Fall 2003 Colloquia

Colloquia during Fall 2003:

Monday, September 8, 2003


Amos Sawyer, Associate Director and Research Scholar, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, will chair this session.  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 15, 2003



Presented by Dr. Tobias Haller, Department of Social Anthropology, University of Zurich, Switzerland, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: This paper deals with the changes in institutions governing Common Pool Resources (CPR) such as pasture, wildlife and fisheries among the Ila, Plateau-Tonga and Batwa in the Kafue Flats, Southern Province in Zambia. It is one example out of seven studies in a wider research project on CPR-management, institutional change and conflicts in five African countries and the respective floodplain areas (Mali (Internal Niger Delta), Cameroon (Waza-Logone), Tanzania (Pangani River Basin and Rufiji Floodplain) and Botswana (Okavango Delta) and Zambia see Haller 2002 a, 2002b). The question on how comparative research on CPR-institutions shall be done is crucial in this project and therefore reflections from Agrawal (2002) are taken up as a basis for discussion in order to explain why Elinor Ostrom’s design principles (DPs) for well working CPR-institutions and the approach of the New Institutionalism by Jean Ensminger are used. The paper argues that by comparing old and new institutions with Ostrom’s DPs and by getting the interaction between the external and internal world in a New Institutional approach by Jean Ensminger, institutional CPR dynamics can be seen more clearly. The Ila cattle herders of the Chiefdom Nalubamba, the indigenous BaTwa fishermen and the neighbouring Plateau-Tonga agro-pastoralists are used as an example to show how the DPs can be found among pre-colonial CPR-institutions – often embedded in religious believe systems – and how these are changed by the colonial and the post-colonial state, that takes over the control of the CPRs. But because the state is unable to provide well functioning institutions it contributes to a de facto open access and to the degradation of CPRs such as fisheries and wildlife and to a certain extent also pasture. One of the driving forces for the external change is the decline of the Zambian copper-based economy, making a lot of urban people look for economic alternatives and leading to a decline in state promoted monitoring and sanctioning. Structural adjustment programs and privatisation schemes under the last president, Chiluba, have also contributed to this development. Under this situation CPRs get more and more valuable especially for the market of the capital Lusaka and so lead to a change in relative prizes, which affect the Kafue Flats area. This process has also been strongly influenced by large-scale environmental changes such as drought, cattle disease and regulated flooding by dams. In the contested floodplain those groups and individuals that have more bargaining power are able to shape the institutional design or impose the lack of it. The different actors and interest groups use ideologies such as citizenship vs. being indigenous, ethnic identity vs. class conflict, protection of livelihoods vs. conservation in order to legitimise their claim to a particular resource. Therefore the actors are not only local people and immigrants but also officers form Wildlife and Fishery Departments and politicians.


BIO: Dr. Tobias Haller (1965) is a senior researcher at the Department of Social Anthropology, University of Zurich, and lecturer at the Federal Technical High School, Zurich, Switzerland. His main focus is on resource use in Africa. He has done fieldwork in Northern Cameroon on traditional agriculture, institutional change and environmental crisis among traditional peasants groups in the Mandara Mountains. His PhD is on this research and is published in German (title in English: Empty Granaries, eroded fields and the women’s beer: Adaptation and crisis among the Ouldeme and Platha in the Mandara Mountains in Northern Cameroon. Reimer: Berlin, 2001, for an English article see Haller 2003). He has been a lecturer for six years at the Department of Social Anthropology, University of Zurich, and he has specialised in Ecological Anthropology and Institutional Economics with a focus on Common Pool Resource Management and the New Institutionalism. Since 1995, he is a member of the NGO Institute for Ecology and Action Anthropology, Switzerland (infoe CH), and has published in collaboration with this NGO a comparative study on oil companies and indigenous peoples (title: Fossile Ressourcen, Erdölkonzerne und indigene Völker, Focus Verlag; Giessen, 2000). This study includes research on 18 cases of interaction between indigenous peoples and oil companies in eight countries (Latin America, Africa, Asia) (English version of the study is forthcoming). At the moment, Dr. Haller is doing his post-doc study on institutions governing CPR-management in the Kafue Flats in Zambia and is leading a comparative research project entitled Common Property Institutions and Relations of Power: Resource-Management, Change and Conflicts in African Floodplain Wetlands. One part is financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation (research in Zambia), another by the Dep. of Social Anthropology (Mali and Botswana) and by the NCCR North-South: Research Partnerships for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change (Cameroon and Tanzania). In two years, the comparative study on this research shall be published. For further information, on the research project see

(for more information see description, for English publications see NCCR homepage under people involved; T. Haller).


Paper and table in PDF


Map in PDF


Monday, September 22, 2003




Presented by Dr. Ganesh Shivakoti, Associate Professor, Agricultural and Natural Resources Economics, Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: As an initial step to address the policy issues for improved governance and management of Asian irrigation systems, this paper highlights the enormous diversity of policy problems faced by Asian irrigation systems. The paper then extensively reviews the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework and its application possibility in the policy analysis of diverse governance and management modes of irrigation systems in Asia. By reviewing the key institutions and intervention process of Asian irrigation systems, the paper underscores the variability in interventions as well as the dynamic institutional responses of farmers throughout Asia. The paper identifies key policy and governance issues that need to be addressed including coproduction, adaptive management, and resilience development from select irrigation (individual or groups of systems in a physical setting) case studies from several countries including China, India, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. The second part of the paper discusses in detail the basis for the development of dynamic irrigation institutions in montane areas of northern Thailand including how the modern government agency, namely, the Royal Irrigation Department, adopted the customary practice to legal recognition (provision) in the participatory irrigation management mode as a successful example of coproduction and adaptive management strategy. The paper also brings an example from a case study on how irrigation activities, farmers’ participation, and involvement equations are changing following the intervention on farmers managed irrigation systems by government agency. The final section of the paper briefly overviews the irrigation development in montane areas of Vietnam and the struggle of the people for sustaining livelihood; and, moreover, the importance of irrigation in alleviating poverty in the areas with fragile ecosystems. The adaptive management strategies developed by the farmers through reinforcement of self-governance in villages is beginning to show their robustness and better performance. Thus, there is a possibility of better prospects for improved governance and management policy for irrigation development.


BIO: Dr. Ganesh P. Shivakoti is Associate Professor of Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics at the Asian Institute of Technology (AIT) in Bangkok. He obtained his Ph.D. in Resource Development from Michigan State University, USA. Prior to joining as Visiting Faculty at AIT in 1998, he was faculty at the Department of Agricultural Economics of Tribhuvan University in Nepal for more than 20 years. He has several publications in inter-disciplinary research journals, edited volumes to his credit and the recent publication includes a book jointly edited with Professor Elinor Ostrom, Improving Irrigation Governance and Management in Nepal (2002), ICS Press, California. Dr. Shivakoti’s professional interest areas include farming system economics; common property resources especially institutions and policies related to water, land and forestry; and population and environment relationships. E-mail: 


Paper in PDF


Monday, September 29, 2003




Presented by Karen Vella, Post-Doctoral Fellow, (Institutions for Sustainable Development), CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Northern Futures Research Group, Townsville, Australia, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: Institutional arrangements have a profound impact on the use and management of multiple use commons. The emergent question is whether existing institutional arrangements governing multiple use commons are meeting sustainability needs and delivering desirable outcomes for stakeholders and communities.


Sustainability has posed particular challenges to the rationality of bureaucratic organization and decision making. The emerging paradigm for sustainability governance emphasizes systems approaches, adaptive management, incentives, collaborative governance, decentralization, communicative planning, and conflict resolution. However, in many cases, the delivery of these approaches in practice requires substantial institutional change and this must be based on a deeper understanding of the relationships between institutions and behavior.


Using Australia’s Outback Environments as the context for study, this paper will outline a general approach for understanding institutions in multiple use contexts and evaluating institutional efficacy in multiple use commons. The methodology proposed combines the Ostrom (1996) framework, an adaptation of the ISO14001 Environmental Management Systems framework, and Game Theoretic Approaches to identify the critical elements of institutional arrangements, set priorities for institutional change, and propose arrangements that are likely to be more effective in meeting stakeholder needs. 


Keywords:  Sustainability governance, natural resource management, common property resources, Outback Australia, property rights, land use.


BIO: Karen Vella is a Post-Doctoral Researcher with the CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems in Townsville, Australia, and is a Visiting Scholar at the Workshop for the fall semester.  Her particular research interests include adaptive institutional arrangements, self-governance, institutional evaluation, and frameworks for undertaking audits of governance systems.  Her PhD research adapted the ISO 14001 into a framework for evaluating public and private governance arrangements in the Australian Sugar Industry.


Along with colleagues at the Northern Futures Research Group, Karen is presently working on a major research project into the institutional arrangements governing multiple land use in arid and semi-arid regions across Northern Australia.  This project is in the early stages of development and is the primary reason for Karen’s attendance at the Workshop this semester.



1 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO Australia)


Paper in PDF


Monday, October 6, 2003




Presented by James Acheson, Professor of Anthropology, University of Maine, Orono


Abstract: Although territoriality of one kind or another exists in every society, the way territorial systems come into being and develop over time needs more attention. This paper describes the development of the informal territorial system in the Maine lobster industry over the last century. In the lobster fishery, territories result when groups of fishermen find it worthwhile to occupy an area and forcibly exclude competitors from other harbors. A very large number of variables affect this cost/benefit analysis, including concentration of lobsters, law enforcement, travel costs, technical changes, and the ability to organize group for offense and defense. In this paper, I show that as these variables change, the strategies of lobster fishermen have altered resulting in three different stages of territoriality. The case of the Maine Lobster industry has implications for the study of territoriality in general.


BIO: James Acheson's field of specialization is economic anthropology. He has done substantial field research in the Purepecha speaking area of the State of Michoacan, Mexico, and in fishing communities along the coast of Maine. His Mexican work has been concerned with the social and cultural aspects of economic development and modernization. The Maine fisheries research has focused on social science aspects of fisheries management. In the past ten years, he has done work on the management of common-pool resources. More recently, he has been applying the principles of the new institutionalism and rational choice theory to a variety of problems, including the organization of household firms, fish markets in New England, and the development of local level institutions to manage resources and promote economic change.


Paper in PDF


Monday, October 13, 2003




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


Abstract: The exploitation and conversion of forest ecosystems is often explained by economists as being the result of an undervaluation of the goods and services provided by the forest. The line of argumentation continues and says that in order to sustain forest environments, the goods and services they provide should be valued. However, in their quest to value environmental goods and services, many economists apply valuation techniques that have pre-defined value concepts rooted into the history of one particular culture from which their discipline originates. Applying these techniques in foreign cultural contexts can lead to adverse environmental effects on forests and species diversity. Taking a broader view and recognizing economic values as institutions that order socio-ecological interaction allows for a better understanding of the underlying value concepts held in different cultures and creates an understanding of the diversity of institutional arrangements. Instead of replacing indigenous value perceptions by Western perceptions of economic value by applying mainstream valuation techniques, a variety of different techniques can be applied to understand the values and institutions that have evolved at the interface of human and ecological systems. In this article, I make an attempt to relate ecosystem functions to human values. I will demonstrate the pitfalls of applying market based valuation techniques and the potential advantages of a diversity of valuation methods to assess the institutional diversity of biodiversity.


Key words: economic values, institutions, ecosystems, biodiversity, culture


BIO: Franz Gatzweiler studied agricultural economics at the Friedrich-Wilhelm University of Bonn and Humboldt University of Berlin. He specialized in international agricultural development and did his PhD research on the “Changing Nature of Economic Value - Indigenous Forest Garden Values in Kalimantan, Indonesia.” Later, he coordinated the Central and Eastern European Sustainable research project funded under the 6th framework program of the EU. The project aimed at understanding how policies, institutions, and farming systems achieve the transformation towards sustainability under multiple forces of change such as evolution and accession. Presently Franz Gatzweiler is a Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (Indiana University, Bloomington) where he participates in the training of the International Forestry Resources and Institutions research program. Future research interests are devoted to the study of institutions and polycentric governance structures and how these relate to multiple environmental functions provided by complex agroforestry systems.


Paper in PDF


Tuesday, October 14, 2003




Presented by Prof. Dr. Konrad Hagedorn, Chair of the Division of Resource Economics and Director of the Berlin Institute of Co-operative Studies at Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: This paper focuses on two theoretical concepts that are popular in agricultural economics: the "old" theory of delayed structural change in agriculture and resulting disparity of factor incomes, and the "new" theory on multifunctionality of agriculture, which refers to changes in jointness of production of commodities and non-commodities. These approaches are reconsidered from an institutional point of view, particularly by comparing the different impact of integrating institutions, such as the family farm system, and segregating institutions, for example, markets and competition, on structural adjustment and joint production. The results illustrate that agricultural change can only be properly understood if both the diversity of institutions and technologies and the interplay between institutions and technologies is paid attention to. Finally, the author outlines an analytical framework that gives an impression of the design of Institutions of Sustainability, and raises the question as to what normative implications institutionalizing sustainable agricultural development may be associated with.


BIO: Prof. Dr. Konrad Hagedorn is the head of the Division of Resource Economics and Director of the Berlin Institute of Co-operative Studies at Humboldt University of Berlin. He has outstanding experience in agricultural and environmental policy research as well as political economy studies and concentrates on the combination of institutional economics, environmental policies, and transformation issues. His research emphasizes the forces and outcomes of institutional change and political reforms and focuses on the political and institutional aspects of natural resources and environmental protection. This includes CAP reform and EU enlargement processes as well as developing and transition countries. His main interest is oriented towards the development of theoretical and empirical approaches that are able to improve the understanding and the design of institutions required for sustainable resource and environmental management.


Paper in PDF


Thursday, October 16, 2003




Presented by Prof. Dr. Hartmut Kliemt, Interdisciplinary Center for the Humanities, Department of Philosophy, University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany


Abstract: Everywhere in the advanced world the organization of organ transplantation is regarded as a “natural” object of government intervention and regulation. Across the board what could be done relying on spontaneous order and self-governance under subsidiaric state action is put under public control. The comparative institutional analysis of this paper shows that government intervention even in the “naturally” public realm of organ transplantation made things worse rather than better. The institutional economics riddle is why what worked well or started to work well under arrangements of private governance was not left alone. Eurotransplant, which originally emerged as a private club of transplant centres, can serve as a case in point. It is shown in some institutional detail that an incentive compatible reciprocity scheme could have solved most ethical and economic problems of organ donation and allocation very easily if things had been left to the private sector with some subsidiaric support from the public. That this did not happen, even though rent-seeking was not involved, might teach us a fundamental lesson about the relationship between self-governance and government interference in general. It is indicated how the expressive voting literature may bring us closer to a solution of such problems.


BIO: Prof. Dr. Hartmut Kliemt has degrees in management science and philosophy. He has held positions as research assistant in operations research, 1974-1976; and philosophy of law, 1976-1980; Habilitation in Philosophy, 1983; afterwards temporary professorships in Munich and Frankfurt; and full professor for practical philosophy at Duisburg since 1988. He has been an adjunct research associate of The Center for Study of Public Choice in Fairfax, Virginia, since 1992.


Paper in PDF


Monday, October 20, 2003




Presented by Albert Breton, Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada


Abstract: The aim of the paper is to introduce in the theory of competitive federalism—a theory in which competition is the main determinant of the vector of goods and services provided by governments, and in which competition also shapes the assignment of powers in decentralized structures—the theory of empowerment developed by education, social psychology, and social work theorists. The reason for bringing these two bodies of theory together is to try to discover how local governments, in contexts in which they are constitutionally or de facto defined as the "creatures" of provincial or state governments, can become empowered and thus play a larger role in the efficient functioning of the public sector. The rapprochement does shed light on what could be done.


BIO: Albert Breton received his BA from Collège de St. Boniface, University of Manitoba, Fort Gary, and his Ph.D. in Economics from Columbia University, New York City. He has taught at the Université de Montréal, Carleton University (Ottawa), Université Catholique de Louvain, The London School of Economics, Harvard University, the Università di Perugia, the Université de Paris I (Panthéon-Sorbonne), the Institut de Sciences Politiques de Paris, and the Institute for Social and Economic Change (Bangalore, India). He is currently Emeritus Professor of Economics in the Department of Economics, University of Toronto and Research Professor in the Dipartimento di Economia, Università di Torino. He is the author of many books and articles on questions of economic theory and policy.


From 1970 to 1979, Professor Breton was Special Advisor to Prime Minister Trudeau, while still teaching at the University of Toronto. From 1979 to 1982, he was Vice-chairman of the Applebaum-Hébert Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee and, from 1982 to 1985, he was a Commissioner with the Macdonald Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada. He served on the Board of Governors of the National Theatre School of Canada, and on the Canadian Economic Policy Committee of the C.D. Howe Research Institute. He is an Officer of The Order of Canada since 1984 and a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada since 1979. He has an LL.D. (Honoris Causa) from the University of Manitoba. He is a past President of the Canadian Economics Association. A Festschrift in his honour was recently published.


Paper in PDF 


Tuesday, October 21, 2003




Presented by Dr. Markus Hanisch, Manager of the Institute for Cooperative Studies, Humboldt University of Berlin, Germany, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: After collective-farm-land was restituted to millions of private owners in the 1990s, policy makers all over Central and Eastern Europe believe that land fragmentation is the most important impediment to a functional land market and to the development of competitive agricultural production. While this worry may or may not be justified, the main argument of this paper is that programs that allocate a central role to transitional government in land consolidation may be inappropriate. To explicate this argument, I confront theory predictions taken from transaction cost and bandit models of government with the historical record of the case of Bulgarian land politics since 1990. I conclude that those factors that have reduced both government credibility and the effectiveness of agricultural restructuring over the last ten years are still very likely to impact the costs and results of land consolidation in the future. In this situation, "doing nothing" might prove a socially more desirable role for government than state-agency-driven land consolidation. However, this does not mean that there is no role for the Bulgarian state to reduce high cost of land transactions. A list of recommendations for crafting institutions in support of land transactions that do not overstrain the capacities of political actors is provided.


BIO: Dr. Markus Hanisch is an agricultural economist. He received his doctorate from The Humboldt-University of Berlin. He is the current manager of the Institute for Cooperative Studies at the Humboldt University. His research interest focuses on ownership transformation and land market development in Central and Eastern Europe and on the more general issue of co-ownership. During his one month stay at the Workshop, he intends to intensify research collaboration (Transcoop-project) with Workshop colleagues and to improve two planned publications. One is a book publication on the basis of his dissertation work (Property Reform and Social Conflict- A Multi-Level Analysis of the Emergence of Agricultural Property Rights in Post Socialist Bulgaria). The other is a paper on the role of transitional government in land consolidation.


Paper in PDF


Monday, October 27, 2003




Presented by Mark Kaplan, Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: It is characteristic of orthodox Bayesians to hold that


1. for each person and each hypothesis she comprehends, there is a precise degree of confidence that person has in the truth of that proposition, and


2. no person can be counted as rational unless the degree of confidence assignment she thus harbors satisfies the axioms of the probability calculus. 


It is a doctrine that a great many philosophers have found wanting.  They have complained


that the supposition that we have precise degrees of confidence assignment is implausible;


that, even if each of us had such an assignment, the condition on a person's being rational that the orthodox Bayesian endorses would be far too demand­ing to be applied to beings, such as ourselves, who have limited logical and mathematical acumen;


that, even regarded as a condition on the rationality of an ideal inquirer (one who has a degree of confidence assignment, together with sufficient cognitive resources to ensure that this assignment satisfies the axioms of the probability calculus), the Bayesian's condition is at odds with our intuitions about what such an inquirer should do in cases of ignorance.


My purpose will be twofold:


to show how to craft a Bayesianism that is immune to these criticisms, and


to explain how this Bayesianism finds a foundation in considerations concerning rational preference.


BIO: Mark Kaplan is Professor of Philosophy, and Chair of the Department of Philosophy, at IU Bloomington.  He received his AB at Brown University and his PhD at the University of Michigan.  He has taught at Southern Methodist University and University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and visited at University of Pittsburgh and the University of Pennsylvania.  Author of Decision Theory as Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 1996), he writes about decision theory, about epistemology, and about the relation between the two.  His work has been supported by the National Science Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the School of Advanced Studies at the University of London, where he recently spent a year as a Visiting Fellow. 


Paper in PDF


Monday, November 3, 2003




Presented by Professor Minoti Chakravarty-Kaul, Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: It is in the fitness of events that the Colloquium, after being proved an enduring institution for nearly thirty years at the Workshop, should provide a platform for “a quest”—a term that can perhaps best describe what the Vincent Ostrom collection of  papers portend. The Colloquium had been a long-sustained vision of the founders—the Ostroms—to provide scholars with an environment of a workshop where artisans are encouraged to bring forth their artifacts whether fashioned from tools steeped in traditions long tried and tested, or based on speculative realms of untried theories and ideas. But all share the willingness to contribute to the foundations of a self-governed intellectual endeavor.


In such a setting, the Collection would add yet another vantage point for all those scholars who have long been associated with the Ostroms and the Workshop but have not had the occasion to visit Bloomington personally. The papers in the collection provide a window into a half century of American political thought when attempts were made to seek out interdisciplinary and intercontinental confluences of ideas and philosophies. It also reflects the struggles within the world of academia where education is the beginning perhaps, but not the end of real world problems.


The significance of the collection grows beyond the volume of the papers it contains, for it challenges scholars, of harried times in the new millennium, to renew their dedication to values, eternally the hallmark of scholarship, nay citizenship—that of “critical reflection as the basis of choice.” The life and works of Vincent Ostrom has been one such exemplar. Vincent’s papers also reflect continuity and change in the world of university education in the United States of America. Therefore, the “Collection” heralds a challenge from the past for the future—such is the insight of this quest for the intellectual roots of what Vincent calls self-governance, of freedom itself, and of what we know as the symbolic virtue of “The Workshop.”    


The papers archived are collated and classified according to a system that broadly follows the contours as it were of Professor Ostrom’s own ideas of classification. Specifically, however, there are two major divisions and these have been organized chronologically again in broad subcategories.


The first division relates to communications such as correspondence, memoranda, and statements made by Vincent Ostrom in his career spanning more than five decades of the twentieth century; and source material of/for teaching/research, consultation, advocacy, policy formulations, state constitutions, public administration, and conferences.


The second division consists of his research related compositions and drafts and final documents of presentations in conferences, scholarly exchange, debates, and publication and drafts of “ghost” speeches written for state Governors.


It is important to emphasize here that “the collection” is not just a matter of history to be relegated to the past. The papers clearly provide a window into a half century of political thought and conjure pictures of a yet unfinished struggle therein to reach out to interdisciplinary resolutions. Vincent himself will vouch that democracies are as vulnerable today as they were when Tocqueville had set foot on American soil. The Collection is poised then to be yet another beginning, which may be characterized (using the title of John Bunyan’s book Pilgrim’s Progress) as “The Artisans’ Progress” in the straight and narrow path of democracy, both “to” liberty and “of” freedom.


BIO: Minoti Chakravarty-Kaul retired in 2002 from Lady Shri Ram College, University of Delhi as Reader in Economics. All her major degrees in Economics, including a PhD, were earned from the Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi. Her major area of research is property rights in natural resources. Her first book reflects the tension between communities and institutions of the market and governments. Common Lands and Customary Law: Institutional Change in Northern India over the Past Two Centuries was published by the Oxford University Press in 1996. Her current research has to do with the organization and archiving of the papers in the “Vincent Ostrom Collection.” It is this work that is the subject of her presentation. Her next project will be to continue her research and two book-length manuscripts—one an edited volume of Sir Henry Sumner Maine’s correspondence; the other about his contribution to the “The Great European Debate—A Failed Discourse” in the nineteenth century.    


Presentation in PDF (870K)


Monday, November 10, 2003




Presented by Sam Joseph, Development Practitioner and Trainer, Bangalore, India, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: The word “participation” has acquired a prominent place in the vocabulary of all those who work with development issues. In the academic world many people have helped to increase the understanding of the dimensions of participation. However, practitioners in the field usually either depend on their own experience or take recourse to so called “success stories” to nurture participatory processes. Both these approaches are limited to the experience of the practitioner and can be strengthened by the use of appropriate theoretical models which have been simplified.


This process implies several steps. First, a workable theoretical model has to be singled out. Then it has to be tested in the field. This testing involves the conversion of the principles in a theoretical model into simple learning milestones embedded in training modules. Each training module has to be field tested. Finally it has to be translated into the local language so that local people can use the material. This paper will share one approach to nurturing collective action which has been tested on a small scale in several countries in Asia and Africa and on a larger scale in Somaliland, and Rwanda.


This approach accepts that individuals see the world around them through their own unique perspective. This perspective needs to be merged with the perspective of other individuals suffering from the same problem. Using visual tools practitioners can help a group to arrive at a common understanding of the problem. Such an understanding has to be moved from an intention to a purposeful group agreement. The application of soft systems is useful for this stage. Group agreements need to be operational. Here, practitioners can turn to work done at the Workshop in the area of institutional design, and polycentric governance which in turn leads to the use of material on organizational design and self-managed teams.


The presentation by Sam will touch briefly, from a practitioner’s viewpoint, these questions: How do you help a group to arrive at a common definition of a problem? How do you help this group to move to a purposeful agreement? How do you help them to engage in purposeful group action which is adaptive?


There will be a detailed presentation on how the work of the Workshop on institutional design has been used to nurture self-governing institutions in more than a 1000 villages in Rwanda, Somaliland, and Sierra Leone.


BIO: Sam Joseph is a development practitioner and trainer who works in both Asia and Africa and is at the Workshop for the fall semester. At present, Sam provides support to the government of Rwanda through periodic visits to a national program designed to enable community collective action. A similar process is starting up in Sierra Leone with his help. He has also worked with ActionAid, a UK based organization operating in 35 countries, in different capacities: Regional Advisor Africa, Country Director Somaliland, Field Director, India. Before ActionAid, he was involved in secular program of the Methodist Church in India, in technical/vocational skills education, general education, and was part of a team that established soya as a new industry in India.


Paper in PDF


Monday, November 17, 2003




Presented by Sue E. S. Crawford, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska


Abstract: Much of the work of governance occurs through coalitions of government and nonprofit entities and operates through the political interaction of the individuals who represent those corporate entities at the table.  At the local level, public and private grant rules requiring partnerships and norms common in many public professions that emphasize the importance of working in coalitions result in coalition processes that influence how resources are expended, how problems or opportunities are defined, and how values get authoritatively enforced.  Effective democratic governance, especially at the local level, depends heavily on the whether these coalition processes work well.  Increasing attention to faith-based initiatives in governments and foundations creates a setting that encourages recruitment of religious institutions into these coalitions.  This paper develops a theoretical agenda for analysis of the formation and operation of such local coalitions, with particular attention to local public health coalitions that include religious institution partners.


BIO: Dr. Sue Crawford is Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Creighton University.  Her research focuses on the interplay of institutions, professions, and public policy.  She has published articles in American Political Science Review, PS: Political Science and Politics, Research in Public Administration, Journal of Public Affairs Education, Non-Profit and Volunteer Section Quarterly, and the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. Dr. Crawford serves on editorial boards for the Non-profit and Volunteer Sector Quarterly and for the Journal of Health Administration Education.  She is co-editor of Christian Clergy in American Politics (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001) and co-author of four chapters in this volume, and co-author of a book on the political lives of women clergy currently under advance contract with University of Alabama Press.  She is currently on sabbatical with a Louisville Institute sabbatical grant to study religious institution engagement in health coalitions.


Paper in PDF


Monday, November 24, 2003




The mode of analysis used by Alexis de Tocqueville in examining patterns of order in nineteenth-century America has inspired the type of institutional analysis that has informed Workshop research and has been adapted to investigate patterns of order in a variety of situations. The passage to modernity, to use Filippo Sabetti’s phrase, involves the nation-state, which has given way to pillage and plunder, to self-organizing and self-governing capabilities complemented by public entrepreneurship in creating complementarities in market and public economies.  This week’s colloquium starts off a week of discussions by a small group of scholars of manuscripts-in-progress by Workshop colleagues on Tocquevillian analytics and the possibilities of democratic transformation in human society.  Among the manuscripts are:


Barbara Allen, Tocqueville, Covenant, and the Democratic Revolution


Sheldon Gellar, Democracy in Senegal


Mike McGinnis, Organizing for Rebellion and Peace in the Horn of Africa


Amos Sawyer, Plunder, Pillage, and the Challenge of the Future for Liberia


Sujai Shivakumar, The Constitution of Development


There will be no formal papers for this session.


Monday, December 1, 2003




Presented by S. R. Akinola, Professor of Public Administration, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, and Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington


Abstract: The Niger-Delta, one of the largest wetlands in the world, produces oil as the main source of foreign exchange earnings and development finance in Nigeria, accounting for about 85 percent of total government revenue, and 20 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The Nigerian rentier economy is characterized by allocation and spending on the service sector at the expense of production in the agricultural and industrial-manufacturing sectors.


The transition from military regime to civilian era has produced militocracy characterized by democratic despotism and tyranny of the majority, whereby the communities where the black gold is extracted are conspicuously marked with high level of neglect, environmental degradation, denial of fundamental human rights and poverty. The paper identified that the problems in the Niger-Delta have morphed into hydra-headed “monster” with nine heads, described as weapons of repression and oppression. Consequently, the areas have become the hotpots of violence with loss of lives and property. One important missing ingredient in the conduct of public affairs in the region by the governments, oil companies and other agencies is lack of development of social capital. Myriads of self-governing institutions that exist in the region are not involved in decision making, hence, the crises have not abated.


The crises in Niger-Delta are discussed and analyzed in three levels; first, conflicts between federal government/oil companies and the host communities; second, inter-tribal and ethicized conflicts among the major tribes and ethnics in the oil region; and third, intra-communities conflicts. Taking the advantage of the lingering crises several illegal businesses such as petroleum pipelines vandalization, oil smuggling and bunkering have emerged and accelerated at alarming rates in the region. The number of pipelines vandalization has increased from 57 cases in 1998 to a total of 2,892 cases in 2003.


These crises, within the last six years, had resulted into loss of over 10,000 lives, over 40 communities burnt, and destruction of property estimated at several billion of dollars. It is on record that the federal government lost N7 billion to pipeline vandalization in 2002. Oil smuggling and bunkering have cost the nation about 300,000 barrels of crude oil on daily basis and the Federal Government loses $78.76 million weekly.


The paper recommends the adoption and application of polycentric governance in the region, whereby the existing self-governance institutions will form the “cerebrums” of decision making; monitor financial and material resources allocated to their communities and resolve issues through self-governing capabilities. This will enhance transition from the present militarized state to a self-governing society in the oil producing communities of Niger Delta.


BIO: Akinola, Shittu R. (Ph. D.) is a Visiting Scholar at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University, Bloomington, USA. He is a Registered Urban and Regional Planner and Professor in the Department of Public Administration, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.


His research focus is on environmental governance and local/community development from two major fronts: infrastructural facilities and environmental resources. The impact of community initiatives is relevant in resolving socio-economic crisis and poverty at the grassroots level. Improving the welfare of citizens is increasingly dependent on the adoption of polycentric governance system, which unavoidably requires the initiatives of the local people as input into the development process.


He has made contributions to the study of Public Administration in Nigeria. He has a total of eighteen (18) publications, which consists of seven (7) book chapters, seven (7) journal articles, and four (4) referred conference proceedings.


While at the Workshop, he hopes to write a book on “Self-Governing Institutions, and Local Economies in Nigerian Communities.” Using the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework (IAD) developed by the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, he will be demonstrating the calamitous failure of the state vis-à-vis the relevance of Tocquevillian analytics to the survival of the self-governing potentials of the Nigerian people. His main concern will be on how to show people how to be their own governors through self-governing institutions and thereby lay foundations for the emergence of adaptive self-governing arrangements in Africa.


Paper in PDF

Presentation in PDF (409K)


Monday, December 8, 2003




Four Ph.D. students associated with the Workshop and CIPEC are preparing dissertation designs. They are:


Lilian Marquez-Barrientos

Oyebade Kunle Oyerinde

Jianxun Wang

Abigail York


For those interested, current working drafts of their dissertation proposals will be on the Workshop website until December 10.


At the session, each candidate will provide a ten minute overview of (1) key theoretical questions they want to address and (2) where they will conduct their study and why this is an appropriate site to study these questions.



Back to index

Back to the Workshop Homepage
Copyright 2003, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis
Last updated: October 20, 2004