†† Fall 2002 Colloquia
††† http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/colloquia/materials/fall2002_colloquia.html

Colloquia during Fall 2002:

Monday, September 9, 2002


Chaired by Elinor Ostrom, Co-Director of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis; Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Institutions, Populations, and Environmental Change; and Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science, Indiana University, Bloomington

The Roundtable session will be an opportunity for our colleagues on campus and students to become acquainted with this year's visiting scholars, including the research they will be conducting while in residence this year.

Monday, September 16, 2002


Presented by Prachanda Pradhan, Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington

This discussion paper proposes to look into the factors for the promotion of multi-functions of Water Users Associations (WUA) for irrigation management. Most of the WUAs in Nepal and in other countries are single water related function organization. It is proposed to look into the causes and factors why only a few multi-functions Water Users Associations (WUA) are operating in Nepal and in other countries. Some of the reasons for single function WUA in Nepal might be that the farming system in Nepal is subsistence agriculture. The economics is that you consume what you produce. As the result, there is not much surplus to exchange. Secondly, the agri-inputs are also supplied from within the households like compost manure and cow dung, which are usually collected at the household level. The application of chemical fertilizer and insecticides are very low. They do not undertake collective activity for procurement of these inputs. This might be due to non-commercialization of agriculture in Nepal. On top of that, the application of these inputs is way below the prescribed dose. However, they are very active in water related activities from intake repair to desilting of canal and water distribution, maintenance of the system, and resource mobilization, etc. By and large, except a few examples of multifunction WUAs from Philippines, People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, Niger and countries in Eastern Europe, there are many examples of single function WUAs in many parts of the world.

The recent trend is that WUAs are taking up, besides irrigation and water management, other activities as well. They have to diversify activities to meet the needs of the members for other services. As members of WUAs are engaged in many activities in the farming as well as for domestic work for decent income for themselves and to have a secure and enjoyable living in the community, irrigation and water management alone is not always the only problem for them.

Farmers are also engaged in other economic activities, social undertakings and cultural affairs. Many activities in the agricultural profession are done individually by the farm family. Other activities need joint actions of farmers to receive the desired and satisfactory results.

One of the services is water supply to the farm land. It needs cooperation with other water users, joint actions for O&M as well as for small repair works. WUAs get established because proper irrigation management is the need of the farmers.

The WUAs may take up other functions and activities because there is a need for such services to the members. This can be due to poor access to services, cost effectiveness of the delivery of services and lower cost to the members. The need for multifunction organization is due to institutional vacuum, increase in viability and profitability, need of leverage, credibility and legitimacy, limited managerial capacity in the village.

These extra-services to the members of WUA are for effective agricultural production. How can members of WUA receive these services in time, effectively and sufficiently for agriculture production and marketing of produce? Which major bottlenecks or problems are there to receive these services effectively and sufficiently? Which agriculture services may be organized by WUA jointly and what are the advantages for WUA if they organize these services jointly by themselves? Favorable conditions for a farmer organization to be become multi-functional and factors, which make it more difficult for WUA to become multi-functional, are to be looked into. What support is needed by a WUA?

Following the line of discussion presented earlier, it will also focus discussion to look at the relationship of impact of polycentric social structure and agriculture productivity. When WUA has difficulty to be multifunction organization, it might be possible to create a number of social and functional groups within the farming community to fulfill their multiple needs. It would be also useful to look at the relationship between the increased social capital and agriculture productivity in the farming community of an irrigated command area.

BIO: Professor Pradhan, Chairman, Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Promotion Trust, Kathmandu, Nepal, was Professor of Public Adminstration in Tribhuban University, Kathmandu, Nepal. He earned his Ph.D in Government from Claremont Graduate School and University Center, Claremont, California, in 1969. He was engaged in teaching and research in the university until 1980. He was a Research Associate at the John Kennedy School of Government, Harvard, in 1972, and a Fulbright Visiting Professor at the Center for International Studies, Cornell University, in 1979. For the last 20 years, he has been working in irrigation organizations and participatory irrigation management. He has several books to his credit. Patterns of Irrigation Organization: Case study of 21 Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems in Nepal, 1989, IIMI, Colombo, Local institutions and People's Participation in Public Works in Nepal, 1980, RDC, Cornell University, Ithica, USA. Edited books are: Irrigation Associations for Participatory Management in Asia, 1998, APO, Tokyo, Role of Institutions in Community Development, 1999, APO, Tokyo, Planning Process of Community Development, Village Level Planning, 2002, APO, Tokyo. He has worked in Asian and African countries for international organizations. At present, he is a Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Political Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Paper in PDF format.

Monday, September 23, 2002


Presented by Sheldon Gellar, Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington

Abstract: "Tocqueville in Africa" is the first chapter in a book that attempts to apply Tocquevillian analytics to Africa, in general, and to Senegal, in particular. Senegal has the reputation of being one of the most democratic countries in Africa. Most contemporary approaches to and analyses of democratization processes in Africa are a-historical and give little or no attention to pre-colonial influences in shaping political behavior and culture in post-colonial African polities. Tocqueville's understanding of the processes leading to the transition from aristocratic to democratic societies in Western Europe; his examination of the relationships between liberty, equality, and democracy; his critique of the dangers of overcentralization in his native France; and his analysis of the causes of America's "exceptionalism" are particularly relevant for understanding what is going on in Africa today.

The chapter identifies eight key components emphasized by Tocqueville in his studies of America and Western European societies, which will be applied to the study of democracy in Senegal:

1. The importance of history and the physical environment in shaping national character and institutions.

2. The importance of mores, customs, and values (culture) in shaping political institutions and political behavior.

3. An institutional mode of analysis that looks at how institutions actually function.

4. The identification of the concentration of power in overly centralized government and its bureaucracy as restricting freedom and initiative and leading to dependency and despotism.

5. The crucial importance of political and civil rights and self-governing communities and associations as preconditions for viable and thriving democracies.

6. The central role of religion and religious institutions in shaping political attitudes, institutions, and relationships.

7. An empirical approach to the study of societies that rejected the application of abstract political theories and philosophies.

8. A pluralistic approach that recognized diversity and understood that democracy would take different forms in nations with different histories and political cultures.

The chapter concludes with a discussion of the language and meaning of democracy in English, French, and Wolof, Senegal's lingua franca.

BIO:Sheldon Gellar is currently a Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. From 1989 to 2001, he was a Senior Research Associate in the Africa Unit of the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Gellar's ties with the Workshop go back to the early 1980s when he attended a Faculty seminar on Institutional Analysis and Development. He has also worked extensively in Francophone Africa as a consultant to USAID and other aid organizations to strengthen decentralization, democratic governance, civil society, and natural resource management and served as Democracy advisor to the USAID/Senegal mission in 1998-1999.

Gellar is the author of Senegal: An African Nation Between Islam and the West and Structural Changes and Colonial Dependency: Senegal 1885-1945. At the Workshop, he hopes to complete a book-Tocqueville in Africa: Democracy in Senegal-that applies Tocquevillian analytics to Africa and to work with Amos Sawyer to strengthen the Workshop's network with African scholars and practitioners seeking to promote self-governance.

Paper in PDF format.
Second paper titled "Spirit of Religion" in PDF format
Third paper titled "Democracy in Senegal" in PDF format

Monday, September 30, 2002

The Case-Study of Croatia

Presented by Zdravko Petak, Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington

Abstract: The paper deals with the fiscal decentralization policies that have been conducted in the former socialist countries since 1990. In most cases, decentralization meant continual and gradual replacing in providing public services to regional and/or municipal levels of governance. The systems differentiated in respect to the speed of governance transformation and the revenue sources for financing new policies at the local level respectively (systems of grants-in-aid vs. systems based on income taxes).

Quite opposite to such development in central-local government relations, since 1991 Croatia faced the trend of re-centralization in the system of governance. Central government took over the responsibility for many services traditionally provided by municipal governments (primary and secondary education, basic health care, etc.). After one decade in running things in such a way, the system of governance showed itself highly inefficient, particularly in giving prospects for local economic development and providing good quality social services.

At the beginning of 2000, a new system of decentralization was proposed by the Croatian national government, and many initiatives from non-governmental bodies appeared in order to propose a more decentralized system of governance. The basic point discussed in the paper is the features of these two initiatives of the “Decentralization policy framework in Croatia.” The role of independent researchers (social science scholars, university professors, advisors from foreign countries) is particularly pointed out.

BIO: Zdravko Petak is Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Political Science. He received his Ph.D. degree (Dr.sc.) from the public choice field in 1999 at the same university. Prior to his Ph.D. degree, he completed a BA degree in political science in 1985 and a MA degree (political economy of the Yugoslav federalism) in 1989 at the Faculty of Political Science. His doctoral thesis was published in a book titled Public goods and political decision-making (Zagreb, 2001, in Croatian). At the university, Dr. Petak lectures the courses of Public Policy and Introductory Economics for non-economists. His research interests focus on local government reforms, budgetary policy, and political finance. In 2000, he was appointed to the expert team of the Croatian Law Center (CLC), led by Professor Inge Perko Separovic, dedicated to propose the model of decentralizing public administration in Croatia. In 2001-2002, he also became a member of the CLC team that has proposed a new model for financing political parties in Croatia. From 2000 to 2001, he was senior advisor to the local government project in Croatia pursued by the Urban Institute in Zagreb. Dr. Petak is an active member of the Croatian Political Science association, and the president of that association from 1999.

Paper in PDF format

Monday, October 7, 2002


Presented by Michael McGinnis, Co-Associate Director, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, and Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science, Indiana University, Bloomington

Abstract:This presentation lays out a framework for the study of the institutional mechanisms through which violent disputes are resolved in different cultural settings. By locating disputes within the context of the pre-existing relationships between the disputants, this mode of analysis directs attention to the crucial importance of either satisfying actor expectations or transforming them in the process of dispute resolution. This approach draws inspiration from the Crawford-Ostrom ADICO grammar of institutions and from the classic book The Cheyenne Way by Llewellyn and Hoebel. A preliminary set of categories for a grammar of dispute resolution is outlined. Additional analytical tools and a tentative set of hypotheses are also discussed. The presentation concludes with a provisional list of "design principles" that might be used to craft more effective mechanisms for the resolution of disputes. Further research will be needed to refine this framework, implement tests of these hypotheses, and to improve upon this set of design principles.

BIO: Michael D. McGinnis is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington. He also serves as Co-Associate Director for the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, an inter-disciplinary research group focused on the study of institutions, development, and governance. McGinnis received a B.S. in mathematics from the Ohio State University in 1980 and a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Minnesota in 1985. He has been teaching at Indiana University since 1985. Professor McGinnis's teaching and research interests center on international conflict and governance. He teaches courses in world politics (Coping with War, Democracy and National Security, International Law), institutional analysis (Political Decision-Making, Research in Institutional Analysis, Development, and Governance), and research methods (Introduction to the Study of Politics, Political Data Analysis). In his own research he uses game theory to model arms races, alliances, wars, and other interactions between domestic and international politics. He has published several articles in political science and international relations journals, as well as a few chapters in edited volumes. He is co-author, with John T. Williams, of Compound Dilemmas: Democracy, Collective Action, and Superpower Rivalry (University of Michigan Press, 2001) and editor of three volumes of articles published by scholars associated with the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. He was co-editor of International Studies Quarterly (1994-98). His current research addresses institutional arrangements for the organization of rebellion and the peaceful resolution of disputes, with particular attention on contemporary conflicts in Africa.

PowerPoint Presentation (*.ppt format)

Monday, October 14, 2002

Theory and History from Imperial Japan, Postwar Japan, and the United States

Presented by Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University Foundation Professor at the Department of Economics and Public Policy, Kelley School of Business, Indiana University, Bloomington (Coauthor: J. Mark Ramseyer, Harvard Law School)

This is one chapter from the book, Judicial Independence: Economic Theory and Japanese Empirics, that Mark Ramseyer and Eric Rasmusen are writing. In preceding chapters we explain the institutions of modern Japan's judiciary and use regression analysis to test whether judges who rule in ways the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (the LDP) disliked were penalized in their careers. We find that they were for some kinds of cases-involving such things as the constitutionality of the military, injunctions against the national (but not local) government, reapportionment, and electioneering laws. They were not penalized for other kinds of cases-tax and criminal cases. Those results are drawn from our earlier published papers, reorganized and synthesized for the present book.

This chapter does not draw on our published work. It asks why the degree and type of independence of judges in modern Japan is different from that of other civil servants. In particular, we compare judges in modern Japan, pre-war Japan, and the United States; and we compare judges with other kinds of public employees, asking why they are not elected and why they are not directly under the control of politicians.

The working paper version of this chapter is at http://www.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/cirje/research/dp/2001/2001cf126.pdf.

The website for the book is at http://pacioli.bus.indiana.edu/erasmuse/jbook/jbook.htm.

The book is soon to be published by the University of Chicago Press as Measuring Judicial Independence: The Political Economy of Judging in Japan, see http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/15373.ctl.

The book can also be found at Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0226703886/ericrasmusenA/103-4910227-3475817.

BIO: ERIC RASMUSEN is Indiana University Foundation Professor of Business Economics and Public Policy at Indiana University's Kelley School of Business. Born and raised in Urbana, Illinois, he received his training at Yale and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and held positions at UCLA, Yale, and the University of Chicago before joining the faculty at Indiana. He specializes in the analysis of strategic behavior and the application of economic methods to law, and his widely used graduate textbook, Games and Information: An Introduction to Game Theory, has been translated into Italian, Spanish, and Japanese. He has published some forty articles on topics ranging from anti-trust law to international debt renegotiation. Webpage: http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/

Monday, October 21, 2002

British Columbia's Local Governance System

Presented by Robert L. Bish, Professor Emeritus of the School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, British Columbia

Abstract:One of the most difficult problems for metropolitan governance is to determine institutional arrangements and boundaries for different public goods and services that are preferred by different publics or possess different production characteristics. The most practical institutional solution to these issues in North America appears to be British Columbia's regional district-municipality system for local governance. Like most institutional innovations, it was created by politicians and administrators to solve pressing practical problems and it is doubtful that they recognized its full potential or were even aware of scholarly debates. Now, however, after nearly 40 years it has become obvious that the system is solving many of the problems posed by Ostrom, Tiebout, and Warren, Mancur Olson, and Gordon Tullock in the 1960's. This presentation will describe British Columbia's system, how it resolves theoretical issues, problems that have arisen, and its evolution. I also have suggestions for incremental modifications in a county-municipality system that could achieve similar results in many U.S. metropolitan areas.

BIO: Robert L. Bish is Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria in British Columbia. He received his Ph.D. in Economics with (a field in Public Administration with Vincent Ostrom) at Indiana University in 1968. Prior to moving to Victoria he was on the faculties of the University of Washington, Southern California, and Maryland. Dr. Bish is co-author with Vincent of Understanding Urban Government and with Vincent and Elinor Ostrom of Local Government in the United States. He has also authored 9 other books in urban economics, public finance, local government, coastal resource use, and aboriginal government and many articles, monographs, and reviews. He is also the author of Local Government in British Columbia and was commissioned by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to review the regional district governance system in 1999. He is one of 19 economists in Canada listed in the Who's Who in Economics, where selections are based on the number or times published work is cited in the social science journals.

Since retirement in 1998, in addition to continuing to publish on local government and aboriginal issues, Dr. Bish has also recently returned from Guyana, South America, where he was responsible for proposals for new fiscal relationships between the national government and the towns and the training and implementation of new budgeting processes in the towns.

Paper in PDF format.

Monday, October 28, 2002

Complementary Monopoly Revisited

Presented by Roy Gardner, Chancellors' Professor of Economics and Affiliated Faculty, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington (Coauthors: Noel Gaston, Bond University, and Robert T. Masson, Cornell University)

Abstract:Some Commons are uncommon, in the sense that they are hard to recognize, or only exist as a Commons for a brief period of time. Corruption is an example of the hard-to-recognize kind, while the Rhine River in 1254 exemplifies the latter. For a brief window in time, in the mid-Thirteenth Century, tolling stations along the Rhine constituted a restricted-entry Commons. This paper studies that Commons, and the institution that arose to remedy its increasingly tragic performance-the Rhine Union.

BIO: Roy Gardner was born in Peoria, Illinois, and graduated summa cum laude from Bradley University. He served as an artillery officer in the U.S. Army-Vietnam, winning a Bronze Star. He earned his Ph.D. in economics from Cornell University in 1975. He has been at Indiana University since 1983, and holds the title of Chancellors= Professor of Economics, and is Affiliated Faculty of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. He is also Senior Fellow of the Center for European Integration Studies, Bonn, Germany.

Dr. Gardner specializes in the theory of games and economic behavior. He has applied game theory to such topics as class struggle, spoils systems, draft resistance, alliance formation, monetary union, and corruption. A major focus of his research has been on human dimensions of global environmental change, which has received over a dozen years of National Science Foundation support. Much of his research appears in his book, Games for Business and Economics (Wiley, 1995), now in its fifth printing, with translations in Spanish and Russian (forthcoming).

Prior to coming to Indiana, Dr. Gardner was on the faculties of Iowa State and Northwestern. He participated in the first U.S.-France Exchange of Scientists (1979-80) to the Center for Mathematical Economic Planning (CEPREMAP) in Paris, and was an Alexander von Humboldt Fellow at the University of Bonn (1985-86). He has also been a research fellow at the Universities of Bielefeld, Mannheim, Amsterdam, the Institute for Advanced Studies (Vienna) and the National University of Ukraine (Kyiv). He has served on the National Research Council, Panel for Social and Behavioral Sciences (1989-92), is a member of 8 professional societies, and serves as referee or consultant to 36 scientific journals, 8 publishers, and 4 national science foundations.

Paper in PDF format.

Monday, November 4, 2002


Presented by Elinor Ostrom, Co-Director, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis; Co-Director, Center for the Study of Institutions, Populations, and Environmental Change; and Arthur F. Bentley Professor Political Science, Indiana University, Bloomington

Summary: Professor Ostrom is in the process of writing a book titled Understanding Institutional Diversity in Open Societies. Her presentation will be based on chapter 3, "Animating Institutional Analysis."

BIO: Elinor Ostrom is Co-director of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis; Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Institutions, Population, and Environmental Change; and Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington. She received A.B. (with Honors), M.A., and Ph.D. degrees in Political Science from UCLA. Her major research foci have revolved around the impact of diverse institutional arrangements on the incentives facing individuals in different action situations. She is the author of Governing the Commons (1990) and Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems (1992); co-author with Larry Schroeder and Susan Wynne of Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development (1993) and with Roy Gardner and James Walker of Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources (1994); and co-editor with Robert Keohane of Local Commons and Global Interdependence (1995), with Clark Gibson and Margaret A. McKean of People and Forests: Communities, Institutions, and Governance (2000), with Robert Costanza, Bobbi Low, and James Wilson of Institutions, Ecosystems, and Sustainability (2001), with Joanna Burger, Richard B. Norgaard, David Policansky, and Bernard D. Goldstein of Protecting the Commons: A Framework for Resource Management in the Americas (2001), and with Thomas Dietz, Nives Dolsak, Paul C. Stern, Susan Stonich, and Elke Weber of The Drama of the Commons (2002). She is also author or co-author of numerous journal articles and book chapters. She has received several awards and honors, including the Frank E. Seidman Distinguished Award in Political Economy (1997); the Johan Skytte Prize in Political Science from Uppsala University in Sweden (1999); an Honorary Doctorate in Economics from the University of Zurich (1999) and an Honorary Doctorate from the Institute of Social Studies, The Hague (to be awarded October 2002). She is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and is a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. She has served as President of the American Political Science Association, the Public Choice Society, the Midwest Political Science Association, and the International Association for the Study of Common Property. She has been an advisor to USAID and other governmental and non-governmental agencies and a member of the Scientific Committee of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change.

The table of contents and chapter 3 for the book Understanding Institutional Diversity in Open Societies can be found on our website at: www.indiana.edu/~workshop/ui. In addition to chapter 3, which will be discussed at this presentation, chapters 1, 2, 5, and 6 are also available at this URL. Professor Ostrom welcomes comments on all chapters.

Monday, November 11, 2002

An Institutional Analysis

Presented by Marilyn Hoskins, Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington

Abstract: Many international development organizations have wrestled with the concern that their efforts have not reached their intended "beneficiaries." Most major development organizations have gone back and forth with attempts to "decentralize" some of their activities "to make decisions closer to development problems" only to re-concentrate in an attempt to "be more efficient." Many bilateral and multilateral donors, banks, and technical assistance organizations, as well as NGOs, claim to be carrying out some type of "decentralized participatory programming with the local stakeholders guiding the process," which, of course, would be the ultimate in decentralization. However, it appears that many have not internalized what it takes to change the goal setting structures, rules and procedures, and financial and information flows which are involved in "true decentralization."

This presentation focuses on the process of decentralizing an innovative and experimental program in a very bureaucratic organization and in a sector that is known for being extremely top down. The organization was the Food and Agriculture Organization, an Agency of the United Nations focused on issues of food production and security and housing the technical departments for natural resources. The sector was forestry, which in the 1970s, when the program began, focused on foresters managing trees and protecting forests, as a national resource, from local "abuse for fuelwood or destructive agricultural practices."

For over a dozen years, I worked with some very constructive donors and supportive directors in the FAO to design, manage, monitor, and reformulate a community forestry program. The goal of the program was to bring the resources and technical skills of forestry to local people; a resource for rural development. This goal remained although it became more deeply nuanced as those involved with the program became more aware of the potentials and complexities involved in community forestry.

We had some good, some bad, and some ugly periods. Five different periods can be distinguished.

1. An exploratory period with a group of international forestry policy makers looking at what community forestry could be and why might it be worth developing in their countries.

2. When the requests to FAO for assistance in establishing community forestry became great, the program changed to looking at how. Although policy makers were still involved, the focus moved to developing field level tools, methods and approaches with field foresters. It also included training in participatory methods, and changes in educational materials in forestry schools.

3. In an effort to more effectively build tools with field foresters and community residents, a short stage of participatory action research was developed within a field project framework. This approach proved to be a disaster with a clash of goals, free riders, and gatekeepers. Two major conclusions were that a program such as this cannot work within a project framework and that unless there are local organizations/institutions and informed and skilled professionals at the community level, the program goals could never be reached.

4. The fourth period was one of working with local organizations/institutions in an increasingly decentralized manner. The funding, planning, and management moved largely to institutions in various countries, a network of facilitators formed strong social capital.

5. The fifth period was the demise of the program as a program.

During each of these phases the actors and the institutional arrangements changed. These modifications set the stage for differing goals, and changes in rules and procedures, in funding flows related to information flows, and in the presence or absence of gatekeepers and moral hazard or principal-agent problems. They created or destroyed the possibility for social capital to form and function. Problems of monitoring intangible goals such as institution strengthening, issues inherent in decentralization (such as the problem of letting go), as well as causes of the demise of the program will be raised for discussion

BIO:Marilyn Hoskins, an anthropologist, is a Visiting Scholar with the Workshop for the academic year. She lived and worked five years in Southeast Asia and five in West Africa. For five years she was the International Chair at Virginia Tech where she established the Participatory Development Program. She also worked with the East West Center in developing their Participatory Action Research.

While living in the Sahel, she became aware of and wrote about local dependence on trees for agriculture, income, and food security, especially during periods of drought. When she joined the Food and Agricultural Organization, it was to design and later to manage a global community forestry program. The original focus was changing the role of foresters from tree managers and protectors to using their resources and skills for rural development. The program became increasingly focused on governance. As the first social scientist to work in the Forestry Department, she introduced multidisciplinary approaches to analyzing issues as varied as conflict management, land tenure, indigenous knowledge, forestry and food security, and communal management. She became acquainted with the Workshop when faced with problems of integrating socio-economic and biophysical data and collaborated with the Workshop in initiating IFRI.

Since returning to DC in 1996, she has been consulting for The World Bank, WWF, AID, and other groups, mainly on community based natural resource management. The most recent work has been with a team organized by AID and CILSS to study the hypotheses that drove investment in natural resource management over the last 30 years; their relevance and effectiveness with an eye toward increasing our understanding of underlying hypotheses and issues in CBNRM.

During this year at the Workshop, she hopes to focus on interdisciplinary approaches to some of the cultural and institutional issues that shape the way different peoples respond to changes in their surroundings, develop social capital, or in other ways create the institutions that govern their lives and environments.

Note re Paper: The paper for this presentation is not complete. Please see author's note on the second page of her paper. A complete version will be put up on our website at a later date.

Paper in PDF format.

Note re Power Point Slides: It is important that you note the colors within the slides.

Presentation in PowerPoint format.

Monday, November 18, 2002

The Transformation of Property Rights in Land in Maasailand, Kenya

Presented by Esther Mwangi, Graduate Student of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs and the Department of Political Science Joint Ph.D. Program and Fellow at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington.

Abstract:Current decisions by groups to transform their collective land holdings into individual, titled parcels in Kenya's Maasailand are influenced by demographic pressures, governance challenges under the collective structure, and the promise of additional income opportunities in the new, individualized structure. The role of prior, exogenous, donor-driven, government-implemented land reforms has been crucial in narrowing the set of institutional alternatives available to the members of collective land holdings. The process of property rights modification and assignment is characterized by distributional conflict and contestation. The exclusion of eligible parties from securing the benefits of the new assignment and also the inequitable distribution of land assets in the individualized structure resulted in unhappy individuals and groups organizing to alter the process of change through a diversity of cultural, legal and bureaucratic institutions, without success. These results are consistent with theoretical predictions.

However, results also indicate that transformations of land property rights systems entail fundamental changes in socio-cultural systems that often escape the policy lens.

BIO:Esther is a candidate in the joint SPEA/Political Science joint Public Policy Program. She is also a Fellow at the Workshop and a recipient of the Elinor Ostrom-Johan Skytte award.

Prior to joining the Public Policy Program, Esther worked as a research scientist with the Kenya Wildlife Service. Here she was involved in the design and implementation of ecological monitoring programs in forest protected areas under KWS management. She was also a liaison with collaborating institutions such as the Forest Department, the Kenya Forestry Research Institute and the National Museums of Kenya. Esther got her Bachelors degree in Botany, Zoology, and Education from Kenyatta University in Kenya in 1989. In 1992, she obtained a Masters in Environmental Studies, focusing on the Biological Sciences, from Moi University, also in Kenya.

Esther has been involved in the IFRI program and more recently has been a collaborating researcher in the Gender and Land undertaking of UN-Habitat's Urban Secretariat. She has also collaborated with the Heinrich Boll Foundation, East Africa, on gender and sustainable development issues.

Esther's main research interests revolve around issues to do with the relationships between institutions and natural resource management. She is particularly interested in questions of land property rights transitions and their implications on ecology and natural resource management, as well as on post-transitional effects on collective capacities. The conservation of "wild life" continues to interest her.

At this time, only a hard copy of the paper is available. We will add this paper to our website at a later date.

Monday, November 25, 2002

Chair: Sheldon Gellar

Presented by
Barbara Allen, Department of Political Science, Carleton College, Northfield, MN
Aurelian Craiutu, Department of Political Science, Indiana University, Bloomington
Vincent Ostrom, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, IU, Bloomington
Filippo Sabetti, Department of Political Science, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec

Discussion Topics:Searching for a New Science of Politics; Harmonizing Earth with Heaven; Self-Governance and Terrorism; and other such topics.


Barbara Allen is professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at Carleton College, where she has also served as the Director of the Women and Gender Studies Program. She previously held the position of Assistant Professor of Management at the Indiana University Keller Graduate School of Business, specializing in small business entrepreneurship. For the past 25 years, she has also been affiliated with The Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, where her activities have emphasized her main areas of expertise: constitutional development, federalism, and covenantal theory; social voluntarism; civil rights and social movements; and the moral and ethical basis of law and legislative reform. She also serves on the boards of the Center for the Study of Federalism and the Hubert H. Humphrey Policy Forum.

Selected publications in covenant-making, social movements, political participation, political behavior and public opinion, and community development:

"Approaches to Using American Sign Language in Assessing the End-of-Life-Care Educational Needs of Deaf Patients" HEC Forum, September 2000 (with Nancy Meyers, John Sullivan, and Melissa Sullivan).

"The Electoral College in Historical and Philosophical Perspective," in Choosing the President: The Electoral College and Beyond, Paul D. Schumaker and Burdett A. Loomis, eds. New York: Chatham House Publishers, 2002, 31-52 (with Donald Lutz, Philip Abbott, and Russell Hansen)

"Martin Luther King's Civil Disobedience and the American Covenant Tradition," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 30:4 (fall) 2000, 71-113.

"Alexis de Tocqueville on the Covenantal Tradition of American Federal Democracy," Publius: The Journal of American Federalism, 28:2 (spring) 1998, 1-23.

Aurelian Craiutu received his Ph.D. from Princeton in 1999. He is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Bloomington, where he teaches history of political thought and modern political theory. His research interests include French political and social thought (Montesquieu, Tocqueville, Constant, Madame de StaŽl, Guizot, Raymond Aron), varieties of liberalism and conservatism, democratic theory, conceptions of patriotism and nationalism as well as theories of transition to democracy and democratic consolidation in Eastern Europe. Craiutu's dissertation, The Difficult Apprenticeship of Liberty: Reflections on the Political Thought of the French Doctrinaires, won the 2000 APSA's Leo Strauss Award for the best doctoral dissertation in the field of political theory and will be published by Rowman & Littlefield/Lexington (2002). Dr. Craiutu also edited Guizot's History of the Origins of Representative Government in Europe (Liberty Fund, 2002) and published In Praise of Liberty: Essays in Political Philosophy (1998, in Romanian). His articles were published in History of Political Thought, Political Theory, Review of Politics, History of European Ideas, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Government & Opposition, and East European Constitutional Review. He is currently working on a book on political moderation.

Sheldon Gellar is currently a Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. From 1989 to 2001, he was a Senior Research Associate in the Africa Unit of the Harry S. Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Gellar's ties with the Workshop go back to the early 1980s when he attended a Faculty seminar on Institutional Analysis and Development. He has also worked extensively in Francophone Africa as a consultant to USAID and other aid organizations to strengthen decentralization, democratic governance, civil society, and natural resource management and served as Democracy advisor to the USAID/Senegal mission in 1998-1999.

Gellar is the author of Senegal: An African Nation Between Islam and the West and Structural Changes and Colonial Dependency: Senegal 1885-1945. At the Workshop, he hopes to complete a book-Tocqueville in Africa: Democracy in Senegal-that applies Tocquevillian analytics to Africa and to work with Amos Sawyer to strengthen the Workshop's network with African scholars and practitioners seeking to promote self-governance.

Vincent Ostrom-a puzzler from a Tocquevillian world. See Workshop website for his vita at http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/people/vincent_ostrom.pdf.

Filippo Sabetti is a professor of political science at McGill University in Montreal. He received his Ph.D. in Political Science from IU; as can be expected, his relationship with the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University goes back to its very beginning. He was in residence here from 1987 to 1988. His teaching and research interests are in Comparative Politics and Canadian Federalism. His most recent publications include The Search for Good Government: Understanding the Paradox of Italian Democracy (2000, 2002), and Village Politics and the Mafia in Sicily (2002, second ed. of Political Authority in a Sicilian Village, 1984). His publications have also been translated in Catalan, Italian, and Spanish. He is completing a book length study tentatively entitled The Progress of Civilization and Democracy: Carlo Cattaneo's Comparative Inquiry, and starting another project dealing with the passage to modernity in France, Spain, and Italy, placing in sharp relief the emergence of multi-level governance in European development.

There will be no paper for this colloquia.

Monday, December 2, 2002

The Adoption of Participatory Policy-Making Techniques in Botswana and Uganda

Presented by Amy Poteete, Research Coordinator, International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI), Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington

Abstract:Under what conditions do government agents utilize participatory techniques for policy choice and implementation? What factors influence the extent of participation sought by government agents? I first develop a game theoretic model focusing on a minimal condition for participatory policy-making: the solicitation of information from those who will be affected by a policy. Government officials solicit information from citizens under two conditions: (1) if the rewards associated with soliciting information outweigh the costs independently of other considerations, or (2) if decision-makers seek the cooperation of clients and have less information than their clients about the policy's likely ramifications. If officials depend upon the support of citizens but know-or think that they know-how policies affect local development, they will not solicit information from citizens (unless they see the pursuit of participation as an end in itself). Instead, they may attempt to influence public opinion about policy proposals through the dissemination of information. The practices of government agents involved in the management of rangeland, wildlife, and forests in Botswana and Uganda conform to these expectations. The case studies also show how the rewards associated with the adoption of participatory policy-making-whether in terms of donor support, professional advancement, or cooperative relations with local residents-correspond with variation in the form and depth of participation.

Amy Poteete is research coordinator for the International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) research program. She received her Ph.D. in Political Science from Duke University in 1999. Her research examines various aspects of political development in the context of natural resource management, with a geographic focus on Africa. Current research, growing out of a dissertation on policies affecting range management in Botswana, investigates tensions between professionalism in the national bureaucracy and local democracy, and the historical legacies of divergent patterns of historical political consolidation and contemporary political competition in districts with comparable levels of ethnic heterogeneity. Other research utilizing the IFRI database touches upon the implications of complexity for institutional development and the linkages between patterns of resource use and perceptions of forest conditions. She has taught at Duke University, Humboldt University (in Berlin, Germany), and Yale University, and is currently part of the teaching team for a course on IFRI research methods at Indiana University.

Paper in PDF format.

Monday, December 9, 2002


Presented by Tilman Klumpp, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Indiana University, Bloomington

Abstract: This paper examines strategic voting in a model of indirect democracy: Citizens are partitioned into constituencies and elect representatives into a legislative assembly. These representatives vote on a policy proposal made by the executive. In this system of checks and balances, the policy outcome depends on the preferences of the executive and on the set of preferences of all elected representatives. Since citizens ultimately care about enacted policy rather than advocated policy, they may have strong incentives to vote for candidates whose preferences are dissimilar to their own. This type of strategic voting can occur even in cases when there are only two candidates in each constituency. Unlike in the existing literature on divided government and split-ticket voting (e.g., Alesina and Rosental, 1996), the legislative bargaining process is modeled explicitly here. The existence of voting equilibrium in pure strategies is proven, and characterizations are obtained for several configurations of voter and candidate preferences. The model illustrates how strategic considerations can lead to the midterm cycle in U.S. congressional elections, or "protest voting" for extreme candidates by moderate voters.

Tilman Klumpp teaches Game Theory and Microeconomics in the Economics Department at Indiana University, which he joined after receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Western Ontario (Canada) in 2002. Tilman's research focuses on game theory and political economy. At UWO, he collaborated with S. Govindan on a paper on epistemic foundations of Nash equilibrium refinements, and with M. Polborn on research in primary elections and campaign advertising. Tilman has also conducted research into the manipulability of financial markets through communication and cheap talk.

Paper in PDF format.

Back to index

Back to the Workshop Homepage
Copyright 2002, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis
Last updated:† October 28, 2002

, after nearly 40