Responsibilization in Natural Resource Governance. Vuorovaikutteista luonnonvarahallintaa etsimässä : kansalaisten vastuuttamisesta kohti vastuullisuuden tukemista

(1)

R EP O R TS | I R M EL I M U ST A LA H TI A N D A R U N A G R A W A L ( ED S.) | R ES PO N SIB IL IZ A TIO N I N N A TU R A L R ES O U R CE G OV ER N A N CE

IRMELI MUSTALAHTI AND ARUN AGRAWAL (EDS.)

Responsibilization in Natural Resource Governance

VUOROVAIKUTTEISTA LUONNONVARAHALLINTAA ETSIMÄSSÄ - KANSALAISTEN VASTUUTTAMISESTA KOHTI VASTUULLISUUDEN TUKEMISTA

Reports and Studies in Social Sciences and Business Studies

PUBLICATIONS OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

uef.fi

PUBLICATIONS OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND

Responsive Natural Resources Governance (RNRG) research group is funded by e.g. Academy of Finland and Finnish

Strategic Research Council https://sites.uef.fi/

responsive-natural-resources-governance/

IRMELI MUSTALAHTI AND ARUN AGRAWAL (EDS.)

tutkittutieto.fi/en | @ttv2021 | #yearofresearchbasedknowledge

Year of research-based knowledge 2021

(2)

Responsibilization in Natural Resource

Governance

Vuorovaikutteista luonnonvarahallintaa etsimässä - Kansalaisten vastuuttamisesta kohti

vastuullisuuden tukemista

(3)

Irmeli Mustalahti and Arun Agrawal (eds.)

Responsibilization in Natural Resource

Governance

Vuorovaikutteista luonnonvarahallintaa etsimässä - Kansalaisten vastuuttamisesta kohti

vastuullisuuden tukemista

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland.

Reports and Studies in Social Sciences and Business Studies No 15

Joensuu

2021

(4)

Grano Oy Jyväskylä, 2021

Sarjan toimittaja/Editor in-Chief: Antero Puhakka ISBN: 978-952-61-3820-6 (nid.)

ISBN: 978-952-61-3821-3 (PDF) ISSNL: 1798-5765

ISSN: 1798-5765

ISSN: 1798-5773 (PDF)

(5)

Irmeli Mustalahti and Arun Agrawal (eds.)

Responsibilization in Natural Resource Governance University of Eastern Finland, 2021

Publications of the University of Eastern Finland.

Reports and Studies in Social Sciences and Business ISBN: 978-952-61-3820-6 (print)

ISBN: 978-952-61-3821-3 (PDF) ISSNL: 1798-5765

ISSN: 1798-5765 ISSN: 1798-5773 (PDF)

PREFACE

This compilation of articles constitutes part of the Responsive Natural Resources Governance Research Group’s international collaboration at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies of the University of Eastern Finland. These articles have been published in Responsibilization in Natural Resources Governance, a special issue of the Forest Policy and Economics journal. In this special issue, we describe how the participation in natural resources governance of local governments, citizens and various actors has increased and become more diverse. For example, decentralised models of natural resources governance have created new opportunities for participation, improved decision-making and increased transparency.

Our authors, however, take a critical approach to examining the

phenomenon of responsibilization in natural resource governance and its

linkage with neoliberal economic policy, which aims at privatising state

assets, reducing financial regulation, and replacing political activities with

market control. Indeed, in the works of the French philosopher Michel

Foucault, and in the extensive research literature stemming from his

thinking, power structures and the responsibilization of citizens by their

governments are given plenty of attention. Besides Foucault, we also

refer to scholars of other disciplines who look at responsibilization in

different fields, on different levels and from a variety of perspectives (such

as Christopher Grey, Ylva Uggla, Meghann Ormond, Iain Ferguson, Tanya

Marray Li, and Nancy Lee Peluso). In this compilation, we want to highlight

not only natural resource governance, but also other fields that boast

critical thinking and extensive research knowledge on responsibilization.

(6)

The articles in this compilation rely on Foucault’s theoretical framework of power and governmentality, but we also approach responsibilization through the concept of symbolic violence. The term symbolic violence was coined by Pierre Bourdieu, a sociologist and a philosopher who has identified symbolic violence in nearly all power structures of society.

Responsibilization has become a way to improve economic efficiency and the preconditions of continuous growth. Obligations, instruments of control and demands imposed from above, as well as culturally accepted yet oppressive practices, are examples of soft and invisible violence, which can lead to discrimination, social inequality, corruption, passive governments, and biodiversity depletion. Case studies show how responsibilization impacts to various actors when local governments’, citizens’ and various actors’ responsibility for natural resources governance is increased without at the same time providing them with adequate operating conditions, information and resources.

Structures do not always support citizens’ responsibility, well-being, voluntary participation and inclusion, but can force unreasonable responsibility on them, thus creating symbolic violence. Responsibilization and growing responsibilities are not an issue in natural resources governance alone; for example, the education and health care sectors are also affected. Obligations trickle down to the local level, to citizens and to NGOs – without them being provided with adequate resources, information and operating conditions. It is emphasised in social media, political debate and education alike that the next generation is more educated and capable than the previous one to tear down old walls and rigid patterns of thought.

They are expected to implement the sustainability transition, which is an ecological necessity.

Responsibilization and symbolic violence occur in different sectors of society in Finland, too. In Finland, the participation of young people in the discussion on environmental issues and the sustainability transition has been studied in the ALL-YOUTH research project funded by the Strategic Research Council coordinated by Academy of Finland. The research project has found that in public discourse, forcing responsibility on young people and future generations is being justified by reasons pertaining to climate, economy, and education and labour policy.

A sustainability transition that involves forcing responsibility on citizens

will not guarantee sustainable well-being. In order to support a responsible

and collaborative sustainability transformation, we need to have a better

(7)

understanding of citizens’ skills and of social structures. To support citizens’

own capabilities and to make responsibilization reasonable, three policy recommendations are presented at the end of this compilation of articles.

Through sustainability transformations implemented by citizens and other actors, the sustainability transition will eventually be one realised by responsible citizens. Not by forcing anyone, but by encouraging everyone.

When aiming for sustainable development, we should strive to support well-being without expecting continuous growth – and we should avoid symbolic violence at all levels of society different levels of our society.

Sincerely,

Irmeli Mustalahti

Professor of Natural Resources Governance

Chair of Responsive Natural Resources Governance (RNRG) - Research Group

https://sites.uef.fi/responsive-natural-resources-governance/

Department of Geographical and Historical Studies

University of Eastern Finland

(8)

TIIVISTELMÄ

Tämän kokoelmateoksen artikkelit ovat osa Itä-Suomen yliopiston, yhteis- kuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunnan alla toimivan tutkimus- ryhmän kansainvälistä yhteistyötä. Kokoelman artikkelit julkaistiin Forest Policy and Economics tiedelehden erikoisnumerossa Responsibilization in Natural Resources Governance. Tässä kokoelmateoksessa kuvaamme, miten paikallishallinnon, kansalaisten ja erilaisten toimijaverkostojen osal- listuminen luonnonvarojen hallintaan ovat lisääntynyt ja monimuotois- tunut. Hajautettu luonnonvarahallinta on luonut esimerkiksi uudenlaisia osallistumisen mahdollisuuksia, parantanut päätöksentekoa ja lisännyt luonnonvarahallinnan läpinäkyvyyttä.

Kokoelmateoksessamme tutkijat kuitenkin tarkastelevat kriittisesti vas- tuullistamisen ilmiötä luonnonvarahallinnassa ja sen linkittymistä uusli- beraaliin talouspolitiikkaan, joka pyrkii valtion omaisuuden yksityistämi- seen, taloudellisen toiminnan ohjauskeinojen vähentämiseen ja poliittisen toiminnan korvaamiseen markkinaohjauksella. Ranskalaisen filosofin Mi- chel Foucault’n kirjoituksissa ja hänen ajatteluunsa pohjaavassa laajassa tutkimuskirjallisuudessa valtarakenteet ja hallintovallan kansalaisia vas- tuullistava taktiikka saavatkin paljon huomiota. Foucault’n lisäksi tässä kokoelmateoksessa viittaamme eri alojen tutkijoihin, jotka tarkastelevat vastuullistamista eri aloilla, tasoilla ja näkökulmilta (kuten Christopher Grey, Ylva Uggla, Meghann Ormond, Iain Ferguson, Tanya Marray Li ja Nancy Lee Peluso). Kokoelmateoksessa haluamme nostaa esille luonnon- varahallinnan lisäksi laajaa tutkittua tietoa vallitsevasta vahvasta uskosta vastuullistamista kohtaan.

Kokoelmateoksemme artikkeleissa käytämme Foucault’n teoreettista viitekehystä vallasta ja hallinnosta, mutta lähestymme vastuullistamista myös symbolisen väkivallan käsitteen kautta. Tunnettu sosiologi ja filosofi Pierre Bourdieu tunnistaa symbolista väkivaltaa lähes kaikkialla yhteiskun- nan valtarakenteissa.

Vastuullistamista ja symbolista väkivaltaa ilmenee yhteiskunnan eri

osa-alueilla myös Suomessa. Vastuullistamisesta on tullut keino, jolla pyri-

tään parantamaan taloudellista tehokkuutta ja jatkuvan kasvun edellytyk-

siä. Ylhäältäpäin sanellut velvoitteet, ohjauskeinot ja vaateet sekä esimer-

kiksi kulttuurisesti yleisesti hyväksytyt mutta alistavat tavat ovat pehmeää

ja näkymätöntä väkivaltaa, joka voi johtaa syrjintään, sosiaaliseen epä-

tasa-arvoon, korruptioon, hallinnon passiivisuuteen ja myös elonkirjon

(9)

köyhtymiseen. Suomessa onkin kaksi termiä, joiden eroa haluaisin tässä yhteydessä korostaa. Kokoelmateoksemme tapaustutkimukset osoittavat, miten vastuullistaminen muuttuu vastuuttavaksi, jos paikallishallinnon, kansalaisten ja erilaisten toimijoiden luonnonvarojen hallintaan liittyviä vastuita kasvatetaan ilman, että samalla kansalaisille taataan riittävät toi- mintaedellytykset, tarvittavaa tietoa ja resurssit.

Rakenteet eivät läheskään aina tue kansalaisten vastuullisuutta, hy- vinvointia, omaehtoista osallistumista ja osallisuutta, vaan voivat myös kohtuuttomasti vastuuttaa ja tuottaa siten symbolista väkivaltaa. Vas- tuullistamista ja vastuuttamista ei ilmene yksin luonnonvarahallinnas- sa vaan esimerkiksi opetussektorilla ja terveydenhuollossa. Velvoitteita sälytetään paikalliselle tasolle, kansalaisille ja kansalaisjärjestöille ilman riittäviä resursseja, tietoa ja toimintaedellytyksiä. Esimerkiksi sosiaalises- sa mediassa, poliittisessa keskustelussa ja opetuksessa korostetaan, että seuraava sukupolvi on edellistä sukupolvea koulutetumpi ja kyvykkääm- pi murtamaan kangistuneet rakenteet ja ajatusmallit. Heidän oletetaan toteuttavan ekologisesti välttämätön kestävyyssiirtymä. Suomessa on tutkittu nuorten osallistumista ympäristökysymyksistä käytävään keskus- teluun ja kestävyyssiirtymään strategisen tutkimuksen neuvoston (STN) rahoittamassa ALL-YOUTH-tutkimushankkeessa. Tutkimushankkeessa on havaittu, miten yhteiskunnallisessa keskustelussa nuorten ja tulevien su- kupolvien vastuullistamista perustellaan niin ilmastollisilla, taloudellisilla kuin myös koulutus- ja työvoimapoliittisilla syillä.

Kestävyyssiirtymä kansalaisia vastuuttaen ei takaa vastuullisuutta ja

kestävää hyvinvointia. Kansalaisten valmiudet ja yhteiskunnalliset raken-

teet tulisi ymmärtää nykyistä paremmin, jotta pystytään tukemaan vuo-

rovaikutteista ja yhteistoiminnallista kestävyysmurrosta. Kansalaisten toi-

mintavalmiuksien tukemiseksi ja vastuiden kohtuullistamiseksi esitetään

tämän kokoelmateoksen lopussa kolme politiikkasuositusjulkaisua. Kan-

salaisten ja erilaisten toimijoiden omien kestävyysmurrosten kautta kestä-

vyyssiirtymä toteutuu vastuullisten kansalaisten toteuttamana. Ei ketään

pakottaen mutta kaikkia kannustaen. Kun tavoittelemme kestävää kehi-

tystä, meidän tulisi pyrkiä tukemaan hyvinvointia ilman jatkuvan kasvun

vaatimusta ja välttää symbolista väkivaltaa yhteiskuntamme eri tasoilla.

(10)

Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to acknowledge the co-editor of the Special Issue, Prof. Arun Agrawal from University of Michigan, USA. His support during the long process of the Special Issue was important for me, not only academically but also due to his long collaboration with our research group and our long-term studies globally (grant no. 259726 and grant no. 320236 funded by Academy of Finland). In 2018, the Special Issue was initiated at the Amani Academic Workshop in Tanzania organised by Prof. Bernadeta Killian (University of Dar es Salaam), Mwanaidi Saidi Kijazi, Conservator, Tanzania Forest Service (TFS) Agency and Dr. Antti Erkkilä (University of Eastern Finland). I would like to thank all the excellent scholars who participated in the writing workshop. Without the writing workshops, the Special Issue as well as this final compilation could not have been written. I highly acknowledge the theoretical insights provided by all researchers who participated in this Special Issue. I would also like to thank all members of our Responsive Natural Resources Governance -research group at the University of Eastern Finland.

I would also like to acknowledge all the scholars who have participated in our Policy Brief writing workshops over the years. Without this active international academic network and multidisciplinary thinking, we could not have written the three Policy Briefs which are now attached to this compilation. I also acknowledge the ALL-YOUTH projects funded by the Strategic Research Council Finland (grant no. 312689 and sub grant no.

312692) and MAKUTANO project funded by Academy of Finland (grant no.

320236) for financing the open access costs of this Special Issue and the

printings cost of the compilation. I also thank Nick Quist Nathaniels for

language assistance and all the anonymous reviewers for their constructive

comments throughout the long but fruitful writing process. However,

and most importantly, I sincerely acknowledge all the informants who

have used their valuable time and often even also offered their limited

resources to share their knowledge with us. I sincerely hope that our work

can offer “living knowledge” - to use the term from great scholar, Marja-

Liisa Swantz - knowledge which is not only useful for us in research but

also for the various case study countries we have worked with.

(11)

Preface... 5

Tiivistelmä ... 9

Acknowledgements ... 11

Articles ... 15

Irmeli Mustalahti and Arun Agrawal. 2020. Research trends: Responsibilization in natural resource governance. Forest Policy and Economics Volume 121, 102308. ... 15

Irmeli Mustalahti, Violeta Gutiérrez-Zamora, Maija Hyle, Bishnu Prasad Devkota and Nina Tokola. 2020. Responsibilization in natural resources governance: A romantic doxa? Forest Policy and Economics Volume 111, 102033. ... 25

Denis Dobrynin, Elena Smirennikova and Irmeli Mustalahti. 2020. Non-state forest governance and ‘Responsibilization’: The prospects for EPIC under FSC certification in Northwest Russia. Forest Policy and Economics Volume 115, 102142. ... 39

Dismas L. Mwaseba, Antti Erkkilä, Esbern Friis-Hansen, Aristarik H. Maro and John D. Maziku. 2020. Responsibilization in governance of non-industrial private forestry: Experiences from the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics Volume 118, 102243. ... 51

Bernadeta Killian and Maija Hyle. 2020. Women's marginalization in participatory forest management: Impacts of responsibilization in Tanzania. Forest Policy and Economics Volume 118, 102252. ... 61

Violeta Gutiérrez-Zamora and Mara Hernández Estrada. 2020. Responsibilization and state territorialization: Governing socio- territorial conflicts in community forestry in Mexico. Forest Policy and Economics Volume 116, 102188. ... 73

Divya Gupta, Sharachchandra Lele and Geetanjoy Sahu. 2020.

Promoting a responsive state: The role of NGOs in decentralized

forest governance in India. Forest Policy and Economics Volume

111, 102066. ... 91

(12)

Yajnamurti Khanal and Bishnu Prasad Devkota. 2020. Farmers' responsibilization in payment for environmental services: Lessons from community forestry in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics Volume 118, 102237. ... 105 Rijal Ramdani and Anu K. Lounela. 2020. Palm oil expansion in tropical peatland: Distrust between advocacy and service

environmental NGOs. Forest Policy and Economics Volume 118,

102242. ... 117

James T. Erbaugh. 2019. Responsibilization and social forestry in

Indonesia. Forest Policy and Economics Volume 109, 102019. ... 129

Policy Briefs ... 141

(13)

Irmeli Mustalahti and Arun Agrawal. 2020. Research trends:

Responsibilization in natural resource governance. Forest Policy and

Economics Volume 121, 102308.

(14)

Forest Policy and Economics 121 (2020) 102308

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Forest Policy and Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/forpol

Research trends: Responsibilization in natural resource governance

Irmeli Mustalahti

^a,⁎

, Arun Agrawal

^b

a University of Eastern Finland, Finland

b University of Michigan, USA

A B S T R A C T

The diversity of governance instruments for natural resources provides a rich analytical field for scholars of public action and policy. Existing research contributions on natural resources governance suggest that governance interventions, coupled with the diversity of contexts in which they occur, are associated with many different social and ecological outcomes and careful analysis is critical to attribute outcomes to interventions. This special issue highlights a specific thematic and analytical focus – responsibilization – that we suggest as being common across the diversity of post-state governance arrangements. Responsibilization has attracted attention in other fields of governance – particularly education and health. Broadly, the process of responsibilization is associated with a transfer of responsibilities to admin- istrative arrangements and agents subordinate within a decision-making hierarchy; in turn, decision units receiving new responsibilities adopt the goals of governance and carry associated responsibilities as their own.

The nine articles included in this special issue show how responsibilization unfolds in different forms of decentered natural resource governance. We find that in diverse contexts, the process of responsibilization denotes the assignment of new responsibilities and the emergence and creation of responsible subjects but often without the powers and resources necessary to carry out these responsibilities. Responsible subjects, by becoming responsible for their own actions, behaviors, and well-being, also contribute to greater societal well-being, or what has summarily been called ‘well-doing’. Based on the empirical materials in the included studies, we build upon an analytical approach to governance that takes institutions, incentives, and information as its building blocks. Our analysis draws attention to and leads to a call for governance capacities and resources, as well as capabilities, for local decision makers and agents in proportion to their responsibilities. Inclusive governance of natural resources thus requires that legal governance mandates be matched to resources and powers for lower level decision-making agents to complement and support their mandates and capabilities.

1. Introduction actions to advance sustainability.

Studying responsibilization focuses attention on three analytical Models and practices of centralized natural resource governance building blocks. The first concerns agents and their actions. The second have suffered a decline since the 1980s (Rhodes, 1996; Jordan and focuses on the institutional, material, and rhetorical strategies that cast Wurtzel, 2003; Busch et al., 2005; FAO, 2016). The ongoing retrench- agents as being in charge of making responsible, or, the “right” choices.

ment of the state in relation to natural resource governance is visible in The third attends to outcomes, and in particular the relationship of the continuing emergence of alternative approaches and models that agents and their choices to “well-being” and “well-doing” at the in- emphasize the roles of civil society and market actors, and of incentives dividual and collective levels. The studies included in this special issue and information-based governance arrangements (Agrawal et al., 2014; draw upon the growing literature on responsibilization to develop a Newton et al., 2013; Dobrynin et al., 2020 in this special issue). The broader and deeper understanding of responsibilization. These studies scholarly attention dedicated to these varied forms of governance – also undertake to apply the concept in relation to diverse strategies of from community-based management, to small-scale private forestry and natural resource governance, especially forest governance, the central certification, to payments for ecosystem services, to voluntary stan- focus of our special issue.

dards and regulations – demonstrates that innovations in governance Generally, writings on responsibilization cover various dimensions are flourishing and research on novel arrangements continues to gen- of social life, among them human rights, finance, markets, workplace erate new insights and knowledge (Khanal and Devkota, 2020 in this safety, health, schooling, social work e especially youth e and provi- special issue). At the same time, dynamic background conditions in- sion of social services, and gambling and other risky behaviors (Alexius, clude the flow and availability of technical knowledge as well as digital 2011, Bexell, 2005, Ferguson, 2007, Gray, 2009, Ilcan and Basok, 2004, data and exciting analytical approaches for causal inference. Together, Whitson, 2009, Williams, 2007). The framework we develop in this new insights, regulations, data, and analytical approaches create the special issue is informed by these fields, but draws in particular on promise of continued advances towards integration of knowledge with responsibilization in the education and health fields. These fields have a

⁎Corresponding author.

E-mail address: irmeli.mustalahti@uef.fi (I. Mustalahti).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102308

Received 3 June 2019; Received in revised form 27 August 2020; Accepted 1 September 2020 Available online 20 October 2020

(15)

special resonance to natural resource governance because of the concern of all three domains with the provision of public goods.

Responsibilization goes together with a focus on accountability. It seeks to promote and cultivate managerial and entrepreneurial capabilities by choice-making agents so as to reduce costs for those who are transferring responsibilities. In one sense, it can be seen as the coun- terpart of freedom in contemporary political and social rationalities (Suspitsyna, 2010). Agents are free to choose, but they have the responsibility to choose wisely. Shifts towards responsibilization are made easier by the rise of big data, analytic techniques to make sense of such data, and automated algorithms – all enabled by digitization of social interactions and driven by a pervasive interest in efficiency and economy: ie. in achieving higher levels of a desired outcome at lower costs. In this special issue, Erbaugh (2019) and Ramdani and Lounela (2020) argue for example that in Indonesia, governance strategies that rely on responsibilization expect citizens and NGOs to have the ability to “opt-in” to programs and interventions. The ability to “opt-in” to natural resource governance interventions then helps justify the intervention and the process through which subjects voluntarily choose to become responsible (Shamir, 2008a, 2008b). More broadly, green consumerism and voluntary carbon pledges – where individual citizens make responsible consumption choices – are also “opt-in” strategies (Ormond, 2014; Soneryd and Uggla, 2015; Erbaugh, 2019).

The shift towards decentralized natural resource governance and its related difficulties has been well-documented in the academic literature. Comparatively few studies, however, focus on the combination of increased participation by individuals and civil-society actors, and the emphasis on reducing the cost of governance. Killian and Hyle (2020) in this special issue provide an example from Tanzania where the community at large is responsible for a central role in creating rules and regulations to protect the forest reserve. However, especially among women community members, these new responsibilities remain un- coupled with the technical knowledge and resources needed to implement forest governance and management. Responsibilization in this case is a mechanism that aligns meaningful participation and devolu- tion with the logic of cost-cutting through distributed and decentered responsibilities. At the same time women and youth who often are not represented or are voiceless in natural resource governance processes are marginalized. Responsibilization of marginalized groups and ab- sence of needed resources among them can create “romantic doxa” of decentralization – common beliefs and expectations about resources and capacities that do not always exist in local governance and communities. Such romantic doxa among donors and other institutions can create symbolic violence conflicts, and other unexpected impacts (as Mustalahti et al. (2019) in this special issue describe in case of forest governance).

The paper by Khanal and Devkota (2020) in this special issue shows how farmers in Nepal were exposed to responsibilization discourses that emphasize personal action as a response to the potential threats of climate change. Expectations for their climate-responsible choices were supported by payments to offset the costs of these choices around the use of community forests. But the compensation amounts were small and Khanal and Devkota (2020) conclude that the initiative is opening new discourses around payments for environmental services.

In other cases examined in this special issue, responsibilization and the shift in responsibilities also occurs without the powers and resources necessary to structure the distribution of responsibilities. Even the capacities and capabilities required to achieve desired outcomes in low-income settings are lacking. According to Sen (1999, 2005), capabilities can be seen as conditions of enablement that make it possible for people to achieve goals, and the availability of opportunities to achieve outcomes that citizens (with regard to individual capabilities) and communities (with regard to common capabilities) value (Mustalahti, 2018a, 2018b). Holland (2008:320) argues that certain environmental issues are as a matter of basic justice due to the extent to which human capabilities are also dependent on the natural

environment. Although citizens (c.f. Sens idea of public reasoning) might not actively seek nor have an interest in publicly debating issues such as multi-purpose utilization of natural resources, these should be considered as a basic human right (i.e. Hollands idea to treat certain environmental entitlements as a matter of basic justice) for everybody just as food and education are basic rights (Mustalahti, 2018a, 2018b).

The diversity of contexts and interventions presented in our special issue are unified by two common features, one thematic and the other organizational. Thematically, we focus attention on the tactics and strategies of responsibilization. This inevitably leads to a concern with how tactics of power and normalization work in resource governance strategies and support the creation of responsible users and managers.

Decentralized, responsible governance demands that decision making be economically rational and implicitly introduces a market rationality into organizational processes, decisions, and outcome evaluations. The papers in this special issue identify how the goal of improved outcomes is both underpinned and impelled by a logic of efficiency. This does not happen only for decentralization of governance from national, to sub- national and to local governance. It is also characteristic of the re- lationships between donors, community based organizations (CBOs), and advocacy and service NGOs. As pointed out by Ramdani and Lounela (2020) in this special issue, there is a risk of NGOs turning from voluntary activism towards professional working arrangements as they commit to carry out decision making responsibilities. In such a situa- tion, NGOs have less freedom to innovate voluntary actions because they become responsible for well-doing outcomes demanded by donors, advocacy organizations, or governance institutions. Ramdani and Lounela (2020) thus show how donors have unexpected impacts on the creativity of voluntary sector NGOs in Indonesia.

Similar findings are also evident in the article on NGOs by Gupta et al. (2020) in this special issue on the implementation of a rights- based approach through the Forest Rights Act that transferred rights and responsibilities for local forest management to communities. When donors and NGOs – especially advocacy NGOs – decentralized approaches and co-management to co-govern natural resources at the local level, their willingness to engage with local decision makers was contingent on continued active performance by local communities in terms of protecting natural resources (Gupta et al., 2020 and Ramdani and Lounela, 2020 in this special issue). Gupta et al. (2020) show what happens in an Indian context when statutory rights and responsibilities are transferred to the community: unless the rights holders are aware of what their rights entail and are mobilized to defend their rights when necessary, the community will not be able to exercise their rights nor have the capacity to discharge their responsibilities.

Organizationally, the collection of papers follows a common narrative thread that enables comparison across the different governance strategies on which they focus. The narrative builds on an elaboration of the social contexts that gave rise to the governance interventions in question by attending to its spatial and temporal specificity. By examining (1) actors and their interests/goals, (2) intervention strategies (institutions, incentives, and/or information) and specific tactics of responsibilization, and (3) outcomes for agents and their collectives, the papers delineate the achievements and gaps of the interventions they are investigating. This narrative strategy then also allows the studies to consider carefully the proposed remedies to address shortfalls in governance and the incomplete responsibilization of the targets of governance.

The collected papers analyze some of the key strategies of decentralized natural resource governance through the lens of responsibilization: community-based management, certification, participatory land use planning, privatization, payments for environmental services, tenure recognition, resource concessions, right-based approaches, co-management, and voluntary agreements and standards.

The individual studies trace how these governance arrangements rest on responsible communities, individuals and resources users – both in the sense of transfer of responsibilities and in the sense of users

I. Mustalahti and A. Agrawal Forest Policy and Economics 121 (2020) 102308

2

adopting these responsibilities as their own – to achieve their effects.

These studies also examine the very real rather than only the symbolic violence that ensues when the logic of responsibilization encoded in contemporary governance interventions fails and when conflicts attend its incomplete realization.

2. What is responsibilization?

Our understanding of responsibilization as well as our theoretical framework in this special issue rests on the three analytical building blocks mentioned above: (1) agents and their actions, (2) institutional, incentive-based, or rhetorical/ information strategies of agents at different levels, and (3) outcomes (of individual and collective well-being and well-doing). Application of this framework to writings on resource governance shows how the process of responsibilization creates communities, individuals and users of resources as being responsible for their own well-being and also for collective outcomes related to resource conditions and trajectories of well-doing.

The goal of communities, individuals and users being responsible for individual and collective well-being and well-doing (for example while implementing various externally funded interventions) is con- sistent with the ongoing governance revolution in other social domains such as education, illness and health, crime and legality, and corporate cost management. In each of these domains, government agencies and corporations increasingly see their clients as being responsible for some of actions associated with the goals of getting better education, re- covering from illness, being rehabilitated after committing a crime, or achieving lower costs.

In this sense, responsibilization is a pervasive feature of post-capi- talist economic rationality and of late modern organizational forma- tions (Jo and Laura, 2013; Shamir, 2008a, 2008b). Making, for example, community forest users or small-scale private forest owners responsible for the economic benefits they receive from forests as well as responsible for the sustainability of forest resources can be seen as similar to phenomena that have been analyzed through the lens of re- sponsiblization in other domains of social interactions in contemporary governance. Consider, for example, students in schools, customers in the market, and patients in health systems. Increasingly, they are responsible, respectively, for their own learning, economic benefit, and health e indeed, under late capitalism, the process of taking responsibility for ones own welfare has become a primary tactic to achieve greater efficiencies, to increase user satisfaction, and to ensure improved social functioning (Chan, 2009; Grey, 1997; Mascini et al., 2013; Rose et al., 2006; Uehling, 2015).

Justifications of responsibilization are both moral and ethical. For example, citizens and patients have a moral responsibility to engage in healthy behaviors. It could also be argued consumers have a moral responsibility to choose more sustainably produced commodities (Giesler and Veresiu, 2014; Hansen and Schrader, 1997). Even corporations, some would claim, have a moral responsibility to be virtuous citizens (O'Mara-Shimek et al., 2015). Since we started to develop a framework for our special issue, we have come to understand the responsibilization of individuals, households and communities as a process that works to normalize and naturalize governance beyond governments. Other scholars connect responsibilization to domination and hegemony (Gramsci, 2009; Althusser, 1971) and especially via Foucault to the technologies of self and government (Foucault, 1978, 1982, 1997, 2000). In this special issue, Mustalahti et al. (2020) and Mwaseba et al. (2020) as well as Gutiérrez Zamora and Hernández Estrada (2020) draw for their understanding of responsibilization on contributions by Bourdieu with regard to symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 1977, 1998, 2001).

More commonly, however, responsibilization serves an important instrumental purpose: through responsibilization, citizens achieve better outcomes for themselves while also achieving better social outcomes in society through the aggregation of their responsible choices.

Responsibilization of the individual agent is necessarily in opposition to centralized state provision of some set of services. An enabling state (rather than a constraining or prohibitionist state) and engaged agents/ citizens are co-produced, jointly advancing the cause of greater economy and efficiency in the provision of services (Ferguson, 2007: 392, Fotaki, 2011). The widespread presence of responsibilization in patient treatment, healthcare choices, and engaged students is critical to the creation of a functioning healthcare system and of a learning society, respectively. In each case, citizens in their different roles are responsible for making the best possible choices and thereby securing better outcomes for themselves and their collectives.

In relation to education, the prime agent for strategies of responsibilization is not an adult citizen but a minor. In this sense, the creation of a responsible decision maker begins early in the life course of modern subjects. But the rhetoric of responsibilization, in unison with an emphasis on economy and accountability, ensures that other decision makers in the educational system – from the central government and school districts to administrators and teachers – all act re- sponsibly to promote improved educational outcomes along a set of measurable criteria, whether these be test scores, student evaluations, grade completion or employment. Focusing on the relationship between the federal government and educational institutions in the United States, Suspitnyna (2010) highlights how oversight activities, entrepreneurial subjectivities, and mechanisms of accountability promote responsibilization and moralization of careful choices for improved educational outcomes.

In a similar manner, responsibilization in natural resource governance also seeks to make forest users, private small-scale forest owners and communities in specific localities responsible for improved resource conditions and environmental sustainability. However, this does not always work out as expected by the higher authorities. Gutiérrez Zamora and Hernández Estrada (2020) in this special issue, through an analysis of their case study from Mexico, point out how state-led land conflict resolution and community-based forestry interventions may foster responsibilization of rural communities in a way that can gen- erate escalation of conflicts. In their article, practices identified include (1) channeling disputants to sluggish and legalistic trials, (2) offering monetary compensation as the sole incentive to induce land-tenure settlement, (3) creating and perpetuating “gray” zones where community use of natural resources is restricted, and (4) weak enforcement of conflict-settlement agreements and collective property rights. By iden- tifying and analyzing such practices, scholars in this special issue aim to deepen the understanding of links between responsibilization and conflicts (such as conflicting interests and symbolic, structural and various forms of direct violence) in relation to the aim of decentralization of natural resources governance (see for example Gutiérrez Zamora and Hernández Estrada, 2020; Mustalahti et al., 2020; Mwaseba et al., 2020)

Although responsibilization has received substantial attention fol- lowing Foucault’s influential writings on government and govern- mentalization, the specific tactics and strategies of responsibilization remain under-investigated in natural resource governance. The studies that do discuss responsible natural resource governance typically view it in an implicitly positive light – as something to be attained – a social good (Ameha et al., 2014; Ameyaw et al., 2016). Once attained, pervasive problems of illegality, corruption, inequality, overexploitation and degradation can also be addressed through responsibilization (Daur et al., 2016; De Zoysa and Inoue, 2008). Current work on responsible governance rarely views it as a means through which social relations of power, economy, and authority are rationalized and institutionalized, through which the targets of government become complicit in their own governance (but also see Ormond, 2014 and Uggla and Soneryd, 2017), and through which the goals of individual well-being and collective well-doing can be aligned. However, these mutually dependent strategies of co-production do not always work successfully. Mwaseba et al. (2020) in this special issue suggests that when local governing

3

(16)