Cárdenas, J.C. 2003. Rethinking Local Commons Dilemmas: Lessons from Experimental Economics in the Field. A shorter version of this paper was published in Isham, J., T. Kelly and S. Ramaswamy (Eds). Social Capital, Economic Development and the Environment, Edward Elgar Publishing. 2002. Northampton. Related papers in English and SpanishA rather recent development in economics is the formal study of how human groups device ways of governing the coordination of actions that produce externalities without the need of a Leviathan with perfect information and costless ways of enforcing rules, or without the need to individualize the property rights over the resource to allow the invisible hand to coordinate choices and results. Social Capital is one of the terms proposed by leading authors like Putnam (1993) to explain those mechanisms (e.g. norms or rules) that groups use to govern themselves. Self-Governance Institutions has been an alternative notion proposed by others like Ostrom (1990). Or a synonymous, Community Governance (Bowles, 1999) which also conveys the same notion. In general, economic analysis is now recognizing that individuals may put in place selfgoverned material and non-material incentives, which induce changes in behavior from self-oriented actions to group-oriented ones, which may produce social outcomes that are superior than those resulting from the purely selfish and short-sighted behavior of individuals. Usually these institutional arrangements achieve the result of correcting the failures of externalities without the intervention of an external agent or the rearrangement of property rights. In particular, the academic debate over the best prediction about the behavior of people that use a Common-Pool Resource (CPR), and the recommended policy approaches to the CPR dilemma have undergone a very interesting evolution throughout the last 3 decades of the past century, since the emergence of at least two seminal contributions; Garret Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” (1968) and his reflections on the lack of individual property rights over resources under joint access; and Mancur Olson’s Logic of Collective Action (1965) on the difficulties for large and homogenous groups to achieve the voluntary provision of a public good. The empirical evidence on groups using common-pool resources, dating back for centuries, and still today remaining inconclusive, supports in many cases and rejects in many others the different hypotheses available today. Why in some cases groups succeed collectively in managing a resource for which they have joint access, while in similar situations other groups drive the resource closer to exhaustion and socially undesirable results? Why some individuals do act in these situations according to the theoretical prediction of the homo-economicus while others do not? Further, why do the same individuals do confirm the self-regarding maximizing behavior in competitive market institutions while showing other-regarding preferences under situations that generate outcomes that affect negatively others? The fact that these questions remain unsolved should challenge the way the problem of commons dilemmas is taught and studied in the economics profession, and in how it transpires to policy making debates. However, much of the teaching of this particular problem is done without much of the new theoretical, empirical and experimental contributions that have emerged since Hardin’s tragedy prediction. Today the problem of the commons is still presented to students as a free-rider problem where the individual rationality of those extracting the resource and the lack of private or state ownership of the resource would drive the common-pool to yields that are socially sub-optimal, and eventually to exhaustion. At best, some authors seem to acknowledge the difference in rights and rules between open access and common property. Nevertheless, the introductory level teaching ignores in most cases the possibility of groups devising endogenously institutions for self-management and control, or the possibility of human preferences that involve the welfare or actions of others inducing people to act more cooperative. Further, much of the policy textbook recipes still remain within the two orthodox approaches of assigning individual property rights to the resource (market approach), or transferring all property and control to the government for (state approach) a socially efficient management to emerge. However, a long and rich path has been covered by many social and natural scientists that explore the factors that drive human behavior when facing a CPR dilemma. This paper wants to respond to this concern in two ways. One, by providing in sections 2 and 3 elements from recent advances in the analysis of CPRs that could be easily introduced into the teaching and policy design regarding the social dilemmas arising from the use of commons. In particular, it will highlight the lack of importance given to community governance solutions and the focusing on the state and the market solutions, at least in the teaching and policy design arenas. The second contribution to the concerns mentioned is a set of results (Section 4) from field economic experiments conducted in actual CPR settings in rural locations; the results provide empirical evidence of some of the new developments in the literature, questioning much of the conventional views about these dilemmas and human behavior. Further, the methodological approach of applying experimental economics in the field and in the classroom might bring to the economics profession some lessons and challenges about participatory research and teaching techniques where the participants (villagers or students) become active part of the analysis and not mere subjects that produce data, as usually seen in the conventional literature, teaching and research.

Vaughan, C., Katjiua, J.B. and Branston, N., and Bundra K.2003. CBNRM in the Kunene Region Proceedings of a Workshop Held to Discuss WILD Project Key Findings and Build Stakeholder Consensus. Ombinda Lodge. WILD Working Paper 18.The Kunene WILD Project and MET regional staff conducted a workshop with regional CBNRM stakeholders. This workshop created a unique opportunity for individuals to come together at a regional level to evaluate and discuss WILD project research findings. The workshop purpose was to share WILD research findings for discussion, validation and dissemination to support the CBNRM programme in the north-west and nationally. The workshop was prepared as part of the WILD engagement strategy, which involved individual consultations with Windhoek-based stakeholders to discuss findings, and further workshops based on this one for Caprivi and Windhoek. The outcomes of the other consultations are available as separate WILD working papers.WILD Project staff presented the main research findings, their livelihood implications and recommended action points on the four following topics:1) Livelihoods and conservancies2) Tourism and enterprises3) Livelihoods and wildlife findings4) Policy, institutions and practice findingsThe CBNRM stakeholders then held discussions and contextualised a number of research findings and issues on each topic, and made a number of recommendations based upon their knowledge and experience.

 The importance of social capital in 50 small or medium-sized rural agroenterprises in Colombia was studied by CIAT, CCI (Corporación Colombiana Internacional), and CEGA (Centro de Estudios Ganaderos y Agrícolas), with funds from CGIAR’s CAPRi (Collective Action and Property Rights) Program. Social capital—that is, networks, trust, and capacity for collective action—helps firms reduce transactions costs and establish and maintain solid relationships in their communities and along the supply chain. Social capital is an important determinant of a firm’s organizational structure and its productivity. Support organizations can help rural agro-enterprises by recognizing the importance of social capital, by providing information on how to select appropriate organizational structures, and by exploring alternatives for making those services currently provided by social capital more widely accessible and less costly.

C√°rdenas, J.C., J.K. Stranlund and C.E. Willis. 2000. Local Environmental Control and Institutional Crowding-out. World Development. 28 (10): 1719-1733. Access from the author's websiteRegulations that are designed to improve social welfare typically begin with the premise that individuals are purely self-interested. Therefore, in a situation in which private and social interests diverge, it should be possible to bring about a welfare improvement by imposing rules that provide the necessary incentives for more socially efficient choices. However, experimental evidence shows that individuals do not typically behave as if they are purely self-interested; they tend to make choices that strike a balance between self and group interests. From experiments performed in several villages in Colombia, we found that a regulatory solution for an environmental dilemma that standard theory predicts would improve social welfare clearly did not. This surprising result occurred because individuals confronted with an external regulation began to exhibit less other-regarding behavior and, instead, made choices that were more consistent with pure self interests; that is, the regulation itself appeared to crowd out other-regarding behavior. The implication is that a policy design aimed simply at establishing incentives that move purely self-interested individuals toward more efficient choices will not necessarily improve social efficiency if the institution itself lessens civic-mindedness and encourages more selfish behavior.

Meinzen-Dick, R., A. Knox, F. Place, and B. Swallow (Eds.) 2002. Innovation in Natural Resource Management The Role of Property Rights and Collective Action in Developing Countries. John Hopkins. University Press.International agricultural research is expanding beyond the development of annual crop technologies for individual farms to the development of longer-term natural resource management techniques for entire landscapes. But technologies or practices with a long lag time between investment and returns are unlikely to be adopted by farmers unless they have secure rights to the underlying resources (property rights). Similarly, technologies that span multiple farms are unlikely to be adopted unless neighbors and groups work together (collective action). But little is known about the way property rights and collective action in developing countries mediate the adoption of technologies by farmers and groups. To address this information gap, this volume brings together international experts in economics, sociology, and natural resource management to examine the links among property rights, collective action, and technological change for a variety of technologies across a range of community contexts in the developing world. Authors focus on the reciprocal relationships between community institutions and technologies, the role of property rights in conflicts between crop and livestock production systems, and the way that collective action differs across landscapes. A conceptual framework, methodological approaches, and "best bet" practices are presented to help guide future research.Researchers, policy analysts, and students interested in the links between environmental sustainability, economic growth, equity and poverty alleviation, and technology adoption will benefit from this volume.

Barrios, E, and M.T. Trejo 2003. Implications of local soil knowledge for integrated soil management in Latin America. Geoderma 111 (2003) 217–231.The increasing attention paid to local soil knowledge in recent years is the result of a greater recognition that the knowledge of people who have been interacting with their soils for long time can offer many insights about the sustainable management of tropical soils. This paper describes two approaches in the process of eliciting local information. Case studies show that there is a consistent rational basis to the use of local indicators of soil quality and their relation to improved soil management. The participatory process used is shown to have considerable potential in facilitating farmer consensus about which soil-related constraints should be tackled first. Consensus building is presented as an important step prior to collective action by farming communities in integrated soil management at the landscape scale. Taking advantage of the complementary nature of local and scientific knowledge is highlighted as an overall strategy for sustainable soil management.

Nefzaoui, A. Y. Saadani, H. Jallouli, N. Raggad, A. Jemai avec Grigory Lazarev. 2003. Guide Operationnel Pour L’elaboration Et La Mise En Œuvre De Plan De Developpement Participatif Avec Les Communautes Agro-Pastotrales. Equipe d’appui Mashreq/Maghreb. Projet De Developpement Agropastoral Et De Promotion Des Initiatives Locales Dans Le Sud Est (PRODESUD). INRAT/FIDA/ICARDA.Le guide opérationnel rappelle et indique la logique des différentes étapes à franchir pour atteindre les objectifs de la planification locale concertée. Il laisse à l’équipe opérationnelle une marge de manœuvre et d’adaptation au contexte spécifique de chacune des communautés impliquées. Sur la base d’un test méthodologique, conduit par une équipe de conseillers en méthodologie en étroite concertation avec l’équipe du projet, la communauté, le personnel du Commissariat régional au développement agricole (CRDA) et d’autres partenaires, une première version a été élaborée et a servi de support de formation de l’équipe du projet composé des facilitateurs/animateurs, des spécialistes matières ainsi que du personnel du CRDA. La version finale du guide a été ensuite élaborée en tenant compte des différents commentaires ainsi que du premier travail engagé par l’équipe du projet dans une nouvelle Unité socio-territoriale (UST), avec l’appui des conseillers en méthodologie. La structure du guide et sa présentation suivent pratiquement les différentes séquences méthodologiques telles qu’elles ont été réellement vécues au moment de leur exécution. Cette référence devrait aider l’équipe du projet à retrouver facilement l’expérience q’elle a vécu lors de la formation sur le terrain.

Guijt, I., Berdegue, J.A. and Loevinsohn, M. 2000. Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource Management. Proceedings of a workshop, February 16-18 2000, The Hague. ISNAR and RIMISP (Red Internacional de Metodologia de Investigaciones de Sistemas de Produccion,. 222pp. Also published in 2002 as a  Special Issue of Agricultural Systems:The workshop brought together researchers working in diverse situations and with resources of different types -- natural, human, and economic -- who are developing innovative methods aimed at enabling farming communities to adjust their decision making in the face of rapid and significant change. The workshop sought to throw light on four main questions:1. What are the features of methods that are effective in supporting farmers’ decision making where resource systems are undergoing such change?2. How do the features of effective methods vary in different types of resource management situations?3. What approaches are available to assess the impact of these methods?4. What institutional factors have favored or hindered the development of effective decision support methods and their use over wider areas?The articles in this Special Issue include a critical review of the key issues emerging from the workshop, five diverse case studies and one of two theme presentations, on the state of the art in decision support in rural resource management. The other theme paper, on learning theory and its relevance for rural resource management, can be found in the workshop’s proceedings, as can the other nine case studies.

Guijt, I., Berdegue, J.A. and Loevinsohn, M. 2000. Deepening the Basis of Rural Resource Management. Proceedings of a workshop, February 16-18 2000, The Hague. ISNAR and RIMISP (Red Internacional de Metodologia de Investigaciones de Sistemas de Produccion,. 222pp. Also published in 2002 as a  Special Issue of Agricultural Systems:The workshop brought together researchers working in diverse situations and with resources of different types -- natural, human, and economic -- who are developing innovative methods aimed at enabling farming communities to adjust their decision making in the face of rapid and significant change. The workshop sought to throw light on four main questions:1. What are the features of methods that are effective in supporting farmers’ decision making where resource systems are undergoing such change?2. How do the features of effective methods vary in different types of resource management situations?3. What approaches are available to assess the impact of these methods?4. What institutional factors have favored or hindered the development of effective decision support methods and their use over wider areas?The articles in this Special Issue include a critical review of the key issues emerging from the workshop, five diverse case studies and one of two theme presentations, on the state of the art in decision support in rural resource management. The other theme paper, on learning theory and its relevance for rural resource management, can be found in the workshop’s proceedings, as can the other nine case studies.