Ownership and Incentives in Joint Forest Management: A Survey

The relationship between the state and communities has been an overriding issue in the development of forestry institutions globally. In many countries, the trend is for communities to become co‐managers of public forests. Meanwhile, in development co‐operation both poverty and multiple rural livelihoods have received increased attention. In this article, the potential of joint community‐state management of forests is discussed. Forest production has several characteristics that make it suitable for joint management where both parties benefit. Involving communities in management decreases the state's monitoring costs, while communities benefit from better access to market information. For this to take place, however, the state forest apparatus needs to be free from undue rent‐seeking. The most advantageous solutions are case‐ and context‐specific.     

Policy Experiments,Democratic Ownership and Development Assistance

In an effort to enhance the impact of development aid, recipients are called on to provide democratically sustained ‘ownership’ for development policies, and donors to align their interventions with these ownership‐dictated strategies of their partners. This article illustrates the weaknesses of such an approach. From a political‐economy perspective, severe tensions exist between concepts of democratic ownership, on the one hand, and the experimental and iterative organisation of a society's encompassing interests in democratic settings, on the other. These tensions are even more pronounced in emerging democracies, making democratic ownership as a prerequisite for aid effectiveness an illusion, and provoking the re‐emergence of traditional donor‐recipient problems.     

Home Ownership, Social Insurance, and the Welfare State

Home ownership has potentially significant consequences for welfare state policy. High owner-occupancy rates may function as private insurance where social spending is low (a substitution effect). Alternatively, state income redistribution policies could raise the number of home owners (an income effect). Cross-national time-series data show that social spending is negatively related to home ownership, and mediates the positive relationship between income inequality and owner-occupancy rates. This suggests that owner-occupancy acts as a form of social insurance over the life course. Future welfare state researchers should consider the issue of home ownership in analyses of inequality and the social safety net.

关于加强农村集体土地流转管理的思考

一、加强农村集体土地流转管理的重要性在人类经济生活中,土地的所有制决定了以其为基础的生产关系,即再生产过程中人们之间的相互关系和分配关系.它决定了土地使用制度,决定了级差地租、绝对地租、地价等与土地产品的成本、生产价格、市场价格等之间发生的密切关系.同时,土地的重要性决定了在一切社会中,由国家或社会的其他代表对土地实行社会化管理的必要性.     

Ownership claims,valuation practices,and the unpacking of energy-landscape conflicts

There is now a substantive body of academic literature which focuses on protests against local infrastructural developments. This literature is often characterised by the key words ‘NIMBY’ or (facility-) ‘siting controversies’. The rapid development of renewable energy technologies – which are largely sited in rural areas – has created a new version of this controversy; energy-landscape conflicts. In many countries, large infrastructural developments are regulated through spatial planning legislation, often causing various tensions between new technologies, an evolving policy agenda, and a legislative framework which was largely conceived in a different era and which is slow to adapt. Alternatively, and in line with neo-liberal thinking, the logic of development can be subjected to cost-benefit analysis, whereby the value of the wind farm can be compared with the value of the ‘unspoiled’ landscape. This paper takes a more holistic approach to energy-landscape conflicts, by examining claims of ownership and notions and measures of value inherent in different claims and value systems which (seek to) influence decision-making. We examine both the logic of monetary valuation and the implicit value statements in various policy intervention options to point at the need for a more heterogeneous and multidisciplinary approach to policy evaluation. We then look at notions of ownership, rights and duties in relation to landscape and to our energy future, and we highlight the potential for using an analytical property rights framework which cuts across various levels of claims and value statements, from the national and ideological to the personal and practice-based.