Social Network Legitimacy and Property Right Loopholes: Evidences from an Infrastructural Water Project in Pakistan

Abstract

Little attention has been devoted to the role of social networks and property rights in infrastructural projects. We use the Chotiari water reservoir project data from Pakistan, to explore the social network of actors on land use and property right violation, which create a dissimilar power distribution and significant land use conflicts. Results indicate that public officials with their alien stakeholders have pressurised the local population to displace, where institutional inconsistency towards justice has led them to mistrust and project opposition. In Pakistan, the non-existence of a national resettlement policy is germinating land use conflicts and human and property rights violations since five decades. Therefore, attention to such conflicts, their resolution and prevention are important for research and policy development.

Keywords

Land use conflicts social networks property rights dams reservoirs D74 L14 P26 H54

References

Abro

A.A.

(2001), ‘Chotiari Reservoir: Resettlement Action Plan’, in DevFound (ed.), At Odds or At Ease? NGOs and Local Communities in World Bank Supported Projects in Pakistan, pp. 66–86. Islamabad: Cavish Development Foundation.

Alam

A.R.

(2006), ‘Land-locked: An Examination of Some of the Inefficiencies Affecting Transactions Involving Immovable Property’, The Pakistan Development Review, 45(4): 1323–42.

Ali

Nasir

(2010), Land Administration System in Pakistan: Current Situation and Stakeholders’ Perception. Pakistan FIG Congress 2010, ‘Facing the Challenges: Building the Capacity’, Sydney, Australia, 11–16 April, pp. 1–15.

Alston

L.J.

Libecap

G.D.

Mueller

(2000), ‘Land Reform Policies: The Sources of Violent Conflict and Implications for Deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 39(2): 162–88.

Awakul

Ogunlana

S.O.

(2002), ‘The Effect of Attitudinal Differences on Interface Conflict on Large Construction Projects: The Case of the Pak Mun Dam Project’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 22(4): 311–35.

Barron

Smith

C.Q.

Woolcock

(2004), ‘Understanding Local Level Conflict in Developing Countries Theory, Evidence and Implications from Indonesia’, Social development paper, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA.

Bromley

D.W.

(1998), ‘Determinants of Cooperation and Management of Local Common Property Resource: Discussion’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(3): 665–68.

Cadoret

(2006), ‘De la légitimité d'une géographie des réseaux sociaux: La géographie des réseaux sociaux, au service d’une géographie des conflits’, Networks and Communication Studios (NETCOM), 20(3–4): 137–57.

Campbell

D.J.

Gichohi

Mwangi

Chege

(2000), ‘Land Use Conflict in Kajiado District, Kenya’, Land Use Policy, 17(4): 337–48.

10.

Darly

Torre

(2011), ‘Land-use Conflicts and the Sharing of Resources between Urban and Agricultural Activities in the Greater Paris Region. Results Based on Information Provided by the Daily Regional Press’, in Noronha-Vaz

Leeuwen

V.E.

Nijkamp

(eds), Towns in a Rural World, pp. 25–43. London: Ashgate.

11.

Deininger

Castagnini

(2006), ‘Incidence and Impact of Land Conflict in Uganda’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60(3): 321–45.

12.

Forsé

Langlois

(1997), ‘Présentation: réseaux, structures et rationalité’, L’Année Sociologique, 47(1): 27–35.

13.

Gordon

H.S.

(1954), ‘The Economic Theory of a Common-Property Resource: The Fishery’, Journal of Political Economy, 62(2): 124–42.

14.

Government of Pakistan (2010), Economic Survey of Pakistan 2009–10. Economic Advisory Wing, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad, Pakistan.

15.

Granovetter

M.S.

(1973), ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78(6): 1360–80.

16.

Grossetti

(1992), ‘Réseaux sociaux et territoires: quelques réflexions’, POUR, 118(2): 134–40.

17.

Hardin

(1968), ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science, 162(3859): 1243–48.

18.

Iqbal

(2004), Affectees of Tarbela and Chotiari Dams: A Struggle for Social Justice. United Nations Environmental Program. Addressing Existing Dams, Issue based workshop, 14–15 June 2004, pp. 69–72.

19.

Janjua

Z.I.

(2007), The Land Acquisition Act 1894: As Amended Up-to-date. Lahore, Pakistan: Nadeem Law Book House.

20.

Jillani

(1999), ‘Why Are They Bent Upon Creating More Water Refugees?’ The NEWS International, 18 July. Available online at http://www.thenews.com.pk/, accessed on 27 February 2010.

21.

Khan

(2006), ‘Taxonomy and Immovable Property Rights in Pakistan’, The Pakistan Development Review, 4(1): 1–25.

22.

Kim

(2006), ‘Infrastructure Development for the Economic Development in Developing Countries: Lessons from Korea and Japan’, GSICS Working Paper Series, Kobe University, No. 11.

23.

Laghari

(2001), ‘Bakar, a Tourist Resort Thrown to Disaster’, DAWN International, 1 February. Available online at http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/new, accessed on 14 September 2009.

24.

Magsi

(2012), ‘Development Projects and Land Use conflicts in Pakistani Rural Settings—An Analysis’, International Journal of Rural Studies, 19(1): 3–7.

25.

Mann

Jeanneaux

(2009), ‘Two Approaches for Understanding Land-use Conflict to Improve Rural Planning and Management’, Journal of Rural and Community Development, 4(1): 118–41.

26.

Mc-Carthy

J.D.

Mc-Phail

Smith

(1996), ‘Images of Protest: Dimensions of Selection Bias in Media Coverage of Washington Demonstrations 1982–1991’, American Sociological Review, 61(3), 478–99.

27.

Nauman

(2003), ‘Ravaged Ecology, Cruel Displacement and Impoverished Livelihoods’, Water Nepal, 9(1/2): 313–18.

28.

Nauman

Tunio

Qazilbash

M.H.

(2001), ‘Chotiari Reservoir Project: Independent Study’, in DevFound (ed.), At Odds or At Ease? NGOs and Local Communities in World Bank Supported Projects in Pakistan, pp. 45–65. Islamabad: Cavish Development Foundation.

29.

Nemeroff

(2008), ‘Generating the Power for Development Through Sustained Dialogue: An Experience from Rural South Africa’, Action Research, 6(2): 213–32.

30.

Ostrom

(1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Ostrom

Nagendra

(2006), ‘Insights on Linking Forests, Trees, and People from the Air, on the Ground, and in the Laboratory’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(51): 19224–31.

32.

Rucht

Neidhardt

(1999), ‘Methodological Issues in Collecting Protest Event Data: Unit of Analysis, Sources and Sampling, Coding Problems’, in Rucht

Koopmans

Neidhardt

(eds), Acts of Dissent: New Developments in the Study of Protest, pp. 65–89. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

33.

Saint-Charles

(2001), ‘Introduction aux réseaux sociaux’. Available online at http://grm.uqam.ca/textes/intro-reseaux_soc.pdf, accessed on 14 September 2009.

34.

Scott

(1991), Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London: SAGE.

35.

Shah

(1992), ‘Dynamics of Public Infrastructure, Industrial Productivity and Profitability’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 74(1): 28–36.

36.

Smith

H.E.

(2000), ‘Semicommon Property Rights and Scattering in the Open Fields’, Journal of Legal Studies, 29(1): 131–69.

37.

Tarar

M.S.

(2003), ‘Chotiari Reservoir, an Integral Part of Drain Project’. Available online at http://www.pakissan.com/english/advisory/chotiari.reservoir.shtml, accessed on 9 February 2010.

38.

Torre

Traversac

J.B.

(eds) (2011). Territorial Governance: Local Development, Rural Areas and Agrofood Systems. New York: Springer Publishers.

39.

Torre

Melot

Bossuet

Cadoret

Caron

Darly

Jeanneaux

Kirat

Pham

H.V.

(2010), ‘Comment Evaluer et Mesurer la Conflictualité liée aux Usages de l’Espace? Eléments de méthode et de repérage’, VertigO-la revue en science de l’environnement, 10(1): 1–26.

40.

UNEP (2004), ‘Dams and Development Projects’, United Nations Environmental Program. Issue based workshop proceedings, 14–15 June 2004.

41.

Wasserman

Faust

(1994), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

42.

WWF (2008), Socio Economic Assessment Study: Indus for All Programmes. Hyderabad, Pakistan: Management and Development Centre.