Federated rural organization for governing the commons in Japan

Abstract

Olson argued that larger (smaller) organizations or groups are weaker (stronger) in terms of collective action performance and advances the idea that small groups exhibit better collective action performance. Olson also argued that a coercive centralized state is required to sustain collective action by an organization or group. A considerable body of scholarship has developed over the past half century to investigate these two insights. Scholarship, however, has not focused on his third insight: when a large organization is divided into federated groups, its collective action performance becomes efficient. In an analysis of Japan's large-scale, federated irrigation management experience, this study demonstrates that Olson's third insight is substantially relevant, but his argument regarding the necessity for a coercive centralized state requires further consideration. Furthermore, the study reveals that a large organization can generate stronger collective action as a federation of many groups; however, the state's involvement must be fundamentally non-coercive and non-participatory to facilitate user self-governance.