从繁荣到萧条

IF 1.3 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Juliet Lu, Hilary H. Smith
{"title":"从繁荣到萧条","authors":"Juliet Lu, Hilary H. Smith","doi":"10.1525/sod.2023.9.2.131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we examine the extensive use of bans (temporary prohibitions or moratoriums) on resource exploitation activities by the government of Laos as an authoritarian environmental governance tool. We focus on bans enacted recently in three sectors: on the granting of land concessions in 2012, on the expansion of banana plantations in 2014, and on logging exports in 2016. Bans have long been used in Laos, particularly in the forestry sector, despite their considerable political risk and economic costs, the way they contradict state actors’ promotion of these same activities as drivers of development, and their past ineffectiveness. Most cases in the environmental authoritarian literature explore authoritarian states with a strong capacity to employ top-down governance tools. We argue, in contrast, that the Lao government’s repeated use of bans instead of other effective governing tools, such as more incremental, conditional, or incentive-based policies, reflects not strong state capacity but rather the limits to its implementing and enforcement capacity. The bans examined emerge from central–local divides, unregulated village land leasing, and failures to extract state revenues, and we interpret them as central-state efforts to consolidate and assert a more centralized, command-and-control authority over the country’s land and resources.","PeriodicalId":36869,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Development","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Booms to Bans\",\"authors\":\"Juliet Lu, Hilary H. Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1525/sod.2023.9.2.131\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, we examine the extensive use of bans (temporary prohibitions or moratoriums) on resource exploitation activities by the government of Laos as an authoritarian environmental governance tool. We focus on bans enacted recently in three sectors: on the granting of land concessions in 2012, on the expansion of banana plantations in 2014, and on logging exports in 2016. Bans have long been used in Laos, particularly in the forestry sector, despite their considerable political risk and economic costs, the way they contradict state actors’ promotion of these same activities as drivers of development, and their past ineffectiveness. Most cases in the environmental authoritarian literature explore authoritarian states with a strong capacity to employ top-down governance tools. We argue, in contrast, that the Lao government’s repeated use of bans instead of other effective governing tools, such as more incremental, conditional, or incentive-based policies, reflects not strong state capacity but rather the limits to its implementing and enforcement capacity. The bans examined emerge from central–local divides, unregulated village land leasing, and failures to extract state revenues, and we interpret them as central-state efforts to consolidate and assert a more centralized, command-and-control authority over the country’s land and resources.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36869,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociology of Development\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociology of Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1525/sod.2023.9.2.131\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociology of Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/sod.2023.9.2.131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我们研究了老挝政府对资源开采活动广泛使用禁令(临时禁止或暂停)作为威权环境治理工具。我们关注的是最近在三个领域颁布的禁令:2012年的土地特许,2014年的香蕉种植园扩张,以及2016年的伐木出口。老挝长期以来一直在使用禁令,特别是在林业部门,尽管它们具有相当大的政治风险和经济成本,它们与国家行为体推动这些活动作为发展动力的方式相矛盾,而且它们过去无效。环境威权主义文献中的大多数案例都探讨了威权国家采用自上而下的治理工具的强大能力。相比之下,我们认为,老挝政府反复使用禁令而不是其他有效的治理工具,如更多的增量、有条件或基于激励的政策,反映的不是强大的国家能力,而是其实施和执行能力的限制。这些禁令源于中央与地方的分歧、不受监管的乡村土地租赁以及未能提取国家收入,我们将其解释为中央政府巩固和维护对国家土地和资源的更集中、指挥和控制权威的努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From Booms to Bans
In this paper, we examine the extensive use of bans (temporary prohibitions or moratoriums) on resource exploitation activities by the government of Laos as an authoritarian environmental governance tool. We focus on bans enacted recently in three sectors: on the granting of land concessions in 2012, on the expansion of banana plantations in 2014, and on logging exports in 2016. Bans have long been used in Laos, particularly in the forestry sector, despite their considerable political risk and economic costs, the way they contradict state actors’ promotion of these same activities as drivers of development, and their past ineffectiveness. Most cases in the environmental authoritarian literature explore authoritarian states with a strong capacity to employ top-down governance tools. We argue, in contrast, that the Lao government’s repeated use of bans instead of other effective governing tools, such as more incremental, conditional, or incentive-based policies, reflects not strong state capacity but rather the limits to its implementing and enforcement capacity. The bans examined emerge from central–local divides, unregulated village land leasing, and failures to extract state revenues, and we interpret them as central-state efforts to consolidate and assert a more centralized, command-and-control authority over the country’s land and resources.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Sociology of Development
Sociology of Development Social Sciences-Development
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
14
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信