Does Privatization Protect Natural Resources? Property Rights and Forests in Guatemala.
Saved in:
| Title: | Does Privatization Protect Natural Resources? Property Rights and Forests in Guatemala. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Gibson, Clark C., Lehoucq, Fabrice E., Williams, John T. |
| Source: | Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell). Mar2002, Vol. 83 Issue 1, p206-225. 20p. 5 Charts, 1 Map. |
| Subjects: | Privatization, Economic policy, Natural resources, Conservation of natural resources, Property rights, Forest management |
| Geographic Terms: | Guatemala |
| Abstract: | Objectives . Property rights are central to debates about natural resource policy. Governments traditionally have been seen as the appropriate custodians of natural resources for their citizens. More recently, many argue the privatization of property rights will ensure that users have incentives to manage their resources well. Common property, to the extent it is discussed at all, is seen as leading to the tragedy of the commons. We evaluate these claims by assessing property rights and forest conditions in two private and three communal forests in Guatemala. Methods . Data on biological and social phenomena from five forests (151 plots) and their associated communities were collected using the International Forestry Resources and Institutions Research Program protocols. Ordinary least squares regression was used to analyze four models. We examined t -scores for differences in coefficients for the different models. Results . The models demonstrate that de jure property rights are not a powerful predictor of variations among the sampled forests. Conclusions . We argue that de facto institutions and their enforcement are much more important than de jure property rights to forest management. Communities holding a forest in common can, under certain circumstances, create institutions to manage their resources as successfully as—or more successfully than—private owners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Social Science Quarterly (Wiley-Blackwell) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objectives . Property rights are central to debates about natural resource policy. Governments traditionally have been seen as the appropriate custodians of natural resources for their citizens. More recently, many argue the privatization of property rights will ensure that users have incentives to manage their resources well. Common property, to the extent it is discussed at all, is seen as leading to the tragedy of the commons. We evaluate these claims by assessing property rights and forest conditions in two private and three communal forests in Guatemala. Methods . Data on biological and social phenomena from five forests (151 plots) and their associated communities were collected using the International Forestry Resources and Institutions Research Program protocols. Ordinary least squares regression was used to analyze four models. We examined t -scores for differences in coefficients for the different models. Results . The models demonstrate that de jure property rights are not a powerful predictor of variations among the sampled forests. Conclusions . We argue that de facto institutions and their enforcement are much more important than de jure property rights to forest management. Communities holding a forest in common can, under certain circumstances, create institutions to manage their resources as successfully as—or more successfully than—private owners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 00384941 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/1540-6237.00079 |
