The DOI matches its OpenAlex record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Furthering critical institutionalism
Open accessAbstract
This special issue furthers the study of natural resource management from a critical institutional perspective. Critical institutionalism (CI) is a contemporary body of thought that explores how institutions dynamically mediate relationships between people, natural resources and society. It focuses on the complexity of institutions entwined in everyday social life, their historical formation, the interplay between formal and informal, traditional and modern arrangements, and the power relations that animate them. In such perspectives a social justice lens is often used to scrutinise the outcomes of institutional processes. We argue here that critical institutional approaches have potentially much to offer commons scholarship, particularly through the explanatory power of the concept of bricolage for better understanding institutional change. Critical institutional approaches, gathering momentum over the past 15 years or so, have excited considerable interest but the insights generated from different disciplinary perspectives remain insufficiently synthesised. Analyses emphasising complexity can be relatively illegible to policy-makers, a fact which lessens their reach. This special issue therefore aims to synthesise critical institutional ideas and so to lay the foundation for moving beyond the emergent stage to make meaningful academic and policy impact. In bringing together papers here we define and synthesise key themes of critical institutionalism, outline the concept of institutional bricolage and identity some key challenges facing this school of thought.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Outline of a Theory of Practice
Bourdieu, P. (1977) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511812507 · Cited by 27,606
(1984) · Cited by 21,166
Outline of a Theory of Practice
BOURDIEU, P. (2007) · On Violence · doi:10.2307/j.ctv120qr2d.16 · Cited by 5,527
Latour, B., & Douglas, M. (1988) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2069673 · Cited by 2,709
Environmentality: Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects
Agrawal, A. (2005) · Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · Cited by 1,206
Development Sociology: Actor Perspectives
Long, N. (2001) · Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling · Cited by 1,145
Twilight Institutions: Public Authority and Local Politics in Africa
Lund, C. (2006) · Development and Change · doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2006.00497.x · Cited by 994
Common property resources: ecology and community-based sustainable development
(1990) · Trends in Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1016/0169-5347(90)90075-o · Cited by 838
Reinventing Institutions: Bricolage and the Social Embeddedness of Natural Resource Management
Cleaver, F. (2002) · The European Journal of Development Research · doi:10.1080/714000425 · Cited by 761
Self-citationIs Small Really Beautiful? Community-based Natural Resource Management in Malawi and Botswana
Blaikie, P. (2006) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.023 · Cited by 759
Cited by
Sociohydrology: Scientific Challenges in Addressing the Sustainable Development Goals
Di Baldassarre, G., Sivapalan, M., Rusca, M., Cudennec, C., Garcia, M., Kreibich, H., Konar, M., Mondino, E., Mård, J., Pande, S., et al. (2019) · Water Resources Research · doi:10.1029/2018wr023901 · Cited by 532
Spiders in the web: understanding the evolution of REDD+ in Southwest Ghana
den Besten, J. W., Arts, B., & Behagel, J. (2019) · Forests · doi:10.3390/f10020117 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Cleaver, F., & de Koning, J.
- Venue
- International Journal of the Commons
- Publisher
- Utrecht University Library Open Access Journals (Publishing Services)
- Published
- 2015-03-16
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-1
- ISSN
- 1875-0281 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2141046951
- Cited by
- 364
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 51.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Furthering critical institutionalism. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.605
- The paper
- Cleaver, F., & de Koning, J. (2015). Furthering critical institutionalism. International Journal of the Commons. https://doi.org/10.18352/bmgn-lchr.605
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.