Neither Market Nor State: Governance of Common-Pool Resources in the Twenty-First Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"Property rights and tenure issues are important to assure success in efforts to combine appropriate management of natural resources with productivity increases in developing-country agriculture. Failure to understand existing and alternative property-rights arrangements and how they work may result in inappropriate action by governments and\nnongovernmental organizations. Research to enhance such understanding is of critical importance and occupies high priority within the current five-year plan of IFPRI. While much attention is paid to the negative effects of free access to natural resources and the potential benefits from privatization of natural resource ownership, this lecture describes common-property institutions and illustrates how they may be superior to both free access and private ownership to achieve appropriate natural resource management and sustainability in agricultural production. Professor Ostrom demonstrates how well-meaning government action aimed at environmental protection may destroy existing community-level arrangements to the detriment of both natural resources and the people living in the community. Action by governments and nongovernmental organizations should enhance rather than replace social capital, which has been built up at the community level over generations. Professor Ostrom argues convincingly that local common-property institutions are effective if not essential components of successful future management of natural resources. While some things are best done by governments or the market, others are more appropriately done by community-level institutions, that is, 'neither market nor state.'"
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".