The institutional analysis framework acknowledges that the success of a management
institution does not depend only on structure (i.e., the sum of constitutional, collective choice
and operational rules governing resource access and withdrawal) but is also affected by the
wide range of local, regional, national and even international contextual variables.
There are three interrelated parts to institutional analysis: analysis of institutional
arrangements, analysis of performance and identification of the key factors affecting
performance. The first aspect - institutional arrangement analysis - describes what is occurring
in real life and uncovers the relationships between the institution and related organizations.
Links that exist between the local management system and the sets of contextual variables
are also explored. Contextual variables include the biological, physical and technological
attributes, the market attributes, stakeholder and community characteristics, community
institutional and decision-making arrangements, the external institutional and organizational
arrangements, and exogenous attributes. Contextual variables provide incentives and
disincentives which in turn affect patterns of interaction among stakeholders, i.e., how resource
users participate in, support or comply with management institutions.
The second level of institutional analysis - institutional and organizational performance -
evaluates the outcomes of the co-management institutional arrangements according to the
measures of sustainability, efficiency and equity. The measuring instruments are applied to
the impact of co-management arrangements on human as well as ecological systems that
operate and affect the resource.
The final level of analysis determines the characteristics of, and underlying factors for,
successful co-management.
The degree and type of interactions among resource users and managers both at local and
higher levels determine where an institution lies along the continuum of potential co-
management arrangements (Figure 1.2 adapted from McCay 1993 and Berkes 1994).
Co-management
|
-------------------------1------------------------1----------------------- | |||||||||
|
Community-based | |||||||||
Centralized
government
control
Informing
Consultation
Cooperation
Communication
Information exchange
Advisory role
Joint action
Partnership
Community control
Interarea coordination
Communication
self-government
and self-
management
Figure 1.2. The continuum of possible co-management arrangements.
4 An Institutional Analysis of Sasi Laut in Maluku, Indonesia