Responsibilization in natural resources governance: A romantic doxa?

Irmeli Mustalahti, Violeta Gutiérrez-Zamora, Maija Hyle, Bishnu Prasad Devkota and Nina Tokola

Forest Policy and Economics, 2020, vol. 111, issue C

Abstract: In the extensive literature scholars have demonstrated that the goals of power transfer in the decentralization of natural resources governance have not been fully achieved. Powerful actors have maintained their positions of domination, while the interventions have transferred tasks and duties to communities and local decision makers without adequately attending to their capabilities, capacities and resources for natural resources governance. Our research cases from Mexico, Nepal and Tanzania reveal the limits of such responsibilization. We argue that natural resource governance interventions increasingly rely on a new logic that requires citizens, local authorities and communities to be responsible for their own well-being and for resource sustainability. In our case study countries, decentralized forest governance has been a way to demonstrate a “romantic doxa” which national and international actors created via the phenomenon of “responsibilization” something seemingly innocent which has created symbolic violence. In this article, we argue that three aspects capabilities, agency, and level of structures need to be better understood to support locally responsive and collaborative natural resources governance instead of responsibilization in the resources governance. We consider that: 1) the concept of human agency is centrally connected to collaborative and responsive natural resources sustainability transformation processes; 2) the capabilities to exercise human agency need to match the duties, and the duties must be appropriate and moderate with respect to the agents in the natural resources governance and; 3) the governance structures need to be changed so as not only to support human agency to carry out duties but also to ensure capabilities.

Keywords: Responsibilization; Forest governance; Community forestry; Capabilities; Agency; Structures; Symbolic violence; Mexico; Nepal; Tanzania (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (12)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934119302035
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:forpol:v:111:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119302035

DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2019.102033

Access Statistics for this article

Forest Policy and Economics is currently edited by M. Krott

More articles in Forest Policy and Economics from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().