Reddit reviews Improving Irrigation Governance and Management in Nepal
We found 1 Reddit comments about Improving Irrigation Governance and Management in Nepal. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
>Please explain to me how resources are collectively pooled together in specific real life terms.
In the real world common-pool resources have worked like this: There is a particular resource and a community entitled to it's use, say, a common grazing field and the local farmers that share it for grazing. In order for this common grazing field to allow the farmers to appropriate the resource with out over-consuming it, the common-pool resource system features these characteristics:
A particular, contemporary real life example of this is the Maine lobsteries (see here for a simple description). The lobstermen divided themselves in seven nested zones where they built councils and elected delegates that determine rules - a limits on the number of traps they are allowed to fish, time and day of fishing, number of traps per string, etc. Lobstermen who break the rules face regular sabotage from their peers until they follow the rules again. An older example which existed up until the late 19th century would be the Russian Mir or Obshchina communes, which were village communities where land was owned in common but each family worked on a particular strip which was periodically re-allocated, and collections of different mir formed an assembly called volost. The Mir was protected by law from insolvency since it was determined that it could not lose it's land nor the peasants lose their houses and farm equipment.
So far i've only discussed fisheries and farm-land but these design principles can also be adapted to other natural resources (from oil to mines and etc) and to a human-made resource to be pooled-in among members of a commons. An example of that would be the common irrigation systems in Nepal (alternatively, see here) or the aforementioned industrial federations in revolutionary Barcelona in 1936.
On a world-scale, it would work in the form of nested enterprises with the local management at the base.
>Surely there must be a central body that monitors how much is too much of resources consumed? Relying on peer to peer collective arragements leaves it to disorder and anarchy since different collectives have different estimates on what is the appropriate level of risk.
Central authorities are terribly inefficient at monitoring such a thing as they cannot properly read and process large amounts of information that are decentralized, contextual and rapidly changing in nature. Decentralized peer-to-peer organization may face clunkiness at times, but a single mistake made by a central authority can put a whole network in jeopardy - such as the poor decisions made by Stalinist planners during collectivization made millions of peasants starve despite the higher technological development, whereas the mir system had worked on a more or less stable manner for centuries.
>What are the benefits it loses, since it has the least to lose since it has the most proportion of resources compared to other collectives?
Unless the fire has literally destroyed the entirety of the resource available to everyone except for one incredibly lucky collective that now monopolizes it all, the access to further common resources can always be withheld, sanctioned or cut entirely.
>One collective is thus riskier than another. Why would I want to put my money in a riskier collective when I can put all my money in a less risky one.
Risk is not the only economic consideration you take into account when you invest your money, and why would you invest all of the resources you possess in a single collective? You need to diversify your bonds.