Abstract

Common property institutions in natural resource management are often analysed by means of Ostrom’s framework of design principles. Recently, the design principles have been generalised to study human groups in other collective action scenarios, including farm producers who collectively buy inputs or sell outputs. Several case studies have conceptualised farmer cooperatives as common property institutions to study how various collective action scenarios have been approached. We contribute to the scarce literature with a field study in the Upper West Region of Ghana, using Ostrom’s framework to compare the design principles of active and inactive farmer cooperatives. Using the mean group comparison method, we find numerous significant differences as active farmer cooperatives have clearer boundaries, require more capital investments, have more active board directors and managers, receive more governmental support, and have more locations. However, not all design principles are significantly different for active and inactive cooperatives (e.g. sanctions, legal rights). Considering our results, we perceive opportunities to formalise the conceptualisation of farmer cooperatives as common property institutions with both internal and external design principles. Our results also have policy implications in terms of top-down initiatives to spur collective action by Ghanaian farm producers.

Highlights

  • Based on numerous case studies of forests, rivers, and other natural resources, Ostrom (1990) argued common property institutions can become robust if certain conditions are met

  • According to the mean group comparison, active farmer cooperatives have a higher proportion of non-member transactions, which are normally not conducive to the performance of common property institutions (e.g. Ross and MartinezSantos, 2010)

  • Ostrom’s analytical framework of design principles is arguably the go-to diagnostic tool to measure the robustness of user-owned natural resource management institutions

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Based on numerous case studies of forests, rivers, and other natural resources, Ostrom (1990) argued common property institutions can become robust if certain conditions are met. While the design principles relate originally to common property institutions in the arena of natural resources, it is logical to extend analysis to any human group whose members must work together to pursue a common interest (Wilson et al, 2013). Examples of applications of Ostrom’s analytical framework in collective action situations with non-natural resources relate to carbon emission (Lacroix and Richards, 2015), product origin certification (Quiñones-Ruiz et al, 2015), energy consumption (Melville et al, 2017), and bank financial stability (Salter and Tarko, 2018)

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call