Meinzen-Dick, Ruth (1997) Bases for claiming common property. CPR Digest, Vol.40. pp. 11-12.
Full text not available from this repository. (Request a copy)Abstract
HOW COMMON IS "THE COMMONS"? BY broadening the definition to include what she terms the commons as text, context, and subtext, Dianne Rocheleau's commentary identifies a range of shared resources, both tangible and intangible. It raises an important question of to what extent "the commons" is present in these various forms in different societies and locations. In her example from Zambrana-Chaucuey, the commons is missing as text, but is strong in context and subtext. Other examples come to mind where the reverse might apply: where a legally and spatially defined common property may exist but has little meaning because it is not reinforced by values and institutions. This may come about where "traditions" of the commons have been eroded (for example, encroachment on the foreshore of village tanks in South India). It also arises where an "artificial commons" has been set up on the ground, but is not grounded in attitudes and institutions.
| Item Type: | Articles |
|---|---|
| Keywords: | CPR, Commons, Resources Management, Gender, Women, Bibliographies |
| Subjects: | Right to Resources |
| Depositing User: | Varsha V icsf |
| Date Deposited: | 12 May 2022 10:03 |
| Last Modified: | 12 May 2022 10:03 |
| URI: | http://icsfarchives.net/id/eprint/13839 |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
