 Conceptualising Environmental Collective Action: Why Gender MattersCambridge Journal of Economics, 2000, vol. 24, issue 3, 283-310 Abstract: This paper demonstrates how institutions for natural resource management (such as community forestry groups), which appear to be participative, equitable and efficient, can be found lacking on all three counts from a gender perspective. It also examines possible gender differences in social networks, values and motivations. Although there is little to suggest that women are inherently more conservationist than men, the distinctness of women's social networks embodying prior experience of successful cooperation, their higher dependence on these networks (as also on the commons in general), and their potentially greater group homogeneity relative to men, could provide an important (and largely ignored) basis for organising sustainable environmental collective action. The paper also outlines the factors that can constrain or facilitate women's participation in formal environmental management groups. Illustrative examples are drawn from rural South Asia. Copyright 2000 by Oxford University Press. Date: 2000 There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it. Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:cambje:v:24:y:2000:i:3:p:283-310 Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from Access Statistics for this article Cambridge Journal of Economics is currently edited by Jacqui Lagrue More articles in Cambridge Journal of Economics from Cambridge Political Economy Society Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK. |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.