Heterogeneity, Group Size and Collective Action: The Role of Institutions in Forest Management
Abstract
Collective action for sustainable management among resource‐dependent populations has important policy implications. Despite considerable progress in identifying factors that affect the prospects for collective action, no consensus exists about the role played by heterogeneity and size of group. The debate continues in part because of a lack of uniform conceptualization of these factors, the existence of non‐linear relationships, and the mediating role played by institutions. This article draws on research by scholars in the International Forestry Resources and Institutions (IFRI) research network which demonstrates that some forms of heterogeneity do not negatively affect some forms of collective action. More importantly, IFRI research draws out the interrelations among group size, heterogeneity, and institutions. Institutions can affect the level of heterogeneity or compensate for it. Group size appears to have a non‐linear relationship to at least some forms of collective action. Moreover, group size may be as much an indicator of institutional success as a precondition for such success.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Trust that others will follow the rules is crucial to collective action.
“Trust that others will follow the rules is crucial to collective action.”
From Collective action in a polycentric water governance system (2018) · cites this paper as Poteete & Ostrom, 2004
Successful collective action requires a defined group with common interests.
“Core requirements for successful collective action include the presence of a defined group with common interests”
From Collective action in a polycentric water governance system (2018) · cites this paper as Poteete & Ostrom, 2004
Successful collective action requires incentives and strategies that encourage compliance.
“incentives and strategies that encourage compliance”
From Collective action in a polycentric water governance system (2018) · cites this paper as Poteete & Ostrom, 2004
Successful collective action requires repeated, face-to-face interactions among group members.
“repeated, face-to-face interactions among group members, allowing members to share information and devise appropriate rules and norms”
From Collective action in a polycentric water governance system (2018) · cites this paper as Poteete & Ostrom, 2004
Successful collective action requires appropriate conflict resolution mechanisms.
“appropriate conflict resolution mechanisms”
From Collective action in a polycentric water governance system (2018) · cites this paper as Poteete & Ostrom, 2004
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons
Carlisle, K., & Gruby, R. L. (2019) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/psj.12212 · Cited by 745 · see citing works
Operationalizing the social-ecological systems framework to assess sustainability
Leslie, H. M., Basurto, X., Nenadovic, M., Sievanen, L., Cavanaugh, K. C., Cota-Nieto, J. J., Erisman, B. E., Finkbeiner, E., Hinojosa-Arango, G., Moreno-Báez, M., et al. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1414640112 · Cited by 375 · see citing works
What Explains Collective Action in the Commons? Theory and Evidence from the Philippines
Araral, E. (2009) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.08.002 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Collective action in a polycentric water governance system
Baldwin, E., McCord, P., Dell'Angelo, J., & Evans, T. (2018) · Environmental Policy and Governance · doi:10.1002/eet.1810 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Understanding large social-ecological systems: introducing the SESMAD project.
Cox, M. (2014) · International Journal of the Commons · doi:10.18352/ijc.406 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Naiga, R., Penker, M., & Hogl, K. (2017) · Society & Natural Resources · doi:10.1080/08941920.2016.1274460 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
- Authors
- Poteete, A. R., & Ostrom, E.
- Affiliations
- LSU New Orleans (US)
- ORCID
- Poteete, Amy R.
- Venue
- Development and Change
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2004-06
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 435-461
- ISSN
- 0012-155X (ISSN-L)
- 1467-7660
- OpenAlex
- W2060702958
- Cited by
- 667
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 46 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 44 · 2013: 49 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 15.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Development and Change (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Forest Management and Policy
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Sciences and Humanities
- Keywords
- collective action, heterogeneity, group size, institutions, forest management, sustainable resource management, nonlinear relationship
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review