Colloquia during Fall 2013

September 9, 2013 (Monday)

 

"Polycentric Resilience: Why Did State-Building Exercises Fail in Myanmar/Burma?"

 

Professor Tun Myint, Department of Political Science, Carleton College

 

Abstract: What do persistent failures of state-building exercises attempted by the Burmese kings, the British colonial administration, and post-independent Burmese governments explain about the fundamental challenges of state-building in Burma? Can Leviathan-style state be established in Burmese society? Where will Burma's military-led reforms lead Burmese society to? This project explains the persistent puzzle associated with the formation and consolidation of a Leviathan-style state in Burma. From John S. Furnivall's question on fashioning Leviathan in British Burma, Geoffrey Eric Harvey's interpretation of Burmese history, Robert H. Taylor's ongoing explanation on the attributes of state in Burma to Mary P. Callahan's work on state builders' archives, the literature on political development in Burma amplifies the ongoing challenges of state building in Burma. Dominant literature on Burmese political development seek to explain state-building through state-builders' archives in which most of histories and stories were told carefully through official museums, academic curricula and the propaganda by elitist state builders and nationalist intellectuals. To gain nuanced understanding of the resilience of both state builders and the people in Burma, scholars will have to investigate and understand social foundations embedded in the associational lives and livelihoods of Burmese people of diverse ethnic and regional backgrounds. In this book, I offer an alternative analytical framework and theory to analyze, and provide an explanation for why ongoing state-building exercises will continue to fail if state-builders neglect polycentricity of Burmese social structure.

Bio: Tun Myint is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Carleton College, Northfield, MN. He earned his PhD in 2005 from the joint program of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs and the School of Law at Indiana University, Bloomington. He was a postdoctoral research fellow at The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at IU, teaching and engaging in research on democracy and environmental governance with a regional focus on Southeast Asia. His research interest is in the role of individuals and groups in the dynamic relationship between social changes and global environmental changes with the focus on democracy, development, globalization, and sustainability. He is the author of Governing International Rivers: Polycentric Politics in the Mekong and the Rhine. Tun Myint served as a member of the Technical Advisory Team of the Federal Constitution Drafting Coordinating Committee of the Union of Burma, and was previously Research Fellow of Asia Policy Program, a joint program of the National Bureau of Research and Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars. For more info about his ongoing research, please see http://people.carleton.edu/~tmyint/.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.

Background Reading: "Roots of Democracy in Burma," in Conversations with Tocqueville: The Global Democratic Revolution in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Aurelian Craiutu and Sheldon Gellar, 253–70 (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009).


September 16, 2013 (Monday)

 

"The Evolution of Watershed Institutions in the U.S."

 

Professor Craig Anthony (Tony) Arnold, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, University of Louisville

 

Abstract: This project is an ongoing study of how watershed institutions in the U.S. evolve over time, based on in-depth case studies of 48 watersheds in 10 states and the use of resilience and panarchy theories to understand systemic change. Polycentric institutions to govern water, land, and other resources at watershed-based scales have emerged in the United States, as traditional legal and policy structures have proven fragmented and inadequate. Watersheds are areas of land that drain to a common body of water; they are ecological systems. These ecosystems increasingly are organizing scales around which resource planning, management, and governance have become institutionalized. Emergent watershed institutions have captured the attention of scholars seeking to understand and improve the relationship between governance systems and ecosystems. The literature on watershed institutions suffers from two major deficiencies, though. First, there is a tendency to treat watershed institutions as informal, grassroots collaborations that are alternatives to formal, top-down regulation and governance. In fact, however, watershed institutions are quite diverse, and many have mixed characteristics: both informal and formal structure, collaborative and adversarial processes, non-regulatory and regulatory methods, bottom-up and top-down origins. Debates between enthusiasts and critics of collaboration oversimplify the complexity and diversity of watershed governance. Second, most scholars assess watershed institutions — their structure, processes, and functions, as well as whether they are "successes" or "failures" — with relatively static "snapshot" methodologies that ignore the dynamic nature of these institutions. The structures, processes, and functions of watershed institutions evolve. We should focus on social-ecological resilience and iterative patterns of change in governance institutions, not just the status of social conditions (e.g., trust, networks, participation) and/or ecosystem conditions at a given point in time. We should seek to understand how watershed institutions influence the resilience and adaptive capacity of social and ecological systems (i.e., the capacity of those systems to adapt to disturbances and still maintain their core functions) and how social-ecological change influences the resilience and adaptive capacity of watershed institutions. This project seeks to determine whether resilience-science theories of systemic change, including theories about the nonlinear effects of changes in interconnected systems (known as "panarchy"), explain changes in ecosystem governance institutions. The project is in the early stages of conceptual development and the gathering of qualitative case study data. The case studies will shape and sharpen the conceptual framework and allow for some initial conclusions. This large project will eventually include both field research and laboratory experiments to test a number of specific hypotheses. The project relates to an inter-university interdisciplinary research project on adaptive water governance and social-ecological resilience that has received competitive funding from the National Social-Ecological Synthesis Center (SESYNC). It also builds on three recent publications:

1. Arnold, Craig Anthony (Tony). 2011. Fourth-Generation Environmental Law: Integrationist and Multimodal. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review 35(3): 771-886. Available for free download in PDF on SSRN athttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1678654.

2. Arnold, Craig Anthony (Tony) and Lance H. Gunderson. 2013. Adaptive Law and Resilience. Environmental Law Reporter 43: 10426-10443. Available for free download in PDF on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2225619.

3. Arnold, Craig Anthony (Tony). 2013 (in press). Framing Watersheds. In Environmental Law and Contrasting Ideas of Nature: A Constructivist Approach. Keith Hirokawa, ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Available for free download in PDF on SSRN at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2232353.

Bio: Craig Anthony (Tony) Arnold is the Boehl Chair in Property and Land Use at the University of Louisville, where he directs the interdisciplinary Center for Land Use and Environmental Responsibility and teaches in both the Brandeis School of Law and Department of Urban and Public Affairs. He also serves as Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development at the Law School. He holds a Doctor of Jurisprudence, with Distinction, from Stanford University, and has taught at eight universities, including Stanford University and the University of Florida as the Hurst Visiting Eminent Scholar. He is affiliated with interdisciplinary research centers at five large public universities. His publications include 7 books (plus 4 in progress), 10 book chapters, and 26 scholarly articles (plus 4 in progress). His publications have been cited over 1800 times, often discussed by scholars and policy makers for the influence of his ideas, such as property as a web of interests, wet growth tools to integrate land use and water, adaptive watershed planning, and most recently adaptive law and social-ecological resilience. He received the 2013 Trustee's Award, the University of Louisville's highest honor for a faculty member, given for extraordinary impact on students. His interdisciplinary research and teaching are aided by his practical experiences as a lawyer, planner, and member of many government commissions and nonprofit boards.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


September 18, 2013 (Wednesday)

 

"Power, Networks and Violent Conflict: A Comparison of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan"

 

Professor Ídil Tunçer-Kílavuz, Department of Political Science and Public Administration, Istanbul Medeniyet University; Workshop Visiting Scholar

 

Abstract: This talk will be a presentation of my book manuscript on why civil war occurs, and describe the factors which produce it. In search for the causes of civil war, my research employs a comparative approach, contrasting a country which experienced civil war (Tajikistan) with a similar one which did not (Uzbekistan). This is a powerful approach because the factors that the literature on civil wars in general and on the Tajikistan civil war in particular cites as the causes of war were present in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, yet only the latter experienced civil war. This not only presents an empirical puzzle, but allows me to speak to the broader question of why civil wars happen by isolating the crucial factors causing war to break out in Tajikistan but not Uzbekistan. My findings, based on nine months of fieldwork in both countries, challenge many common explanations of civil war both generally and in Tajikistan. In particular, I highlight the importance of elites' power perceptions, which I show have their origins in the interaction of structural-, process- and network-related variables.

Bio: Ídil Tunçer Kílavuz is Assistant Professor of Comparative Politics in the Department of Political Science in Istanbul Medeniyet University. She got her Ph.D. from Indiana University in 2007. She has articles published in journals such as Europe-Asia Studies, Nationalities Papers and Central Asian Survey. Her research interests include identity, conflict, violent conflict, nationalism, ethnicity, regime changes, democratization, and social movements.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


September 20, 2013 (Friday) HORIZONS OF KNOWLEDGE LECTURE

 

"The Great Enrichment, 1800-2013: Ethics, Rhetoric, and Market-Tested Innovation"

 

Professor Deirdre McCloskey, Department of Economics and History, University of Illinois at Chicago

 

Abstract: "Capitalism" is a gross misnomer for what started in northwestern Europe in the eighteenth century. Not accumulation but ingenuity caused the Great Enrichment of the next two centuries. The Enrichment continues to the present, and can be expected over the next century to improve radically the life of every poor person on the planet. The ingenuity arose from the coming of liberty and dignity for ordinary people. In olden days kings had rights and women had none; now it's the other way around. Liberty and dignity rose out of a new ethics and rhetoric, of the sort that the Ostroms emphasized over their careers.

Bio: Deirdre McCloskey teaches economics, history, English, and communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago. A well-known economist and historian and rhetorician, she has written sixteen books and around 400 scholarly pieces on topics ranging from technical economics and statistics to transgender advocacy and the ethics of the bourgeois virtues. Her latest book, Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World (University of Chicago Press, 2010), is the second in a series of four on The Bourgeois Era. With Stephen Ziliak she wrote in 2008, The Cult of Statistical Significance (2008), which criticizes the proliferation of tests of "significance."

There will not be a formal paper for this session.

Cosponsored by Horizons of Knowledge, College Arts and Humanities Institute (CAHI), Department of Anthropology, Department of Economics, Ostrom Workshop, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, and Tocqueville Program


September 23, 2013 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Towards a Method to Assess Ex-Post Regulatory Effectiveness: Applying Institutional Grammar to Tobacco Legislation in Mexico"

 

Professor Salvador Espinosa, School of Public Affairs, San Diego State University

 

Abstract: A growing number of countries doubt about the effectiveness of current drug policy approaches. Such disbelief has motivated the United Nations to announce a conference in 2016 where feasible alternatives are to be discussed. This article argues that the institutional grammar approach developed by Sue Crawford and Elinor Ostrom is a valuable tool to dissect a regulatory design, and determine the extent to which its inherent features may permit the attainment of previously established goals. This research study uses institutional grammar to analyze tobacco regulations targeting consumers in Mexico. Tobacco is chosen as a case study because it is a harmful product whose consumption is legal but subject to a strict regulation. The analysis shows that the Mexican government anchors efforts to curb tobacco consumption in a mix of information rules, choice rules, and administrative penalties. Scholars and policymakers could use the elements discussed in the article as a baseline to regulate illicit drugs. This study also contributes to an ongoing search for reliable methods to evaluate ex-post regulatory effectiveness.

Bio: Salvador Espinosa is Assistant Professor at the School of Public Affairs at San Diego State University, and an Affiliated Faculty at the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis (Indiana University). He holds a B.A. in Economics from Universidad Panamericana (Mexico), as well as Masters and Ph.D. degrees in Public Affairs from Indiana University. He specializes in public financial administration, intergovernmental fiscal relations, and public policy analysis. His current research agenda focuses on three topics: the budgetary impact of federal transfers in Mexico, the design of alternative funding mechanisms for strategic cross-border infrastructure, and the study of the causal links among rules, behavior, and policy outcomes. Before joining the academia, Salvador worked as Budget Analyst for the City of Bloomington (Indiana), as Research Associate for the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute (Indianapolis, Indiana), and as Coordinator of Information and Economic Development for the government of the state of Guanajuato (Mexico). Salvador is also the founder of Ingeniería Gubernamental, a consulting firm based in Mexico City.

Paper: Contact the author to obtain the most recent version of the manuscript.


September 30, 2013 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Governance and the Problem of 'Fit' in Aquatic Systems"

 

Professor Derek Armitage, Department of Environment and Resource Studies, University of Waterloo

 

Abstract: New governance approaches are required to navigate local to global scale social-ecological change, and to address a growing problem of "fit" (e.g., spatial, temporal) between biophysical systems and governance systems. Multi-level, collaborative and adaptive governance arrangements are emerging in response to this problem, although slowly and in a geographically patchy manner. Research in two aquatic systems — the Upper Mackenzie Basin, Northwest Territories and the Tam Giang Lagoon, Central Vietnam — will illustrate how we can approach the problem of fit by linking communities with regional and national-level actors, fostering the co-production of knowledge crucial to understanding and monitoring social-ecological change, and by shortening feedback loops between observations of abrupt change and policy response. These cases also show how emerging governance arrangements can lead to a novel reallocation of rights and responsibilities, and support opportunities for shared learning and adapting.

Bio: Derek Armitage is an Associate Professor in the Department of Environment and Resource Studies at the University of Waterloo where he leads the Environmental Change and Governance Group (http://ecgg.uwaterloo.ca/). His research interests center on the human dimensions of environmental change and the formation of adaptive, multi-level governance systems. The problem of "fit" is a central interest — how governance systems and institutions can better match the dynamics of biophysical systems, with a primary focus on coastal/marine contexts. His publications have appeared in such journals as Frontiers in Ecology and the EnvironmentGlobal Environmental ChangeEcology and Society, and International Journal of the Commons. He is co-editor (with Fikret Berkes and Nancy Doubleday) of Adaptive Co-Management: Collaboration, Learning and Multi-Level Governance (UBC Press, 2007) and co-editor (with Ryan Plummer) of Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance (Springer-Velag, 2010). He has served as a consultant on a variety of projects for government agencies in Canada (Environment Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, OMNR, Alberta Environment), the Global Environmental Facility (World Bank), ADB and IADB. He is a Senior Fellow, Earth Systems Governance project, and Adjunct Professor, Natural Resources Institute, University of Manitoba. Currently, he is acting as the Governance Working Group Leader for the Community Conservation Research Network (http://www.communityconservation.net/) and the Partnership for Canada-Caribbean Climate Change Adaptation (http://parca.uwaterloo.ca/).

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


October 2, 2013 (Wednesday)

 

"Product of Our Environment: The Effect of Institutions on the Use of Voting Heuristics"

 

Nicholas D'Amico, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, IUB

 

Abstract: The use of heuristics, or decision shortcuts, among voters has become the new common wisdom for how individuals compensate for a lack of information when voting. However, current research into political decision making has failed to provide adequate explanations for how individuals choose which heuristics they use when they vote. I theorize that three national level political institutions (the electoral, party, and governance systems) influence what heuristics individuals decide to use. By altering the organization of and relationship between political information, these institutions shape individual behavior.

This paper seeks to make two different contributions. First, it identifies and tests the importance of three institutions that have been understudied in relation to heuristics. While scholars know these institutions exert a powerful influence over the behavior of individuals, their study in American politics has been limited due to lack of variation in the United States. Second, it builds and tests a theory of why an individual chooses one heuristic over another. Current research on heuristics primes subjects to use one heuristic or another, leading to an inability to examine the processes by which individuals choose one heuristic over another.

To test this theory, I use both experimental and survey data. The experimental design traces the decision making process of individual subjects using the Dynamic Process Tracing Environment (DPTE) of Lau and Redlawsk. In the study subjects participate in a simulated election campaign. During the study they interact with a scrolling information board that lists multiple pieces of information about constructed political candidates and parties that can be used to make the electoral decision. The variation in each of these experiments is the political institutions individuals are primed for in their experimental session. The DPTE makes it possible to identify the specific information items individuals leverage in their decision making, making it possible to categorize their decision making strategies, including the types of voting heuristic subjects use. In order to compensate for potential problems of external validity with the experiment, the results are then confirmed with cross country survey analysis of five countries (United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Spain, and Italy).

Bio: Nicholas D'Amico is broadly interested in political behavior, public opinion, and political psychology. His current primary research agenda has focused on better understanding voting shortcuts, or heuristics. His dissertation examines how national level institutions influence 1) the types of heuristics that individuals use and 2) how helpful those shortcuts are in leading voters to a good decision. He uses both original experimental data as well as cross-country survey analysis to test the theory. He is also collaborating on projects related to public opinion and media priming and better measuring racism in America. His teaching interests include political behavior and elections, as well as research design and quantitative methods.

paper


October 4, 2013 (Friday)

 

"Rereading J. S. Mill"

 

Professor Alan Ryan, Department of Politics, Princeton University

 

Abstract: This is a self-indulgent piece, for which I apologize. It is fifty years since I published a little essay on Mill and the Art of Living; and after being asked to review a recent collection of essays on the topic, I have been wondering how my views have stood up over the years. Unsurprisingly, I think some have and some haven't stood up fairly well. I began with two ideas: first that Mill's so-called "proof" of the principle of utility was not the philosophical disaster that generations of students had been taught to think it was; second, and more relevant to today, that Mill was right to claim that his defense of freedom in On Liberty was a utilitarian defense. To understand why, we needed to understand the claims he made in the last chapter of A System of Logic on "the logic of practice or art." So, the first half of today's paper is about how I would now argue that case; it owes a lot to Jonathan Riley, who often seems to me to see the matter almost exactly as I do, but to see it a good deal more clearly than I.

The second half of the paper is less "philosophical," and focuses on the contrast between Mill's views on freedom and Tocqueville's. Some of the motivation for writing On Liberty plainly comes from Mill's reading of Democracy in America, and particularly from Tocqueville's account of how the members of a democratic society might so internalize public opinion that they become frightened to think for themselves. Nonetheless, Mill takes the argument in directions Tocqueville did not, arguing for a degree of individual moral and intellectual autonomy that goes beyond the essentially political conception of liberty to which Tocqueville was committed. The paper ventilates but does not take sides on some interesting questions about the extent to which a good deal of informal social discipline is a precondition of a politically and economically free society, but ends with a brief discussion of the contrast between Tocqueville's account of the role of women in American society and Mill's discussion in The Subjection of Women.

Bio: Alan Ryan began teaching political philosophy at the University of Keele in 1963 and is in his final year as a Lecturer with the Rank of Professor in the Department of Politics at Princeton University. Since 2009, he has been Professor of Political Theory Emeritus at the University of Oxford. During the intervening years, he has taught at the Universities of Essex (1966-6) and Oxford (1969-87 and 1996-2009) in Britain and Princeton University (1987-96 and 2010-14) in the United States, besides short-term stints at Hunter College (1967-8), UT Austin (1972), UC Santa Cruz (1977) as well as the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Cape Town in South Africa. He has been a visiting research fellow at the Australian National University on several occasions.

His research interests have always focused on the liberal tradition, with a pronounced bias towards John Stuart Mill and the topics that Mill made his own, such as the philosophy of scientific and social scientific inquiry, property rights, the idea of moral and political progress, and freedom. Before and after Mill, he has an affection for Thomas Hobbes, Bertrand Russell, and John Dewey. Alan Ryan is the author of several books, beginning with The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill (1969) and The Philosophy of the Social Sciences(1970) and including Bertrand Russell: A Political Life (1987) and John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism (1994). In 2012, he published On Politics, a two-volume account of political thought from Herodotus to the present, and The Making of Modern Liberalism, a selection of previously published essays. He is also the editor of the Penguin editions of On Liberty and The Subjection of Women and Mill and Bentham on Utilitarianism. He is an occasional contributor to The New York Review of Books and was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1987.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.

Cosponsored by the College Arts and Humanities Institute (CAHI), Tocqueville Program, Department of Political Science, and Ostrom Workshop


October 7, 2013 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"The Design Principles: Ultimate and Proximate Causations in Food and Agriculture"

 

Professor Michael L. Cook, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Missouri, Columbia

 

Abstract: Wilson, Ostrom, and Cox (WOC) (JEBO-2013) extend the applicability of Ostrom's 1990 Common-pool resources CPR core design principles to a wider range of groups seeking to improve organizational efficacy. This paper applies the WOC logic to a set of "design principles" embedded in the "California Plan" developed by Aaron Sapiro in the post WWI agricultural depression period. In the 1920s California Plan, eight design elements were utilized to organize farmers/ranchers/producers owned institutions and remain fundamental building blocks in the economic organization of producer owned and controlled "marketing cooperatives." The basic elements of the Sapiro plan are described and analyzed incorporating an organizational design framework. Comparative generalizations result. Additionally the paper traces the evolution of the Sapiro elements derived from traditional forms of producer collaboration especially the English Rochdale Principles of the mid 1840s and the German Raiffeisen Principles of the 1850s. Insights are drawn as to the compatibility and additively of the Ostrom and Sapiro organizational design principles for agricultural producers in today's volatile socio-economic environment in both the industrialized and emerging economies.

Bio: Michael L. Cook is the Robert D. Partridge Endowed Professor in Organization Economics in the Division of Applied Social Sciences at the University of Missouri-Columbia. His research activities include work in more than 50 countries and 100 published works. Dr. Cook is a member of the core faculty of the Agribusiness Research Institute (ARI), and a Senior Fellow with the Contracting and Organizations Research Institute (CORI) at MU. His primary research addresses the ownership costs of vaguely defined property rights in patron-owned and controlled enterprises. Michael's greatest interest is in helping develop a global network of scholars and practitioners with interest in understanding the strengths and challenges that patron-owned organizations confront. This interest allows him to travel the world to conduct and share comparative studies regarding how the institutions of collective action lead to improvement of the socio-economic well-being of their patron-members. He received his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin. He also served for 12 years in senior management positions with three global enterprises, two of them cooperatives, and has occupied board positions with numerous cooperatives, subsidiaries, and associations. In May 2012, Cook was inducted into the Cooperative Hall of Fame at the National Press Club, Washington, DC. See also http://cafnrnews.com/2012/10/mizzou-globetrotter/.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


October 9, 2013 (Wednesday)

 

"Scientific Rigor, Policy Relevance, and Radical Commons"

 

Ryan Conway, PhD Student, Department of Political Science, IUB

 

Abstract: The Ostrom Workshop has built an identity of distinction based upon scientific rigor and policy relevance. In keeping with this tradition and seeking to further it, the Radical Commons Working Group was formed both to invite the application of the Workshop "toolkit" to topics of political contention and, as such, to encourage scholarship on these topics that is humble enough to question the realism of "objective, value-neutral social science" while bold enough to remain relevant in a time of intensified resource scarcity (germane to markets), growing socioeconomic disparities (germane to states), and concomitant social movement (germane to commons). This talk will invite audiences to consider political theories of the commons, concomitant concepts, and related topics that have been sidelined by the legacies of McCarthyism, ignored for the sake of dogmatism, and called-for by an international network of commons enthusiasts that look to the Ostrom Workshop for cutting-edge, policy relevant, commons research. The Radical Commons Working Group wishes to bring into dialogue Tocquevillian associationalists and Marxist autonomists; acequia commoners and squat-building commoners; mainstream theorists and critical theorists. If we mean to walk our talk and stand by academic integrity, why should this be seen as "radical"?

Bio: Ryan T. Conway is a community organizer and political economist dedicated to the understanding of commons, the practice of need-meeting resource-pooling, and the political philosophies that explore both. He is a fourth-year in the Political Science PhD program at IU, where he studies Public Policy and Research Methods. Ryan's research explores spatiotemporal situations of institutional vacuums — like disaster areas and autonomous zones — parallel legal systems, and Elinor Ostrom's 7th design principle of commons management, pertaining to the rights of local commons users to make their own rules; he is investigating its relation to community self-determination struggles and autonomist political theory. For more information on Ryan's collective action and research projects visit:http://communitycommonsproject.tumblr.com & http://radicalcommons.tumblr.com

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


October 14, 2013 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"The Challenge of Offender Re-Entry: A Cooperative Response"

 

Professor Ann Hoyt, Department of Consumer Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison

 

Abstract: A growing number of worker cooperatives in Italy include inmates in their workforce. Inmates who work in these co-ops during and after their incarceration average 1-5% post-release recidivism rates. Inmate co-ops are a specific type of Italian social cooperative. Dr. Hoyt will describe her exploratory research on the potential of social cooperatives for reducing recidivism and the public policy environment that encourages Italian social cooperatives. The study is based on in-depth interviews with academics, judges, wardens, and co-op officials from a wide variety of cooperatives in northern Italy and on visits to co-ops and prisons.

Dr. Hoyt will discuss the feasibility and transferability of the social cooperative model to the United States. Questions related to cooperative structure, supporting public policies, and current re-entry efforts in the U.S. will be addressed.

Bio: Ann Hoyt is a Professor in the department of Consumer Science at the University of Wisconsin- Madison. She is also a Consumer Cooperative Specialist for the University of Wisconsin-Extension. Ann develops educational opportunities and training materials for consumer cooperatives throughout the country. She conducts a highly successful outreach educational program for managers and directors of U.S. retail food cooperatives. Her recent research has focused on the economic impact of U.S. cooperatives, the size and scope of the international cooperative movement and the role of social cooperatives in the Italian criminal justice system. An internationally known expert on cooperative business and cooperative governance, Ann has served on several cooperative and foundation boards of directors.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


October 16, 2013 (Wednesday)

 

"The Relationship between Private Property Rights in Land and Environmental Degradation: A Review of the Literature"

 

Martin Delaroche [vitae], Research Assistant, Graduate Institute of Latin American Studies (IHEAL), University Paris 3 Sorbonne-Nouvelle; Workshop Visiting Scholar

 

Abstract: During this talk, I will share my preliminary research work on the relationship between private property rights in land and environmental degradation. It is very often said that land has always been best thought of as a private good, and that the very nature of private property rights ensure that long-term interests guide land use and ensure the sustainability of agricultural practices. However, this idea can be challenged today by numerous examples of environmental problems occurring on and around privately owned land. I argue that this specific topic has been underexplored as compared to ownership regimes for other natural resources. A review of the literature on the advantages of private property rights in natural resources (focusing on land as well as other resources) helps to demonstrate that the evidence is far from supporting the idea that private ownership ensures a sustainable use of land. It might appear that sustainable use of land depends less on the nature of ownership regime itself than on multiple other factors.

Bio: Martin Delaroche is a graduate in applied economics and international law from the University Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne and holds a diploma from the Graduate Institute of Latin American Studies (IHEAL). As an exchange student at Columbia University in New York in 2011, he worked on the regulation of foreign acquisition of land in Brazil and Argentina. His research interest is to study the relation between private property rights in land and environmental degradation. He currently works in New Delhi, India, as a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) officer at Alstom India & South Asia, where he is in charge of designing and implementing the CSR strategy of the company.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


October 21, 2013 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Commons at the Intersection of Peer Production, Citizen Science, and Big Data: Galaxy Zoo"

 

Professor Michael J. Madison, School of Law, University of Pittsburgh

 

Abstract: This is a draft of a book chapter that will be published by Oxford University Press in Spring 2014, together with more than a dozen other papers presented at a workshop held at NYU in September 2011. The NYU workshop was titled "Convening Cultural Commons" (http://www.law.nyu.edu/centers/engelbergcenter/conferences/conveningculturalcommons/index.htm), and it was organized around a research framework published as Michael J. Madison, Brett M. Frischmann & Katherine J. Strandburg, "Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment," Cornell Law Review 95, p. 657 (2010) (http://ssrn.com/abstract=1265793). That framework borrows from the Institutional Analysis and Development framework and makes a number of adaptations for purposes of studying knowledge commons. The workshop papers consist of case studies applying it to a broad range of knowledge commons resources. "Commons at the Intersection, etc." consists of a case study of a large-scale "citizen science" astronomy research project, Galaxy Zoo, through which professional astronomers have enlisted the participation of hundreds of thousands of amateur volunteers in a virtual data classification and analysis exercise.

Bio: Michael J. Madison is a Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Innovation Practice Institute at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. He specializes in the law, policy, and theory of intellectual property, with a particular interest in copyright law, and in the study of commons. His scholarship has appeared in law reviews at Cornell University, Fordham University, Boston College, the University of Notre Dame, the College of William & Mary, and Case Western Reserve University, among others. He is the co-author (with Craig Nard and Mark McKenna) of The Law of Intellectual Property, a casebook published by Aspen Publishers, forthcoming in its fourth edition in 2014, and the co-editor (with Brett Frischmann and Katherine Strandburg) of Governing Knowledge Commons, forthcoming from Oxford University Press. Professor Madison has been a member of the faculty at the University of Pittsburgh since 1998. A complete biography and list of scholarship can be found at http://madisonian.net/home. He tweets at @profmadison.

paper


October 23, 2013 (Wednesday)

 

"The Brazilian-European Boundary in Amazonia: An IAD Study about Bilateral Resources"

 

Raimundo Nonato Junior [vitae], Assistant Professor, Parana State University, UNICENTRO, Brazil; Workshop and ACT Visiting Scholar

 

Abstract: This paper provides an example about the use of structural resources in the boundary region between Brazil and France in Amazonia. The institutional analysis and development (IAD) is the framework used to compare the network between the local populations in the border area and the bilateral policies. The research is based on a comparison of European and Brazilian territorial policies on the frontier between French Guiana and the Brazilian state of Amapá. In particular, our research focuses on the developments around the Brazilian-European boarder and the changing role of the Oyapock river from a geo-historical separation line to a symbol of regional integration and exchange. Since the 18th century, both parties have been competing for strategic access to the Amazon rainforest and its natural resources. Consequently, this situation has compromised local economic development and reduced sociocultural exchanges between the two sides. As a result, these peripheral regions became severely dependent from their respective central states. Even today, more than 80% of French Guyana's GDP consists of subsidies attributed by France or the European Union. The main challenges in terms of bilateral cooperation are cultural integration and sustainability, concerning urgent problems like urban sprawl and illegal exploitation of natural resources. The European Union invests in programs aiming at developing its overseas territories', with a particular emphasis on cross-border cooperation. In this sense, new road connections, for example, or the bridge crossing the Oyapock River and the new rules about local circulation, can be seen as resources of a common attempt to transform a territorial frontier into an integrated area. The question in this context is if the use of these resources will effectively lead to common policies as to transforming this "border area" into a cooperating 'boundary region." This study is supported by the Institut des Hautes Études de l'Amérique LatineSorbonne Nouvelle University (Paris), and Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University (Bloomington).

Keywords: International Relations, Frontier, Resources, IAD, Geography.

Bio: Raimundo Nonato Junior is a PhD candidate at the Université Sorbone Nouvelle in the Institut des Hautes Études d'Amérique Latine, Department of Geography in Paris. His research emphasis is on the relations between Brazil and France about how these countries use resources in their common boundary in Amazonia. Raimundo is an Assistant Professor at Paraná State University in Brazil. He is a geographer and his principal research interest is about environmental issues in the international relations, and the analysis of institutional frameworks in boundary regions.

The paper will be available after November 5.


October 28, 2013 (Monday) [NOTE: Presentation will not be live streamed.]

 

"Agrobiodiversity and Environmental Governance: The Contested Social-Ecological Futures of Food and Land Use"

 

Professor Karl Zimmerer, Department of Geography, Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI), Penn State Institutes for Energy and the Environment (PSIEE), Pennsylvania State University

 

Abstract: This talk examines agrobiodiversity — the biological diversity of agriculture — in relation to expanding interest, need, and ongoing debates in environmental policy and management that are focused on global sustainability. It argues for the importance of a new interdisciplinary approach emphasizing the dynamic connections of social-ecological functions, contested scientific analysis and cultural meanings, and governance of agrobiodiversity in food and land use. The presentation uses recent research findings to describe original and, in some cases, counter-intuitive roles and models of agrobiodiversity in the context of social-ecological systems, in regard to powerful biogeophysical processes and political ecologies of development and global changes (including climate change), and in relation to governance institutions and challenges. Findings are then used to reevaluate basic understandings and significance of agrobiodiversity in order to advance its contributions to novel initiatives and opportunities for its incorporation into prevailing pathways for sustainability.

Bio: Dr. Karl Zimmerer is professor and head in the department of geography at Pennsylvania State University, at the Earth-Environmental Systems Institute (EESI) and Institutes for Energy and the Environment (PSIEE), and in cross-campus programs on sustainability, food, and globalization. His research, as well as his teaching and advising of graduate and undergraduate students, are centered on sustainable land use and agricultural intensification, food security, governance, and equitable cultural and social-ecological transitions in complex global societies. Karl Zimmerer is the director of the GeosyntheSES Lab for Social-Ecological Sustainability. His research has gained ongoing support through National Science Foundation, Fulbright, the Social Science Research Council, and numerous private foundations. His former students are members of the faculties at Johns Hopkins U.; U. California at Davis, U. Colorado Boulder, Texas A&M U., Macalester College, Otago U. (New Zealand), and National University (Singapore).

Karl Zimmerer's current and recent publications in leading scientific and scholarly journals and in his books are focused on new approaches to sustainability through agrobiodiversity, food security, global change, and social-ecological livelihood analysis (Ecology and Society, in-press; Proceedings of the National Academy of Science/PNAS, 2013; Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2010; Professional Geographer, 2010); analysis of social and economic cooperation and conflict using environmental knowledge systems that center on land use and landscape models, culture-based approaches, and sustainability policy/management (Geoforum, 2013, Land Use Policy (with Martha Bell), 2013; Publications of the Modern Language Association/PMLA, 2012; Knowing Nature, Transforming Ecologies, 2011; Mapping Latin America 2011; Roots of Conflict, 2010); and conservation-agriculture interfaces with globalization, governance, resource management, and policies, including energy landscapes (LTSER, 2013; Global Environmental Change, 2011; Latin American Research Review, 2011). Other articles have been published also in such leading journals such as NatureBioScienceHuman EcologyEconomic Botany, and World Development. Dr. Zimmerer has published five books — most recently The New Geographies of Energy (2013) and Globalization and New Geographies of Conservation (2006) — and more than one hundred lead-authored scientific and scholarly articles and chapters. Karl Zimmerer has also edited the Nature-Society section of the flagship Annals of the Association of American Geographers (2003-2013).

Karl Zimmerer received his graduate degrees in geography at UC Berkeley (Ph.D 1988). He was a faculty member and chair of the Geography department at the University of Wisconsin–Madison (1990-2007), a member of the faculties of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies and department of Anthropology at Yale University (2004), and the Geography department of the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill (1988-1990). Since 2007 he has been head of the Geography department at Penn State. Karl Zimmerer's activities have been coordinated with international agricultural, sustainability, environmental, and geographic research centers, national agencies and universities in the U.S. and abroad, together with farmer and food movements, organizations, and NGOs. Karl Zimmerer was recently chosen as the first recipient of the Melamid Medal of the American Geographical Society (AGS, 2013) for his works on global culture-environment and sustainability issues; selected for the Netting Award of the Cultural-and-Political Ecology group of the Association of American Geographers (CAPE-AAG, 2013); elected as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2012), honored with the award of a Guggenheim Fellowship (2002), and currently leads editorship of the Environment and Social Sciences volume of the International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences. He presents new research and participates in special seminars, workshops and meetings on sustainability; offers research papers and panel discussions at the annual conferences of interdisciplinary science (AAAS), geography, anthropology, ecology, conservation biology, and Latin American Studies; and delivers many invited presentations including honorary and named lectures.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


October 30, 2013 (Wednesday)

 

"A Tool for All People, but Not All Occasions: How Voting Heuristics Interact with Political Knowledge and Environment"

 

Jacob Bower-Bir, PhD Candidate, Joint ProgramSchool of Public and Environmental Affairs and Department of Political Science; and Nicholas D'Amico, PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science, IUB

 

Abstract: Recent research into the relationship between heuristic use and political sophistication suggests that these variables interact in helping a voter make a good choice at the ballot box. Such findings — which we believe result from poor measurement of heuristic use — contradict the theoretical underpinnings of heuristics, heuristics being simple diagnostic shortcuts used to equal effect by voters of varying political knowledge and sophistication. Using a new survey measure of heuristic use, we present evidence from four presidential elections that a voter's level of political knowledge does not enhance or diminish the usefulness of specific voting heuristics. Rather, an important determinant of heuristic effectiveness is the electoral context in which it is used. We show that changes in the ideological proximity of presidential candidates influences the helpfulness of some voting heuristics and not others. Overall, our results indicate that, while a voter cannot hope to wield a given heuristic better than her fellow voters, the particular heuristics a voter employs will greatly influence her chances of making a correct vote.


BIOS

Jacob Bower-Bir investigates the evolution of moral norms and the influence those norms have on various social policies. His current research explores the relationship between peoples' understanding of justice and economic desert and their tolerance for economic inequality. Jacob is conducting additional studies on group decision making, strategic network formation, spatial voting models, and heuristics. His early work focused on the introduction of market forces to traditionally public services, with a special concentration on school choice in American public education. He is broadly interested in the distribution of influence and benefits in collective-action scenarios.

Nicholas D'Amico is broadly interested in political behavior, public opinion, and political psychology. His current primary research agenda has focused on better understanding voting shortcuts, or heuristics. His dissertation examines how national level institutions influence 1) the types of heuristics that individuals use and 2) how helpful those shortcuts are in leading voters to a good decision. He uses both original experimental data as well as cross-country survey analysis to test the theory. He is also collaborating on projects related to public opinion and media priming and better measuring racism in America. His teaching interests include political behavior and elections, as well as research design and quantitative methods.

paper


November 1, 2013 (Friday)

 

"Capitalism and Inequality: What the Right and the Left Get Wrong"

 

Professor Jerry Muller, Department of History, Catholic University of America

 

Abstract: Inequality is increasing almost everywhere in the post-industrial, capitalist world, though more quickly and to a greater degree in some countries than in others. Increasing inequality is not primarily the result of politics, nor is politics likely to reverse it, for its roots are deeper and more intractable than is commonly believed. Those roots lie in the changing relationship between the family, the capitalist market, and the changing opportunities available for mental cultivation. It has class dimensions, of course, but also ethnic dimensions, and will vary across nations, in keeping with their diverse ethnic and demographic composition.

Indeed, there is good reason to believe that inequality of market rewards will continue to increase. This is a source of concern for those on the left, who are ideologically committed to egalitarianism and for whom any degree of inequality is a source of moral discontent and for whom inequality is therefore always a "problem." But it should also be of concern to those on the right, who accept inequality in principle, for some of its consequences may be pernicious in terms of social order, or threaten a populist backlash against the institutions they value most.

Yet the fact that inequality is of concern does not mean that it is soluble. The deeper understanding of a phenomenon should not be equated with a greater ability to change it. On the contrary, it may lead to a greater awareness of the difficulties of doing so. The most commonly offered solution to existing inequality, embraced with variations by both major American parties — that ever more people acquire ever more education — is largely a mirage that will not decrease inequality in the aggregate.

Another alternative, favored by the left, is to reserve desirable educational and professional positions for members of classes and ethnic groups that do less well in the marketplace; but that risks impeding the market and government institutions on which economic growth depends, and which continue to produce a stream of improvements to human well being. Yet the increased inequality and insecurity brought about by recent developments of western capitalism makes the attempt to cut back on welfare state spending, favored by some on the right, particularly untimely.

Bio: Jerry Z. Muller is professor of history at the Catholic University of America in Washington DC, where he is chair of the department of history. He is the author of five books, most recently Capitalism and the Jews, published by Princeton University Press in 2010. His previous books include Adam Smith in His Time and Ours (1993) and The Mind and the Market: Capitalism in European Thought (2002). His 36-lecture series, "Thinking about Capitalism," was released in 2009 by The Teaching Company. His recent essays include "Us and Them: The Enduring Power of Ethnic Nationalism," Foreign Affairs, March-April 2008; "Our Epistemological Depression," The American, January 2009; and "Capitalism and Inequality: What the Right and the Left Get Wrong," Foreign Affairs, March-April 2013.

The paper for this session has been published (see bio), so it will not be placed on our website. Hard copies of the paper will be available upon request by email to ghiggins@indiana.edu.

Cosponsored by the College Arts and Humanities Institute (CAHI), Tocqueville Program, Department of Political Science, and Ostrom Workshop


November 4, 2013 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Institutional Collective Action: Network Collaboration among Cities for Regional Development and Sustainability"

 

Professor Richard Feiock, Askew School of Public Administration and Policy, Florida State University

 

Abstract: This presentation outlines various collaboration mechanisms for mitigating institutional collective actions problems that arise from the fragmentation of authority in metropolitan regions, and how self-organizing collaboration networks address problems of search and coordination and problems of trust and securing credible commitments to collaborative solutions. Focusing on how organizational actors respond to these problems provides testable research propositions and prescriptions for institutional design and collaboration partner choice in ICA dilemmas. I then present results of empirical investigations of the emergence of regional collaboration networks in Florida to examine the structure of self-organizing collaborations and choices of collaboration partners. The conclusion discusses implications of institutional collective action for regional governance and describes the research agenda of the Local Governance Research Lab at FSU.

Bio: Richard Feiock is internationally recognized for his expertise in local government and local democratic institutions. He holds the Jerry Collins Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and is the Augustus B. Turnbull Professor of Public Administration and Policy in the Askew School at Florida State University. He is the founding director of the FSU Local Governance Research Laboratory and served as Ph.D. Program Director for the Askew School from 1999-2004. He directs the Sustainable Energy & Governance unit of FSU's Institute for Energy Systems, Economics and Sustainability.

Professor Feiock received his B.A. degree from Pennsylvania State University, and his M.P.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Kansas. He has lectured in Moscow (Russia and Idaho), Seoul, Mexico City, Beijing, and throughout the U.S. and was a Fulbright Fellow in South Korea in 2005-06. He is a recipient of the Herbert Kaufman best paper award from the Section on Public Administration, American Political Science Association, the 2008 William E. and Frederick C. Mosher Award for the best article published in Public Administration Review, the 2009 Manning J. Dauer Award for research and service from the Florida Political Science Association, the 2010 Donald C. Stone Award for career contributions to the field of intergovernmental management from the American Society for Public Administration, and the 2011 Marshall Dimock Award for the best lead article published in Public Administration Review. In 2011 he was the recipient of the Florida State University Graduate Faculty Mentor Award.

Professor Feiock has generated over 1 million in external research grants and has been principal investigator on four National Science Foundation research grants as well as grant awards from Lincoln Institute for Land Policy, Aspen Institute, IBM Center for the Business of Government, and the Fulbright Scholar Program. He has published five books and over one-hundred refereed articles. His work appears in the leading scholarly journals of political science, public administration, planning and urban affairs. His books and edited volumes include Institutional Constraints and Local Government (SUNY Press), City-County Consolidation and Its Alternatives (M.E. Sharpe), Metropolitan Governance: Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation (Georgetown University Press) and Self-Organizing Federalism(Cambridge University Press).

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


November 6, 2013 (Wednesday)

 

"Child Support and Mexican Labor Migration to the U.S."

 

Professor Bernard Trujillo, School of Law, Valparaiso University; Workshop Visiting Scholar

 

Abstract: This project is in the very early stages of exploring the application of Ostrom Institutional Analysis to U.S. immigration policy. Taking the case of Mexican labor migration to the U.S., this project explores the question: Does U.S. policy have an interest in the support of Mexican children residing in México?

Bio: Bernard Trujillo is Professor of Law at Valparaiso University and the 2013 winner of the Jack A. Hiller Distinguished Faculty Award. His book, Immigration Law and the US/México Border (with K. Johnson), was named best reference book of 2012 by the International Latino Book Awards. He teaches and writes in the areas of immigration, bankruptcy, finance, and complex systems analysis. His work has appeared in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, the UCLA Law Review, the Minnesota Law Review, the Wisconsin Law Review, and other publications.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


November 11, 2013 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Environmental Goods and Services on Private Lands: What Can be Learned from Common Pool Resource Theory about the Management of Spatially Diffuse Resources?"

 

Professor Michael Drescher, School of Planning, University of Waterloo

 

Abstract: Though often invisible or taken for granted, the natural environment provides many valuable goods and services to human societies worldwide. Depending on the jurisdiction, the monetary value of these goods and services can amount to a substantial proportion of annual GDP. However, overall, no over-arching, general strategy seems to exist for the effective management of environmental goods and services. . Instead, they tend to be managed on a case-by-case basis resulting in a large variety of approaches with varying levels of success. In jurisdictions characterized by state ownership of large tracts of land, government agencies may implement regulations with the goal of continuing provision of environmental goods and services. However, in some jurisdictions the majority of the land is owned by private individuals, each with their own perceptions and opinions regarding environmental management. This situation poses special problems to concerted environmental management because (i) the physical systems that provide these environmental goods and services tend to be large or spatially diffuse, typically spreading across several private land parcels and (ii) typical command-and-control approaches by governments are politically costly and difficult to enforce on private lands. During this talk, I will explore novel approaches to environmental management on private lands. I will argue that common pool resource theory can be applied to this problem; and that, if the theory is appropriately modified to take into account the special conditions of these systems, the insights gained may be applied to further improved management of environmental goods and services on private lands.

Bio: Michael Drescher teaches in ecology and environmental policy making. His classroom subjects include ecological restoration, environmental psychology and environmental conservation programs. The main thrust of his current research aims at furthering our understanding of environmental stewardship behavior of private landowners, and its impact on the natural environment. He employs qualitative (meanings and values) as well as quantitative (empirical objects and models) research approaches as needed to investigate phenomena of interest, positioning him in proximity to pragmatism in science philosophy. His earlier work focused on basic ecological questions in vegetation and plant-herbivore systems, evolving into questions of natural resource management and the use of alternative knowledge sources.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


November 13, 2013 (Wednesday)

 

"Institutionalizing Certification for Sustainability: Are Biofuel Certification Systems Fit for Purpose?"

 

Christine Moser, PhD Candidate, Faculty of Sustainability, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg, Germany

 

Abstract: Facing global environmental and social challenges, we live in a world of increasing fragmentation of authority. A key issue becomes understanding which institutions have the capacity to contribute to a transformation towards just and sustainable resource use. During the last two decades, sustainability standards have come to be hailed as a panacea for various global social and environmental problems upon which public and private actors are increasingly reliant: governmental actors employ them as benchmarks or even quasi-implementing agencies to govern towards sustainable development; corporate actors voluntarily or coercively come to work with certification to manage sustainability of their own and their supply chain operations (Pattberg 2012). However, in research and practice the effectiveness of this new mode of governance is contested (e.g. Challies 2013); the conditions and mechanisms of its success are not yet conclusive (Bernstein & Cashore 2012; Boiral & Gendron 2011). This dissertation research aims to contribute to understanding the role of "governance through standards" (Ponte et al. 2011a) and its impacts. The research will draw attention to the design of private standards and their mechanisms of interaction with other institutions to promote sustainable management of resources in local social-ecological systems. To this end, the dissertation project examines a specific institutional arrangement that has emerged to govern sustainability of transnational biofuel production.

Despite the promotion of biofuels as an environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels, their rapid expansion from crops set into motion over the past decade has raised numerous concerns about detrimental effects on ecosystems and communities living in and around biofuel production sites (German et al. 2011). In response to these effects, public and private actors on different scales have developed regulations, standards and codes of conduct to mitigate or minimize the negative impacts of biofuels and their production processes (Bailis & Baka 2011). The EU's 2009 Renewable Energy Directive (RED) created a governance arrangement in which certification serves as proof of compliance with EU sustainability criteria and became a de facto mandatory requirement for producers targeting the EU's thus 100 percent captive market for 'sustainable' biofuels (Ponte 2012). The European Commission refers to this approach as "the most comprehensive and advanced binding sustainability scheme of its kind anywhere in the world" (EC 2010, 1). This regulation can indeed be considered significant as the pathway explicitly functions as a meta-standard (Kaphengst 2009), recognizing 'qualifying' certification schemes as "quasi-implementing agencies" (Biermann & Pattberg 2012). In this way, it exemplifies hybrid governance by actively blending state authority and private (non-state) actors (Bailis & Baka 2011).

Bioenergy production thus presents a case of sustainability governance architecture built despite inconclusive knowledge of whether, and how, certification — although actively employed to account for the sustainability of the sector — actually assists with sustainable management of transnational supply chains and sustainable development at points of production. It thereby not only presents a novel phenomenon for research, but also underscores the urgent need to direct attention towards the institutional arrangement that can effectively deal with challenges of sustainable production. This dissertation investigates the mechanisms at work in the EU's hybrid governance approach, which has been designed to manage sustainable bioenergy production, by answering the following question: How does the institutional arrangement of sustainability certification systems for bioenergy influence the management of sustainable feedstock production in the context of developing countries?

Bio: I am a PhD candidate (in my early phase) at Leuphana University Lüneburg in Germany, the Sustainability Faculty; I am also affiliated with the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies through my second advisor Rob Bailis. At Leuphana, I also work in an EU-funded, interdisciplinary research project on alternative paths for sustainable feedstock production for plant oils (for example for biofuels). It aims to contribute to understanding the role of "governance through standards" and its impacts. The research will draw attention to the design of private certification standards and their mechanisms of interaction with other institutions to promote sustainable management of resources in local social-ecological systems. To this end, the dissertation project examines a specific institutional arrangement that has emerged in the EU to transnationally govern sustainability of international biofuel/biomass production.

Before I returned to academia, I worked in sustainability consulting with a Berlin-based think-tank called adelphi, where I (co-)conducted an international study on sustainability in public procurement in Europe on behalf of the European Commission. Also with adelphi, I supported the founding process of the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) on behalf of the German government.

My background is in political science (with a focus on international relations and international cooperation), my alma mater is the University of Muenster (Germany). As a graduate student, I conducted a community development project in Zimbabwe and participated in the university's amnesty international group.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


November 18, 2013 (Monday) [PRESENTATION CANCELED]

 

"Graying and Greening in Bangalore — Communities and Conservation in an Indian Megapolis"

 

Dr. Harini Nagendra, Hubert Humphrey Visiting Professor, Macalester College; Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment, India

 

Abstract: Bangalore is one of India's fastest growing cities, with a population above 10 million. Rapid and unplanned urban expansion has had a major impact on ecosystems and biodiversity, leading to the pollution of water bodies, the felling of thousands of trees, and urbanization of green spaces. Yet, Bangalore also has a strong urban cultural ethos of conservation, and is a location of significant civic and collective action. Civil society significantly shapes the environmental agenda in Bangalore, with environmental and activist groups as well as communities taking an active and vibrant role in limiting environmental change and promoting community-led restoration. Such efforts have met with variable success, depending on the nature of the ecosystem and the social and institutional context. My presentation will discuss the interactions between communities and conservation in this rapidly growing southern city, using insights from application of the Ostrom SES framework.

Bio: Harini Nagendra is a Ramanujan Fellow at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment (ATREE), Bangalore, Asia Research Coordinator at CIPEC, and Hubert H Humphrey Distinguished Visiting Professor at Macalester College, Saint Paul Minnesota. Her research examines issues of social-ecological sustainability in forests and cities in the global South. A major focus of her research is to assess the impact of rapid urbanization on ecological sustainability in India, based on a long term program of research, education and outreach conducted across multiple Indian cities. Her research also engages with policy through her participation on the Scientific Committees of Diversitas and the Global Land Project, as a Lead Author of the InterGovernmental Panel for Climate Change's 5th Assessment Report, and as a member of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


November 20, 2013 (Wednesday)

 

"Institutions of Public Information and the Problem of Regulatory Commitment"

 

Ranjan Kumar Ghosh, PhD Candidate, Division of Resource Economics, Humboldt University Berlin; Workshop Visiting Scholar

 

Abstract: Can regulatory commitment be credible under de-facto non-independent regulation? When state and regulators collude, civil society actors can generate information and try to change voter strategy. Such public interest groups can thus aim at inducing party competition for a change in the regulatory set-up. In this paper we show using a game theoretical linked action situation approach that in the short run public information produced by public interest groups actually tends to reduce commitment, irrespective of a change in the set-up. This leads to what we call a "low commitment trap." We provide some indicative support to this claim through one instance of public monitoring of electricity in India. Yet, as we show, in the long-run this dilemma can be solved under a repeated game situation where state regulators make only public interest moves "knowing" that a perennial commitment trap would otherwise be created. However, this is possible only when the institutional environment for information production is strong. We conclude that "institutions of public information" — not independence — is the necessary condition for commitment.

Keywords: Credible Commitments, Independent Regulation, Institutional Environment, Linked Action Situations, Public Information

Bio: Ranjan Ghosh is a Ph.D candidate at the Division of Resource Economics, Humboldt University Berlin. He received his M.Sc. in Economics from The Madras School of Economics, Chennai in 2007 and has previously worked with The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), New Delhi. His prime research interests lie in institutional economics, regulation and economic methodology. His doctoral thesis studies the problems of electricity sector deregulation in India using transaction costs economics. It shows that the failure to achieve efficient competitive electricity markets is because of the high transaction costs generated due to the low credibility of independent regulation. During his stay at the Workshop, he will explore the effects of social information on credible commitments using the IAD framework which asserts that institutions which are able to generate quality information and leads to "change of rules over time in light of performance" will be more successful than "grand designs."

paper


December 2, 2013 (Monday) [NOTE: Presentation will not be live streamed.]

 

"Ways to Interrelate Actor- and Transaction-Centered Frameworks in SES Research and Integrate Higher Level Governance?"

 

Professor Andreas Thiel, Department of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt University Berlin; Workshop Visiting Scholar

 

Abstract: This presentation relies on published as well as exploratory work. The underlying question concerns the role of frameworks in research on social-ecological systems. In regard to two frameworks it presents successes and failures of application in order to start a discussion on the use of frameworks and relations between different frameworks. The discussion focuses on two frameworks, one that focuses on the analysis of CPR problems and actors (Ostrom's SES framework), and another one that focuses on characteristics of nature-related transactions as unit of analysis (Institutions of Sustainability framework (IoS)). The presentation starts out with a reflection on frameworks in general before I present an evaluation of the use of Ostrom's well-established SES framework in the literature. Subsequently, I present applications of a less well-established framework, the (IoS) framework. I consider cases of wildlife management (Germany), conservation (Germany) and irrigation management (Uzbekistan). In each of these cases state actors play an important role in devising and maintaining the institutions for governing nature-related transactions of specific types. The underlying question is if and how it is possible to integrate such higher level actors in the analysis of the SES or the IoS for explaining management outcomes, what strengths and weaknesses different frameworks can be exposed, and what this may mean for use of frameworks for the analysis of SES more in general.

Bio: Andreas Thiel is Einstein Junior Fellow and temporarily appointed as Professor of Environmental Governance, heading a research group on this topic. He is an economist and spatial planner by training and holds a Ph.D. from Oxford Brookes University, School of the Built Environment. He has been Visiting Fellow at Technical University of Lisbon, University of Lisbon, University of Seville and several times he has visited Indiana University's, Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. His habilitation addresses the topic: Developing Institutional Economics for the Analysis of Social-ecological Systems. Research focused on a) the transformation of governance of the water and land use nexus in the European Union, with specific focus on the Iberian peninsula and Germany, b) the role of expertise and modeling tools in European Impact Assessment procedures, c) wildlife management and d) renewable energies. His current interests address the way society and individuals organize individuals' and collective interaction and interdependence mediated by SES, and their transformation. He addresses this interest through research on water governance, climate change adaptation and land use transformations.

paper


December 4, 2013 (Wednesday)

 

"Are Different Kinds of Collective Action the Next Evolution in Addressing the U.S. Health Dilemma?"

 

Evon Holladay [vitae], Vice President, Enterprise Intelligence, Catholic Health Initiatives; Workshop Visiting Scholar

 

Abstract: Health is complex and it is personal. Each day we make choices that serve our immediate need, and impact our long term quality of life. This has been a perplexing problem. As the U.S. medical care system invested in diagnostics to better help "cure ills," our tastes for convenience, cheap food and inactivity literally weighed us down to the point that 2/3 of Americans are overweight or obese. Sadly, this has impacted our children and their behaviors such that over 12 million are now obese, and 1/3 are extremely obese. To care for the mounting cost of chronic illness from "unhealth" (75% of a 2.7T annual spend) medical communities have focused on taking system cost out through consolidation, group purchasing arrangements and outsourcing non-core functions. Insurance and employers providing health insurance have also jumped in by reaching out to their populations regarding wellness.

This research looks at next generation collective action models for both Medical and Wellness Commons. It adds to the conversation by asking if there is a framework that could align wellness and medical care in a new way. One that would simplify and reinforce messages and provide supporting education, activities, medical, and community infrastructure that would give individuals and their social networks information to counterbalance the forces that literally are weighing down our citizens, our economy and our society.

Bio: Evon Holladay is the vice president for enterprise intelligence at Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI). She has been named the 2013 recipient of the Patricia A. Cahill Leadership Initiative, a six-month sabbatical awarded to a senior CHI executive for advanced study, research, writing or community service.

Holladay, a former assistant professor at Regis University in Denver, is spending the fall 2013 academic semester as a visiting scholar at The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University in Bloomington.

In her studies with the policy workshop, Holladay plans to research and write a report examining how health care as a commons, or community, can inform and guide the leadership of Catholic health care ministries about future governance models. Her focus on the governance of health care as a vital "common-pool resource," like water systems, timber and coal, is grounded in the work of former Indiana University scholar Elinor Ostrom, who was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in economics for her research in this area.

Today's discussion is the result of Holladay's exploration how a more-collaborative form of governance will help bridge the gap between the U.S. health care system's fragmented fee-for-service structure and the rapidly evolving focus on accountable care and population-health management.

Holladay, who has been with CHI for more than nine years, holds a master's degree in business administration from the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, and a bachelor's of science degree from Kansas State University in Manhattan.

The Patricia A. Cahill Leadership Initiative, named for CHI's first president and CEO, supports the ongoing development of leaders for CHI's Catholic health ministry and is open to individuals with a minimum of five years of CHI service in a senior or executive-level system position.

Catholic Health Initiatives is a national nonprofit health system with headquarters in Englewood, Colo. The faith-based system operates in 18 states and includes 87 hospitals; 40 long-term care, assisted- and residential-living facilities; two academic medical centers; two community health-services organizations; two accredited nursing colleges; and home health agencies. CHI is the nation's third-largest faith-based health system, with annual operating revenues of more than $12 billion and approximately 85,500 employees. In fiscal year 2013, CHI provided $762 million in charity care and community benefit, including services for the poor, free clinics, education and research.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.


December 9, 2013 (Monday) [archive stream]

 

"Common Property, Coaseian Bargains, and Efficient Collaboration"

 

Professor Emerita Margaret McKean, Department of Political Science, Duke University

 

Abstract: From the last several centuries of evolution in property arrangements in many societies, it would be easy, though almost certainly incorrect, to conclude that individual private property is always a more efficient form of property rights than common or shared property. We know that commons have been enclosed and parceled all over the world to increase investment in them and to increase production that can be extracted from them, often with great success. But we also know that even though this change seems to have improved both protection and production on many resources, it has not worked on others. In many environmentally stressed resource systems around the world, we now witness a battle over further transformations of property rights, between those who would legitimize and legalize common property arrangements and those who advocate continued enclosure and parceling. It is clear that some people want to apply "privatization" (or really "individualization," since it more appropriate to see common property as shared private property and thus as "privatized" already) as a universal treatment for environmental distress, while others see circumstances in which common property will serve the cause of environmental protection and environmentally sustainable production better. This paper attempts to sort out systematically the conditions—when and where—common property arrangements may actually be more efficient than individually parceled ownership. It relies on both deductive argument from theories of property rights and inductive generalizations based on the historical record of human experience with common property arrangements. It concludes that common property arrangements can be regarded as a package of Coaseian coordination bargains with an efficiency advantage in internalizing externalities that arise among parcels within a large resource system, in ecological settings where these externalities are inevitable, and in providing both incentives and mechanisms to cap aggregate use of a resource system that is being used very close to the limit of sustainability.

Bio: Margaret McKean is Professor Emerita of Political Science and Research Professor of Environmental Policy in the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University. She was a member of the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Common Property from 1982 to 1987 where she helped to organize the Annapolis conference on Common Property (1985) and to build the initial Common Property network. Along with Elinor Ostrom, Fikret Berkes, David Feeny, and others co-founded the International Association for the Study of Common Property in 1989. She organized the first meeting of the IASCP at Duke in 1990 as well as the most recent global conference of IASC held on Mount Fuji in Japan in 2013. (In addition to work on Japanese environmental politics and elections), her work on the commons examines traditional arrangements used in Japan to foster cooperation in limiting use to sustainable levels. Beyond Japan, her interest is in diagnosing not just how but also why people use joint arrangements to manage collective goods, and in extracting lessons from the existing repertoire of experience to inform efforts to address common-pool resource problems in contemporary settings as well—on more complex collective goods and at larger scales. If we understand these choices we can do a much better job of targeting suitable opportunities for attempting to create new common property regimes. She is currently working on two book-length manuscripts: Cooperation on the Japanese Commons and Property Rights for a Small Planet. She is also involved with colleagues in several collaborative projects: Revivals of the Commons (on contemporary applications of common-property regimes to new environmental issues in Japan), a special issue of the International Journal of the Commons on legal innovations that bring traditional commons into contemporary uses in post-industrial economies, and a long-term project developing database from the very rich archival material available on legal disputes over rights on the commons in Japan to permit analysis of sources of legal success and of the development of rights-consciousness.

Her paper will be available at a later date.


December 11, 2013 (Wednesday)

 

"Voluntary Provision of Information and Public Goods: An Experimental Study"

 

Ursula Kreitmair, Joint PhD Student, School of Public and Environmental Affairs and Department of Political Science, IUB

 

Abstract: The role of monitoring is arguably central in the provision of public goods and the management of common pool resources as it allows for the detection of uncooperative behavior (e.g. Ostrom, 2005) and thus promotes greater cooperation. However, when the meaning of cooperative behavior is unclear, such as in linear public goods games where a range of contributions may be considered cooperative, monitoring alone is unsuccessful in encouraging cooperation (Wilson & Sell, 1997; Croson, 2001). Nevertheless, information on other individuals' actions is far from ineffective when it is voluntarily provided. Using experimental data on the voluntary provision of public goods, this paper finds that when groups vote to monitor or when individuals decide to divulge information on their own actions, monitoring is an effective means to ensuring greater cooperation even in absence of institutions that formalize cooperative behavior. This effect is increased when individuals have the opportunity to signal their willingness to provide information.

Bio: Ursula Kreitmair is in the joint PhD program in Public Policy of IU's School of Public & Environmental Affairs and the Department of Political Science. Her research concerns the effective management of common-pool resources at both the local and international levels. She is particularly interested in the behavioral dimension of collective action surrounding social dilemmas and studies these using experimental and computational methods. Ursula holds a BA in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics from Oxford University; an MSc in Environmental Policy, Planning, and Regulation from the London School of Economics; and an MSc in Environmental and Resource Economics from the University College, London.

There will not be a formal paper for this session.