Premium
Institutional boundaries and common‐pool resource management: A comparative analysis of water management programs in California
Author(s) -
Heikkila Tanya
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
journal of policy analysis and management
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.898
H-Index - 84
eISSN - 1520-6688
pISSN - 0276-8739
DOI - 10.1002/pam.10181
Subject(s) - resource management (computing) , natural resource , natural resource management , common pool resource , resource (disambiguation) , business , environmental resource management , institutional analysis , control (management) , politics , empirical research , public administration , public economics , natural resource economics , economics , political science , sociology , management , computer science , law , computer network , social science , philosophy , epistemology , microeconomics
Policymakers and academics often identify institutional boundaries as one of the factors that shape thecapacity of jurisdictions to manage natural resources such as water, forests, and scenic lands. This articleexamines two key bodies of literature—common‐pool resource management theory and local publiceconomy theory—to explain how the boundaries of political jurisdictions affect natural resourcemanagement. Two empirical methods were used to test hypotheses from the literature, using a study of watermanagement programs in California. The results demonstrate that institutional boundaries that coincide withnatural resources are likely to be associated with the implementation of more effective resource managementprograms. At the same time, where jurisdictions can control through coordination, they can also facilitate moreeffective resource management where jurisdictions do not match resource boundaries. © 2004 by theAssociation for Public Policy Analysis and Management.