially at local level, can simply be implemented, and even more, not incessantly. Instead, they evolve as a response to ecosystem and social system characteristics, and this is a rather slow process. A central question therefore is whether the required institutional arrangements for achieving sustainability in the area of agri-environmental resource management can be built more easily in periods of transition as they fill institutional gaps, or whether processes of transition make institution building a more difficult and far more time consuming task than previously thought. Above all, we want to find out, how these two processes of institution building at different scales affect the sustainable management of resources such as water and biodiversity in agriculture? It will become clear that the agrienvironmental problem areas faced during transition are complex and dynamic and require adequate institutions both by political design and from the grassroots, to be developed by the respective actors involved. Transition from centrally planned to pluralistic systems has to be considered as a particular and in some respect non-typical process of institutional change. Popular theories of institutional change do not necessarily apply. The privatisation experience from many CEE countries will serve as an example. Finally, we will provide some examples of missing or insufficient interaction between political actors or agencies and people in CEE countries."en_US
dc.identifier.citationconfdatesJune 17-21, 2002en_US
dc.identifier.citationconferenceThe Commons in an Age of Globalisation, the Ninth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Propertyen_US
dc.identifier.citationconflocVictoria Falls, Zimbabween_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10535/232
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.subjectIASCen_US
dc.subjectcommon pool resourcesen_US
dc.subjectagrarian reformen_US
dc.subjectinstitutional changeen_US
dc.subjectagricultureen_US
dc.subjectsustainabilityen_US
dc.subject.sectorAgricultureen_US
dc.subject.sectorSocial Organizationen_US
dc.submitter.emailjerwolfe@indiana.eduen_US
dc.titlePeople, Institutions and Agroecosystems in Transitionen_US
dc.typeConference Paperen_US
dc.type.publishedunpublisheden_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
gatzweilerf140402.pdf
Size:
727.98 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format

Collections