74
It should, however, also be noted that the balance of such a SEPLS has continuously been threatened as has been found in the above discussion.
5.3 A Conceptual Framework: SEPLS, Human Sociality
and Sustainability
Means and measures employed for the natural resource management are primarily
drawn from market centric theoretical underpinning as a part of the intellective project of neo-liberalism. This school of thought suggests that the biodiversity resources
degrade primarily because of the non-existence of market and negative externality
(Sadmo 2015; Perrings et al. 1992). It argues that valuation techniques can provide
useful insights to support policy initiatives by quantifying the economic value of the
resources and to devise exchange rule associated with the protection of biological
resources (Costanza et al. 1997; Pearce 2001; Bräuer 2003; Kumar 2005; Barbier
2007; McAfee and Shapiro 2010; Hahn et al. 2015). This understanding has been
complemented by the institutional economists as establishing a formal property
rights regime can efficiently manage the natural resources where the absence of
property rights results in resources degradation (Ostrom 2000; Vatn 2009, 2010;
Ituarte-Lima et al. 2014).
A section of the political economy analyses, on the contrary, contend that the
existence of overlapping property rights regime contributes to the conflicting
resources management and degradation. It sheds light on the political elements in
resources management regime and highlights the hierarchical relationship that
exists in society. It argues that institutional arrangements (property rights) are vulnerable to some political economic factors stemming from accumulation by different agents in presence of non-cooperative solution. It further stresses upon the roles
of the formal political institutions and emphasises on the narratives about the
changes of the ecosystem services (Robbins 2012).
Such literature provides a lens to describe the bio-environmental relationship in
the presence of distribution of power to production activities and its link to ecological analysis (Greenberg and Park 1994). It emphasises on the claim that the degradation of natural resources is not only about the non-existence of market but also
about unequal power sharing by the stakeholders over the management of resources
(Fig. 5.4). Existence of vertical relations in society and upward enforcement of rules
Politically
driven
accumulation
Degradation of
(forest)
resources
Patron-client relation
Personalized
political
power
Institutional fragility
+ Commercialization
of resources
Widespread corruption
Fig. 5.4 Political economy factors inducing biodiversity resources degradation. (Source: prepared
by the authors)
R. A. M. Titumir et al.
It should, however, also be noted that the balance of such a SEPLS has continuously been threatened as has been found in the above discussion.
5.3 A Conceptual Framework: SEPLS, Human Sociality
and Sustainability
Means and measures employed for the natural resource management are primarily
drawn from market centric theoretical underpinning as a part of the intellective project of neo-liberalism. This school of thought suggests that the biodiversity resources
degrade primarily because of the non-existence of market and negative externality
(Sadmo 2015; Perrings et al. 1992). It argues that valuation techniques can provide
useful insights to support policy initiatives by quantifying the economic value of the
resources and to devise exchange rule associated with the protection of biological
resources (Costanza et al. 1997; Pearce 2001; Bräuer 2003; Kumar 2005; Barbier
2007; McAfee and Shapiro 2010; Hahn et al. 2015). This understanding has been
complemented by the institutional economists as establishing a formal property
rights regime can efficiently manage the natural resources where the absence of
property rights results in resources degradation (Ostrom 2000; Vatn 2009, 2010;
Ituarte-Lima et al. 2014).
A section of the political economy analyses, on the contrary, contend that the
existence of overlapping property rights regime contributes to the conflicting
resources management and degradation. It sheds light on the political elements in
resources management regime and highlights the hierarchical relationship that
exists in society. It argues that institutional arrangements (property rights) are vulnerable to some political economic factors stemming from accumulation by different agents in presence of non-cooperative solution. It further stresses upon the roles
of the formal political institutions and emphasises on the narratives about the
changes of the ecosystem services (Robbins 2012).
Such literature provides a lens to describe the bio-environmental relationship in
the presence of distribution of power to production activities and its link to ecological analysis (Greenberg and Park 1994). It emphasises on the claim that the degradation of natural resources is not only about the non-existence of market but also
about unequal power sharing by the stakeholders over the management of resources
(Fig. 5.4). Existence of vertical relations in society and upward enforcement of rules
Politically
driven
accumulation
Degradation of
(forest)
resources
Patron-client relation
Personalized
political
power
Institutional fragility
+ Commercialization
of resources
Widespread corruption
Fig. 5.4 Political economy factors inducing biodiversity resources degradation. (Source: prepared
by the authors)
R. A. M. Titumir et al.