Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/22286
Full metadata record
Appears in Collections:
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGatzweiler, Franzen_US
dc.contributor.authorHagedorn, Konraden_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-01-29T14:55:37Z-
dc.date.available2009-01-29T14:55:37Z-
dc.date.issued2001en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10419/22286-
dc.description.abstractThis paper aims at explaining the role and importance of the evolution of institutions for sustainableagri-environments during the transition process by referring to examples of agri-environmental problemsfaced in Central and Eastern European countries. It is often stated that the replacement of institutionalstructures in post socialist countries would bring a unique opportunity to implement newpolicies and institutions needed to ensure that economic growth is environmentally sustainable. Thisidea stems from the assumption that the breakdown of the socialist system resembles that (of theSchumpeterian1 type) of creative destruction – a process that incessantly revolutionizes economicstructures from within. However, not all kinds of institutions, especially at local level, can simply beimplemented, and even more, not incessantly. Instead, they evolve as a response to ecosystem andsocial system characteristics, and this is a rather slow process. A central question therefore iswhether the required institutional arrangements for achieving sustainability in the area of agrienvironmentalresource management can be built more easily in periods of transition as they fillinstitutional gaps, or whether processes of transition make institution building a more difficult andfar more time consuming task than previously thought. Above all, we want to find out, how thesetwo processes of institution building at different scales affect the sustainable management of resourcessuch as water and biodiversity in agriculture? It will become clear that the agrienvironmentalproblem areas faced during transition are complex and dynamic and require adequateinstitutions both by political design and from the grassroots, to be developed by the respective actorsinvolved. Transition from centrally planned to pluralistic systems has to be considered as a particularand in some respect non-typical process of institutional change. Popular theories of institutionalchange do not necessarily apply. The privatisation experience from many CEE countries will serveas an example. Finally, we will provide some examples of missing or insufficient interaction betweenpolitical actors or agencies and people in CEE countries. Substantial investments into socialand human capital, particularly regarding informal institutions are needed for institutions of sustainabilityto evolve.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisheren_US
dc.relation.ispartofseries|aCEESA discussion paper / Humboldt-Universität Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences |x4en_US
dc.subject.ddc330en_US
dc.subject.stwInstitutioneller Wandelen_US
dc.subject.stwSystemtransformationen_US
dc.subject.stwÜbergangswirtschaften_US
dc.subject.stwNachhaltige Entwicklungen_US
dc.subject.stwLandwirtschaften_US
dc.subject.stwOsteuropaen_US
dc.titleThe evolution of institutions in transitionen_US
dc.typeWorking Paperen_US
dc.identifier.ppn497477599en_US
dc.rightshttp://www.econstor.eu/dspace/Nutzungsbedingungen-

Files in This Item:
File
Size





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.