Local Government and Natural Resource Management in Madhya Pradesh,India: A Critical Institutional Analysis

Abstract

This paper investigates the factors that influence the involvement of local government in natural resource management in a decentralized institutional context. Institutions, regulating resource use patterns and practices are indicated to be decisive for the success or failure of resource management initiatives, and decentralization is considered a promising institutional arrangement in this regard. In this context, it is significant that India adopted decentralization through the 73^rd Constitutional Amendment Act, devolving resource management functions to the local government. However, there is limited work on how local government engages with devolved functions and what factors influence its resource management interventions. Consequently, we investigate the factors that influence the involvement of local government in natural resource management across three village councils in India. Taking a critical realist approach, we find that although multiple factors exert their influence, institutional force and actors’ rational incentives serve as key causal factors explaining local government’s involvement with resource management.

Keywords

institutions decentralization local government natural resource management incentives

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Acheson

J. M.

(2006). Institutional failure in resource management. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35(1), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.35.081705.123238

Agrawal

Yadama

G. N.

(1997). How do local institutions mediate market and population pressures on resources? Forest panchayats in Kumaon, India. Development and Change, 28(3), 435–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-7660.00050

Andersson

(2006). Understanding decentralized forest governance: An application of the institutional analysis and development framework. Science, Practice, & Policy, 2(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2006.11907975

Andersson

Gibson

C. C.

(2007). Decentralized governance and environmental change: Local institutional moderation of deforestation in Bolivia. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(1), 99–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20229

Andersson

Gibson

C. C.

Lehoucq

(2006). Municipal politics and forest governance: Comparative analysis of decentralization in Bolivia and Guatemala. World Development, 34(3), 576–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.08.009

Andersson

Ostrom

(2008). Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sciences, 41(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-007-9055-6

Asthana

A. N.

(2008). Decentralisation and corruption: Evidence from drinking water sector. Public Admin. Dev, 28, 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.496

Azfar

Nelson

Jr., W. R.

(2007). Transparency, wages, and the separation of powers: An experimental analysis of corruption. Public Choice, 130(3), 471–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-006-9101-5

Baland

J. M.

Bardhan

Das

Mookherjee (2010). Forests to the people: Decentralization and forest degradation in the Indian Himalayas. World Development, 38(11), 1642–1656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.03.007

10.

Banerjee

Banerji

Duflo

Glennerster

Khemani

(2006). Can information campaigns spark local participation and improve outcomes? A study of primary education in Uttar Pradesh, India. World Bank Policy Research. (WBPR Working Paper No. 3967). https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/367001468253224156/pdf/wps3967.pdf

11.

Barrett

C. B.

Lee

D. R.

Mcpeak

J. G.

(2005). Institutional arrangements for rural poverty reduction and resource conservation. World Development, 33(2), 193–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2004.07.008

12.

Benito

Guillamon

M. D.

Bastida

(2015). Determinants of urban corruption in local governments. Crime, Law and Social Change, 63, 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-015-9563-9

13.

Bhaskar

(1975). A realist theory of science. Harvester Press.

14.

Bhaskar

(1998). The possibility of naturalism (3rd ed.) Routledge.

15.

Braun

Clarke

, (2006). Using thematic analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

16.

Bruns

(2009). Metaphors and methods for institutional synthesis. Paper presented at the water resource governance and design principles, workshop in political theory and policy analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, June 3–6.

17.

Buchanan

J. M.

Tullock

(1962). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. University of Michigan Press.

18.

Capodaglio

(2017). Integrated decentralized wastewater management for resource recovery in rural and peri-urban areas. Resources, 6(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources6020022

19.

Chattopadhyay

Duflo

(2004). Women as policy makers: Evidencefrom a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica, 72(5), 1409–1443. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00539.x

20.

Cleaver

Koning

J. D.

(2015). Furthering critical institutionalism. International Journal of the Commons, 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.605

21.

Clement

(2010). Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: Proposition for a “politicised” institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Sciences, 43(2), 129–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1077-009-9100-8

22.

Danermark

Mats

Liselotte

Jan

(2002). Explaining society: Critical realism in the social sciences. Routledge.

23.

Das

Mukherjee

(2019). The impact of MGNREGS on child labour and child education: An empirical analysis. Development in Practice, 29(3), 384–394. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2018.1557110

24.

Das

Mukhopadhyay

Saroy

(2018). Does affirmative action in politics hinder performance? Evidence from India (Working Paper No. 03). Ashoka University, Department of Economics. https://dp.ashoka.edu.in/ash/wpaper/paper03.pdf

25.

Easton

(2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2008.06.004

26.

Ellis

Mdoe

(2003). Livelihood and rural poverty reduction in Tanzania. World Development, 31(8), 1367–1384. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00100-1

27.

Forsyth

(2018). Institutions and natural resource management. In Castree

Hulme

Proctor

J. D.

(Eds.), Companion to environmental studies. Routledge.

28.

Government of India (2005). Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.

29.

Government of India . (2011). Status report: PRI capacity building and training (CB&T) in India. Learning from experience sharing workshops. Ministry of Panchayati Raj.

30.

Government of Madhya Pradesh (1993). Madhya Pradesh Panchayati Raj avam Gram Swaraj Act.

31.

Government of Madhya Pradesh (2005). Madhya Pradesh Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme.

32.

Gulzar

Hass

Pasquale

(2020). Does political affirmative action work, and for whom? Theory and evidence on India’s scheduled areas. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1230–1246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305542000532

33.

Harish

B. G.

Napraj

Chendrakant

M. G.

Srikantha Murthy

P. S.

Chengappa

P. G.

Basvaraj

(2011). Impacts and implications of MGNREGS on labour supply and income generation for agriculture in central dry zone of Karnataka. Agriculture Economics Research Review, 24, 485–494. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.119402

34.

Ingram

Ros-Tonen

(2015). A fine mess: Bricolaged forest governance in cameroon. International Journal of the Commons, 9(1), 41–64.

35.

Komakech

H. C.

van der

(2011). Understanding the emergence and functioning of river committees in a catchment of the Pangani basin. Tanzania. Water Alternatives, 4(2), 197–222.

36.

Larson

A. M.

(2002). Natural resources and decentralization in Nicaragua: Are local governments upto the job? World Development, 30(1), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00098-5

37.

Larson

A. M.

Ribot

J. C.

(2004). Democratic decentralization through a natural resource lens: An introduction. European Journal of Development Research, 16(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/09578810410001688707

38.

Marcesse

(2018). Public policy reform and informal institutions: The political articulation of the demand for work in rural India. World Development, 103, 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.10.024

39.

Marothia

D. K.

(2004). Transforming institutions for sustainable development of natural resources programmes. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 17, 163–190.

40.

Marothia

D. K.

(2010). Decentralized natural resource management in India: An institutional perspective. Indian Journal of Agriculture Economics, 65(1), 1–34.

41.

Meynen

Doornbos

(2004). Decentralizing natural resource management: Recipe for sustainability and equity? European Journal of Development Research, 16(1), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/09578810410001688824

42.

Mukherjee

Sinha

(2013). Understanding NREGA: A simple theory and some facts. In Narayanan

Siddharthan

N. S.

(Eds.), Human capital and development: The Indian experience (pp. 103–128). Springer.

43.

Oldekop

J. A.

Sims

K. R. E.

Karna

B. K.

Whittingham

M. J.

Agrawal

(2019). Reductions in deforestation and poverty from decentralized forest management in Nepal. Nature Sustainability, 2(5), 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0277-3

44.

Olken

B. A.

(2007). Monitoring corruption: Evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy, 115(2), 200–249. https://doi.org/10.1086/517935

45.

Olken

B. A.

Pande

(2012). Corruption in developing countries. Annual Review of Economics, 4, 479–509. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-110917

46.

Ostrom

(1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

47.

Ostrom

(2005). Understanding institutional diversity: Princeton University Press.

48.

Ostrom

(2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 550–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004

49.

Ostrom

Cox

(2010). Moving beyond panaceas: A multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation, 37(4), 451–463. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000834

50.

Ostrom

Tiebout

Warren

(1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. American Political Science Review, 55(4), 831–842. https://doi.org/10.2307/1952530

51.

Pretty

Smith

(2004). Social capital in biodiversity conservation and biology. Conservation Biology, 18(3), 631–638. https://doi.org/10.1111.j.1523-1739.2004.00126.x

52.

Rahman

H. M. T.

Hickey

G. M.

&Sarker

S. K.

(2012). A framework for evaluating collective action and informal institutional dynamics under a resource management policy of decentralization. Ecological Economics, 83, 32–41.

53.

Rajasekhar

Babu

Manjula

(2017). Are elections to grama panchayats party-less? The evidence from Karnataka. (ISEC Working Paper No.402). Institute for Social and Economic Change. https://www.isec.ac.in/WP402DRajasekharetal-Final.pdf

54.

Rajasekhar

Berg

Manjula

(2012). Paper presented. In CAPRI/CCAFS workshop on 'institutions for inclusive climate-smart agriculture' held on september 10-13 at nairobi, Kenya.

55.

Reddy

D. N.

Reddy

A. A.

Bhattarai

Nagaraj

Bantilan

(2018). MGNREGS implementations and the dynamics of rural labour markets. In Bhattarai

Viswanathan

P. K.

Mishra

R.N.

Bantilan

(Ed.), Employment guarantee programme and dynamics of rural transformation in India. (pp. 71–101). Springer.

56.

Rijckeghem

C. V.

Weder

(2001). Bureaucratic corruption and the rate of temptation: Do wages in the civil service affect corruption, and by how much? Journal of Development Economics, 65(2), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(01)00139-0

57.

Sayer

(1992). Method in social science: A realist approach. Routledge.

58.

Sayer

(2000). Realism and social science. Sage.

59.

Singh

(2013). Local governance and environment investments in Hiware Bazar, India. In Healy

Martinez-Alier

Temper

Walter

Gerber

J. F.

(Eds.), Ecological economics from the ground up (pp. 191–212). Routledge.

60.

Singh

(2014). Decentralizing water services in India: The politics of institutional reforms. Asian Survey, 54(4), 674–699. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2014.54.4.674

61.

Sisodiya

Y. S.

(2012). Dynamics of local Governance in post 73rd amendment scenario: A study of Functioning of Panchayati Raj Institutions in Villages of Madhya Pradesh. Report submitted to Indian Council of Social Science Research, New Delhi. Ujjain, MP: Madhya Pradesh Institute of Social Science Research.

62.

Sisodiya

Y. S.

Bhatt

Dalapati

T. K.

(2015). Research study to acess the actual status of devolution to the Panchayati Raj institutions in Madhya Pradesh. Report submitted to the Ministry of Panchayati Raj, New Delhi. Ujjain, MP: Madhya Pradesh Institute of Social Science Research.

63.

Vatn

(2005). Institutions and the environment. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.

64.

Whaley

(2018). The critical institutional analysis and development (CIAD) framework. International Journal of the Commons, 12(2), 137–161. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.84

65.

Williams

C. K.

Karahanna

(2013). Causal explanation in the coordinating process: A critical realist case study of federated it governance structures. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 933–964. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.3.12

66.

Woolcock

(2001). The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2, 11–17.

67.

Wynn

D. E.

Williams

C. K.

(2012). Principles for conducting critical realist case study research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 787–810. https://doi.org/10.2307/41703481