Critiques of Ostrom’s Approach: A View from Fisheries Governance
This chapter provides a review of the eight institutional conditions outlined by Ostrom. By analysing these, it shows that they are society-centric and underestimate the capacity of the state in working with resource users. The chapter presents its central argument that the state is an important contributory factor in fostering the success of collective action in common pool resource management and concludes that it is necessary to bring the state back in. Therefore it is widely relevant to introduce the concept of meta-governance into managing common pool resources in association with Ostrom’s conditions.
- Berkes, Fikret. 1994. Co-management: Bridging the Two Solitudes. Northern Perspect 22 (2–3): 18–20.Google Scholar
- Carnaje, Gideon P., and Auraleen Mae S. Harina. 2009. Gerschenkron’s Perspective on Backwardness and the Role of Government and Nongovernmental Organizations in the Development of Local Capacity for Collective Action in Coastal Fisheries. http://www.cemuplb.net/Working%20Papers/2009-03-Carnaje.pdf. Accessed 25 July 2012.
- Delaney, Alyne Elizabeth. 2015. Japanese Fishing Cooperative Associations: Governance in an Era of Consolidation. In Interactive Governance for Small-Scale Fisheries, ed. S. Jentoft and R. Chuenpagdee. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
- Jentoft, Svein, and Knut H. Mikalsen. 2014. Do National Resources Have to Be Centrally Managed? Vested Interests and Institutional Reform in Norwegian Fisheries Governance. Maritime Studies 13 (5): 1–16.Google Scholar
- Knapp, Gunna. 2008. The Chignik Salmon Cooperative. In Case Studies in Fisheries Self-Governance, ed. R. Townsend, R. Shotton, and H. Uchida. Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
- Makino, Mitsutaku 2008. Marine Protected Areas for the Snow Crab Bottom Fishery Off Kyoto Prefecture, Japan. http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1497e/a1497e00.htm. Accessed 6 May 2013.
- ———. 2005. Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Pinkerton, Evelyn. 2003. Toward Specificity in Complexity: Understanding Comanagement from a Social Science Perspective. In The Fisheries Co-management Experience, ed. D.C. Wilson, J.R. Nielson, and P. Degnbol. http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/70/TOWARDSPECIFICITYINCOMPLEXI.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 5 August 2014.Google Scholar
- Pinkerton, E., and M. Weinstein. 1995. Fisheries That Work: Sustainability Through Community-based Management. http://www.davidsuzuki.org/publications/reports/1995/fisheries-that-work. Accessed 5 May 2014.
- Shelley, P., and T. van Rijn. 2014. The Role of Courts in Fisheries Management and Marine Biodiversity Protection. In Governance of Marine Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation: Interaction and Coevolution, ed. Serge M. Garcia, Jake Rice, and Anthony Charles. Online Book.Google Scholar
- Suenaga, Satoshi. 2008. Sandfish Resource Co-management in Akita Prefecture, Japan. In Case Studies in Fisheries Self-Governance, ed. R. Townsend, R. Shotton, and H. Uchida. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1497e/a1497e01.pdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2014.Google Scholar
- Tarko, Vlad. 2012. Elinor Ostrom: Life and Work. In The Future of the Commons. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2267381. Accessed 5 May 2013.
- Uchida, Hirotsugu. 2010. Community-based Management for Sustainable Fishery: Lessons from Japan. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/5309071ec013.pdf?expires=1413261137&id=id&accname=ocid177546&checksum=A0F2C8B8D39FDA9D0178E3DBA174D4C9. Accessed 5 Sept 2012.