Advertisement

Institutional Innovation in Natural Resource Management

A Conceptualization and Some Australian Examples
  • John Cary
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management and Policy book series (NRMP, volume 19)

Abstract

Coordinating individual behavior for the common good in resource management situations with common property characteristics has many dimensions involving knowledge and information. The approaches used to coordinate individual behavior in such resource management situations include use of regulation and incentives, education and extension, reliance on informal social arrangements and enforcement of rules, and appeals to moral or ethical ideals. Economists commonly have favored the first set of these approaches: the use of regulation or incentives. However many economic transactions involve more complex relationships, reflecting the inadequacy of information and risks associated with the transaction. Typically, these consequences give rise to transaction costs (Coase 1937). Transaction costs include search and information costs; drafting, bargaining and decision costs; costs of safeguarding an agreement; monitoring and enforcement costs; and adaptation and haggling costs. When transaction costs are high, economic transactions are often facilitated by less formal, or other institutionalized, social arrangements.

Keywords

Transaction Cost Technical Change Natural Resource Management Strategic Alliance Catchment Management 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AACM International. 1995. Review of Catchment and Land Management Program for the DCNR Victoria.Google Scholar
  2. Alston, J.M., P.G. Pardey, and V.H. Smith. 1998. Financing agricultural R&D in rich countries: what’s happening and why. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 42 (1): 51–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barr, N.F. and J.W. Cary. 1992. Greening a Brown Land: The Australian Search for Sustainable Land Use. Melbourne, Australia: MacMillan Press.Google Scholar
  4. Black, A.W. 1976. Organizational Genesis and Development: A Study of Australian Agricultural Colleges. St Lucia: Queensland University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Boehlje, M. 1994. Information: What is the public role? Staff paper 94–17, Purdue University, Indiana.Google Scholar
  6. Boehlje, M. 1998. Information and technology transfer in agriculture: the role of the public and the private sectors. In S.A. Wolf (ed.) Privatization of Information and Agricultural Industrialization. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  7. Boehlje, M. and L.F. Schrader. 1995. The Industrialization of the Food System: Questions of Coordination. Paper presented to the Conference on Vertical Coordination in the Food System. Washington, D.C. (June 5).Google Scholar
  8. Bromley, D. 1992. Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Policy. San Francisco, Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.Google Scholar
  9. Casson, M. 1991. The Economics of Business Culture: Game Theory, Transaction Costs, and Economic Performance. Oxford: Oxford University of Press.Google Scholar
  10. Cary, J. W. 1993. Changing foundations for government support of agricultural extension in economically developed countries. Sociologia Rurali 33: 336–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cary, J. W. and R. L. Wilkinson. 1997. Perceived profitability and farmers’ conservation behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics 48 (1): 13–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cary, J. W. 1998. Issues in public and private technology transfer: The cases of Australia and New Zealand. In S.A. Wolf (ed.) Privatization of Information and Agricultural Industrialization. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  13. Coase, R.H. 1937. The nature of the firm, Economica 4:386–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cox, G., P. Lowe and M. Winter. 1998. Private rights and public responsibilities: The prospects for agricultural and environmental controls. Journal of Rural Studies 4: 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 1995. Review of Catchment and Land Management Program: Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  16. Department of Natural Resources and Environment (DNRE), Victoria 1997. Future Arrangements for Catchment Management in Victoria: Response by the Victorian Government to the Catchment Management Structures Review. Melbourne: DNRE.Google Scholar
  17. Edney, J.J. 1981. Paradoxes on the commons: Scarcity and the problem of equality. Journal of Community Psychology 9:3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Evenson, R.E. 1996. Valuing agricultural biodiversity. Proceedings of conference Global Agricultural Science Policy for the Twenty–first Century. Melbourne, Australia, 26–28 August.Google Scholar
  19. Feeny, D. 1998. Suboptimality and transaction costs on the commons. In E.T Loehman and D.M Kilgour (eds.) Designing Institutions for Environmental and Resource Management. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  20. Gardner, G.T. and P.C. Stern. 1996. Environmental Problems and Human Behavior. Allyn & Bacon, Boston.Google Scholar
  21. Gifford, R., and D.W Hine. 1997. Towards cooperation in commons dilemmas. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 29(3):167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gobster, P.H. 1995. Aldo Leopold’s ecological esthetic: Integrating esthetic and biodiversity values. Journal of Forestry 93 (2):6–10.Google Scholar
  23. Huffman, W.E. 2001. Finance, organization, and impacts of U.S. agricultural research: Future prospects. In S. Wolf and D. Zilberman (eds.) Knowledge Generation and Technical Change. Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. Juska, A. and L. Busch. 1994. The production of knowledge and the production of commodities: The case of rapeseed technoscience. Rural Sociology 59, 581–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kalaitzandonakes, N. and J.B. Bullock. 1998. Technology and information transfer in U.S. agriculture: The role of the Land Grant Universities. In S.A. Wolf (ed.) Privatization of Information and Agricultural Industrialization. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kloppenberg, J. 1991. Social theory and the de/reconstruction of agricultural science: local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology 56: 519–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Latour B. 1986. Visualization and cognition: Thinking with eyes and hands. In Knowledge and Society: Studies in the Sociology of Culture Past and Present. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mahoney, J.T. 1992. The choice of organizational form: Vertical financial ownership versus other methods of vertical integration. Strategic Management Journal 13: 559–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martin, P. 1991. Environmental care in agricultural catchments: Toward the communicative catchment. Environmental Management 15 (6): 773–783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Martin, L., R. Westgren, L. Schrader, L. Cousineau, N. LeRoc’h, R. Paguaga and V. Amanor-Boadu. 1993. Alternative Business Linkages: The Case of the Poultry Industry. George Morris Centre Food Industry Research Group, Guelph, Ontario, Working paper 10–93.Google Scholar
  31. Molnar, J.J., P.A. Duffy, K.A. Cummins and E. Van Santen. 1992. Agricultural science and agricultural counterculture: Paradigms in search of a future. Rural Sociology 57:83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Napier, T.L., and S.M. Camboni, 1996. Future Soil and Water Conservation Policies and Programs within the United States. Paper presented at Soil and Water Conservation Policies: Successes and Failures. Prague, Czech Republic (September 17–20).Google Scholar
  33. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Raby, G. 1996. Making Rural Australia: An Economic History of Technical and Institutional Creativity, 1788–1860. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Reeve, I. 1997. Property and participation: An institutional analysis of rural resource management and Landcare in Australia. In S. Lockie and F. Vanclay (eds.) Critical Landcare. Wagga Wagga, NSW: Charles Sturt University (Centre for Rural Social Research).Google Scholar
  36. Rivera, W.M. and J.W. Cary. 1997. Privatizing agricultural extension. In B.E. Swanson (ed.) Improving Agricultural Extension: A Reference Manual. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization.Google Scholar
  37. Rosenberg, N. 1976. Perspectives on Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ruttan, V. and Y. Hayami. 1973. Technology transfer and agricultural development. Technology and Culture 14(1, part I): 119–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Scarsbrick, B. 1998. Landcare: A recent Australian extension phenomenon. In S.A. Wolf (ed.) Privatization of Information and Agricultural Industrialization. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  40. Senker, J. 2001. Origins of public-private knowledge flows and current state-of-the-art: Can agriculture learn from industry. In, S. Wolf and D. Zilberman (eds.), Knowledge Generation and Technical Change: Institutional Innovation in Agriculture, Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  41. Stevenson, G.C. 1991. Common Property Economics: A General Theory and Land Use Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Watson, A.S. 1996. The price of research: Understanding the economics of charging for research. Proceedings of conference Global Agricultural Science Policy for the Twenty-first Century. Melbourne, Australia, 26–28 August.Google Scholar
  43. Whelan, S.P., T.G. MacAulay, R.G. Munro, D.P. Godden, and R.L. Batterham, R.L. 1996. Alternative Funding Strategies for Rural Research and Development. Research Report No. 14, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Sydney.Google Scholar
  44. Williams, K. J., J. W. Cary and R. Edgar. 1998. Perception of Native Vegetation in Rural Landscapes: Implications for Ecosystem Protection and Sustainable Land Use. Parkville: Australia: Institute of Land and Food Resources, University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  45. Williamson, O. 1973. Markets and hierarchies: Some elementary considerations. American Economic Review 63: 316–325.Google Scholar
  46. Wolf, S.A. 1998. Institutional relations in agricultural information: Transitions and consequences. In S.A. Wolf (ed.) Privatization of Information and Agricultural Industrialization. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  47. Zilberman, D., D. Sunding and M. Khanna, M. 1998. The changing nature of agricultural markets: Implications for privatization of technology, information transfer, and land grant research and extension. In S.A. Wolf (ed.) Privatization of Information and Agricultural Industrialization. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Cary
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Agriculture Fisheries and ForestryAustralia
  2. 2.University of MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations