In a newly published FAO Working Paper, Communal Tenure and the Governance of Common Property Resources in Asia, Kirsten Ewers Andersen concludes that the establishment of new, formal tenure institutions at the local level requires a great deal of social engineering. That sounds frightening.
The wording, though not her later conclusion, is in line with much literature within the study of land reform with its strong tradition of state critique. I believe they are wrong, a point I shall elaborate on at the end of this blog post.
Thomas Sikor and Daniel Müller’s article, The Limits of State-Led Land Reform, from 2009 is a prime example of the tradition critical towards the state. It argues that empirical and conceptual insights suggest the benefits of a shift in emphasis from state to community in land reform. They do not, however, take into account that most of the last two decades’ land reforms in Sub-Saharan Africa already aim at strengthening the local level in the management of land. In Tanzania, for instance, responsibility over the administration of land in rural areas has been devolved to the village authorities.
That does not mean that the decentralized administration works in practice. John W. Bruce and Anna Knox’s article, Structures and Stratagems: Making Decentralization of Authority over Land in Africa Cost-Effective, points out that it is expensive to make decentralisation work. They, too, suggest building on existing traditional authorities because traditional authorities are remarkably cost effective in delivering local land administration….
To strengthen the role of traditional authorities, however, should not mean withdrawal of the state though that is often what is implied in the critique of the state. As Kirsten Ewers Andersen points out communities often need support and recognition by the state in order to manage effectively… (page 2). Her observation is in line with one of the main findings from my research, namely that decentralisation of responsibility for the administration of land requires active involvement by outside actors.
It is counter-intuitive, but to make decentralisation work is not merely a matter of state withdrawal. NGOs can do their bit, but their reach is limited to geographically limited interventions. If decentralisation of natural resource management is to work in an entire country, engagement of state authorities is key. Both community and state institutions will have to learn the new rules of the game. Social engineering or not.
Recent Comments