Advocating for Change? How a Civil Society-led Coalition Influences the Implementation of the Forest Rights Act in India

World Development

Volumn 84, Issue , 2016, Pages 162-175

  Barnes, Clare ^a   van Laerhoven, Frank ^a   Driessen, Peter P J ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Advocacy coalitions; Civil society; Forest policy; Forest Rights Act; India; Policy implementation

Indexed keywords

CIVIL SOCIETY; FORESTRY POLICY; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; LEGAL RIGHTS; NATION STATE; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; POLITICAL INTEGRATION; SOCIAL MOVEMENT;

ANDHRA PRADESH; INDIA; ODISHA;

EID: 84962467934     PISSN: 0305750X     EISSN: 18735991     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.013     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Adam S., Kriesi H. The network approach. Theories of the policy process 2007, 129-154. Westview Press, Colorado. P.A. Sabatier (Ed.).
2. Aggarwal A. Implementation of Forest Rights Act, changing forest landscape, and "politics of REDD+" in India. Resources, Energy, and Development 2011, 8(2):131-148.
3. Arts B., Buizer M. Forests, discourses, institutions: a discursive-institutional analysis of global forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics 2009, 11:340-347. 10.1016/j.forpol.2008.10.004.
4. Arts B., Van Tatenhove J. Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the 'old' and 'new' policy idioms. Policy Sciences 2004, 37(3-4):339-356. 10.1007/s11077-005 0156-9.
5. Avelino F., Rotmans J. Power in transition: An interdisciplinary framework to study power in relation to structural change. European Journal of Social Theory 2009, 12:543-569. 10.1177/1368431009349830.
6. Avelino F., Rotmans J. A dynamic conceptualization of power for sustainability research. Journal of Cleaner Production 2011, 19(8):796-804. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.11.012.
7. Barnes C., Van Laerhoven F. Making it last? Analysing the role of NGO interventions in the development of institutions for durable collective action in Indian community forestry. Environmental Science & Policy 2015, 53:192-205. 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.06.008.
8. Batley R. Structures and strategies in relationships between non-government service providers and governments. Public Administration and Development 2011, 31:306-319. 10.1002/pad.606.
9. Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives 2007, Zed Books, London. A. Bebbington, S. Hickey, D. Mitlin (Eds.).
10. Berlin D. Why some greens are more powerful than others: On destabilisation, power shifts and the democratic potential of NGOs. International Review of Sociology: Revue Internationale de Sociologie 2009, 19(2):331-349. 10.1080/03906700902833635.
11. Bhullar L. The Indian Forest Rights Act 2006: A critical appraisal. Law, Environment and Development Journal 2008, 4(1):20-34. Available at .
12. Managers of global change: The influence of international environmental bureaucracies 2009, MIT Press, Cambridge, USA. F. Biermann, B. Siebenhüner (Eds.).
13. Blaikie P., Springate-Baginksi O. Understanding the Policy Process in Participatory Forest Mangement. Forests, people and power: The political ecology of reform in South Asia 2007, Earthscan, London. O. Springate-Baginski, P. Blaikie (Eds.).
14. Brown T. Negotiating the NGO/social movement dichotomy: Evidence from Punjab, India. Voluntas 2014, 25:46-66. 10.1007/s11266-012-9324-7.
15. Clement F. Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: Proposition for a "politicised" institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Sciences 2010, 43(2):129-156. 10.1007/s11077-009-9100-8.
16. Deo N., McDuie-Ra D. The politics of collective advocacy in India: Tools and traps 2011, Kumarian Press, Sterling, VA.
17. De Landa M. A new philosophy of society: Assemblage theory and social complexity 2006, Continuum, London, New York.
18. Community forest rights under forest rights act: Citizens' report 2013 2013, Kalpavriksh, Pune and Vasundhara, Bhubaneshwar with Oxfam India, Delhi, on behalf of Community Forest Rights Learning and Advocacy Process. Retrieved from . S. Desor (Ed.).
19. Edwards M. Civil society 2009, Polity Press, Cambridge.
20. Fischer F. Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative practices 2003, Oxford Scholarship Online.
21. Fleischman F.D. Why do foresters plant trees? Testing theories of bureaucratic decision-making in central India. World Development 2014, 62:62-74. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.05.008.
22. Forsyth T. Are environmental social movements socially exclusive? An historical study from Thailand. World Development 2007, 35(12):2110-2130. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.01.005.
23. Gopalakrishnan S. Undemocratic and arbitrary: Control, regulation and expropriation of India's forest and common lands 2012, SPWD; Rights and Resources Initiative, New Delhi; Washington, DC, Retrieved from .
24. Gopalakrishnan S. Missing the forest for the trees. Indian Express 2012, Retrieved from http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/missing-the-forest-for-the-trees/963599/0.
25. Gupta J. India and climate changes policy: Between diplomatic defensiveness and industrial transformation. Energy and Environment 2001, 12(2-3):217-236.
26. Gupta K. A comparative policy analysis of coalition strategies: Case studies of nuclear energy and forest management in India. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 2014, 16(4):356-372. 10.1080/13876988.2014.886812.
27. Hertel S. Hungry for justice: Social mobilization on the right to food in India. Development and Change 2015, 46(1):72-94. 10.1111/dech.12144.
28. Hill M., Hupe P. Implementing public policy: Governance in theory and practice 2002, Sage, London. 2nd ed.
29. Jörgensen K., Wagner C. Low carbon governance in multi-level structures: The role of the EU in the Climate Relations with India (Beyond 2015: Exploring the Future of Global Climate Governance, as part of the Indian-European Multi-level Climate Governance Research Network (IECGN). Paper presented at the Amsterdam conference 2015, Retrieved from .
30. Kashwan P. The politics of rights-based approaches in conservation. Land Use Policy 2013, 31:613-626. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.009.
31. Kashwan P., Lobo V. Of rights and regeneration: The politics of governing forest and non-forest commons. Democratising forest governance in India 2014, 351-377. Oxford University Press, Delhi. S. Lele, A. Menon (Eds.).
32. Kingdon J.W., Thurber J.A. Agendas, alternatives, and public policies 1984, Little, Brown, Boston.
33. Krinsky J., Crossley N. Social movements and social networks: Introduction. Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest 2014, 13(1):1-21. 10.1080/14742837.2013.862787.
34. Krott M., Bader A., Schusser C., Devkota R., Maryudi A., Giessen L., et al. Actor-centred power: The driving force in decentralised community based forest governance. Forest Policy and Economics 2014, 49:34-42. 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.012.
35. Kumar K., Kerr J.M. Democratic assertions: The making of India's recognition of forest rights act. Development and Change 2012, 43(3):751-771. 10.1111/j.1467-7660.2012.01777.
36. Kumar K. The sacred mountain: Confronting global capital at Niyamgiri. Geoforum 2014, 54:196-206. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.11.008.
37. Lecy J.D., Schmitz H.P., Swedlund H. Non-governmental and not-for-profit organisational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. Voluntas 2012, 23:434-457. 10.1007/s11266-011-9204-6.
38. Lele S., Menon A. Introduction: Forest governance beyond joint forest management, godavarman, and tigers. Democratising forest governance in India 2014, Oxford University Press, Delhi. S. Lele, A. Menon (Eds.).
39. Lester J.P., Goggin M.L. Back to the future: The rediscovery of implementation studies. Policy Currents 1998, 8(3):1-9.
40. Lister S. NGO legitimacy: Technical issue or social construct?. Critique of Anthropology 2003, 23(2):175-192. 10.1177/0308275X03023002004.
41. Lukes S. Power: A radical view 2005, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. 2nd ed.
42. Majone G. Evidence, argument, and persuasion in the policy process 1989, Yale University Press.
43. Matti S., Sandström A. The rationale determining advocacy coalitions: Examining coordination networks and corresponding beliefs. The Policy Studies Journal 2011, 39(3):385-410.
44. March J.G., Olsen J.P. The logic of appropriateness. Handbook of public policy 2006, 689-708. Oxford University Press, Oxford. M. Rein, M. Moran, R.E. Goodin (Eds.).
45. OHanyan A. Network institutionalism and NGO studies. International Studies Perspectives 2012, 13:366-389. 10.1111/j.1528-3585.2012.00488.x.
46. O'Toole L.J. Research on policy implementation: Assessment and prospects. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 2000, 2:263-288.
47. Pattberg P., Widerberg O. International cooperative initiatives in global climate governance: Raising the ambition level or delegitimizing the UNFCCC?. Global Policy 2015, 6(1):45-56. 10.1111/1758-5899.12184.
48. Pollard A., Court J. How civil society organisations use evidence to influence policy processes. Can NGOs make a difference? The challenge of development alternatives 2007, 133-152. Zed Books, London. A. Bebbington, S. Hickey, D. Mitlin (Eds.).
49. Rao P.T. Politics of tribal land rights: Notes from Andhra Pradesh. Economic and Political Weekly 2014, 49(16):67-70.
50. Ravikumar A., Larson A.M., Duchelle A.E., Myers R., Gonzales Tovar J. Multilevel governance challenges in transitioning towards a national approach for REDD+: Evidence from 23 subnational REDD+ initiatives. International Journal of the Commons 2015, 9(2):909-931.
51. Resosudarmo I.A.P., Atmadja S., Ekaputri A.D., Intarini D.Y., Indriatmoko Y. Does tenure security lead to REDD+ project effectiveness? Reflections from five emerging sites in Indonesia. World Development 2014, 55:68-83. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.015.
52. Sabatier P.A., Jenkins-Smith H.C. The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. Theories of the policy process 1999, 117-166. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. P.A. Sabatier (Ed.).
53. Sabatier P.A., Weible C.M. The advocacy coalition framework: Innovations and Clarifications. Theories of the Policy Process 2007, 189-220. Westview Press, Colorado. P.A. Sabatier (Ed.).
54. Sandström A.C., Rova C.V. The network structure of adaptive governance: A single case study of a fish management area. International Journal of the Commons 2009, 4(1):528-551. Retrieved from .
55. Sarin M., Springate-Baginski O. India's Forest Rights Act-the anatomy of a necessary but not sufficient institutional reform (working paper no. 45) 2010, Retrieved from Institutions and Pro-Poor Growth .
56. Saxena Report national committee on forest rights act 2010, A Joint Committee of Ministry of Environment and Forests and Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, Retrieved from .
57. Schouten G., Glasbergen P. Creating legitimacy in global private governance: The case of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil. Ecological Economics 2011, 70:1891-1899. 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.03.012.
58. Springate-Baginski O., Sarin M., Ghosh S., Dasgupta P., Bose I., Banerjee A., Rao P.T. Redressing 'historical injustice' through the Indian Forest Rights Act 2006: A Historical Institutional analysis of contemporary forest rights reform 2009, IPPG discussion paper 27, Retrieved from .
59. Springate-Baginski O., Sarin M., Reddy M.G. Resisting rights: Forest bureaucracy and the tenure transition in India. Small-scale Forestry 2013, 12:107-124. 10.1007/s11842-012-9219-x.
60. Suchman M. Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review 1995, 20:571-610.
61. Sunderlin W.D., Larson A.M., Duchelle A.E., Resosudarmo I.A.P., Huynh T.B., Awono A., et al. How are REDD+ proponents addressing tenure problems? Evidence from Brazil, Cameroon, Tanzania, Indonesia, and Vietnam. World Development 2014, 55:37-52. 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.01.013.
62. Tambat, S.V. (xxxx) Review of The Press in India (2008 to 2012). Report submitted to The Press Council of India, Department of Communication & Journalism, University of Pune. Retrieved from . http://presscouncil.nic.in/WriteReadData/Pdf/ReviewofthePressinIndia.pdf.
63. Tilly C. Identities, boundaries, and social ties 2005, Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO.
64. Torenvlied R., Thompson R. Is implementation distinct from political bargaining?. Rationality and Society 2003, 15(1):64-84.
65. Van Eerd M.C.J., Dieperink C., Wiering M.A. 'A dive into floods': Exploring the Dutch implementation of the floods directive. Water Policy 2015, 17:187-207. 10.2166/wp.2014.025.
66. Weible C.M. Comparing policy networks: Marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal 2005, 33(2):181-201.
67. Weible C.M., Sabatier P.A., McQueen K. Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. The Policy Studies Journal 2009, 37(1):21-140.
68. Weible C.M., Heikkila T., deLeon P., Sabatier P.A. Understanding and influencing the policy process. Policy Sciences 2012, 45:1-21. 10.1007/s11077-011-9143-5.
69. Weiss C.H. The experimenting society in a political world. Validity & social experimentation: Donald Campbell's legacy 2000, 283-302. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. L. Bickmann (Ed.).
70. Widerberg O., Van Laerhoven F. Measuring the autonomous influence of an international bureaucracy: the division for sustainable development. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 2014, 14(4):303-327. 10.1007/s10784-014-9249-2.
71. Winkel G., Sotirov M. An obituary for national forest programmes? Analyzing and learning from the strategic use of "new modes of governance" in Germany and Bulgaria. Forest Policy and Economics 2011, 13:143-154.