Paper short abstract:

We analyse the role of anticommons property (multiple exclusion rights with no exclusive use privilege) in shaping the power and politics surrounding resource extraction in central India. We explicate the interlinkages between institutional architecture, resource-use outcomes, and dynamics of resource conflict across policy design and implementation.

Paper long abstract:

As countries navigate the dilemmas associated with extraction of resources – ensuring, development, mitigating climate change and achieving social justice, a peculiar institutional response has been fragmentation of rights and creation of multiple institutions to mediate resource-use. Theorized as a case of anticommons property (multiple exclusion rights and no exclusive use privileges), this situation is predicted to lead to the “tragedy” of resource “under-use”. However, there is limited empirical analysis of the de-facto resource-use outcomes of such de-jure anticommons in the extant literature.

Our analysis of resource contestations in Hasdeo Aranya forests in central India, uncovers the implications of anticommons regime in shaping the nature of resource contestations surrounding extraction of energy resources (coal). We explicate the interlinkages between the institutional architecture, resource-use outcomes, and the forces impacting the creation and resolution of anticommons (both de facto and de jure). Our data comprises: (i) detailed review of government records of policy deliberations, (ii) ethnographic fieldwork, and (iii) interviews with policymakers.

We uncover the inherent power asymmetries as they manifest through the institutional regime. We find that the very existence of de-jure anticommons can serve as the legal, institutional, and discursive foundation for resistance by local communities. They can also serve as a significant constraint on the “Cunning State’s” discretionary powers to mediate conflict. Consequently, the power and politics in action could lead to an unstable equilibrium or even a clear prioritization of resource-use amongst competing stakeholders. Our findings represent a radical rethinking of the role of anticommons in contemporary societies.