The Politics of Land and Natural Resource Conflict

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

This panel weaves together comparative research on the politics of land and natural resources. With increasing land scarcity, conflict over resources such such as land, forests, and minerals have become much more prevalent (Temper, Del Bene and Martinez-Alier, 2015). This type of conflict has ripple effects for the over 500 million smallholders in the world, infrastructure development, protection of forests, and even for national politics (Boone 2014). Therefore, understanding the causes and consequences of the local politics of land and natural resources is critical for better policy responses. Additionally, studying the local politics of land can inform our theories of state-society bargaining over scarce resources. In order to foster a comparative discussion of these issues, this panel brings together scholars primarily focused on studying land and natural resource politics in developing countries (Brazil, India, and Liberia) and put their insights into conversations with scholars focused on the politics of land in developed countries (Australia and the United States).

How do local communities negotiate over resources? How does bargaining affect local development outcomes? Papers in this panel explore these questions, using a political economy perspective and generating comparative insights on the politics of land and natural resources. Papers by Bicalho, Christensen et al., and Russell & Toth focus on bargaining between state and society and private sector and society over different types of natural resources. A paper by Bicalho, “Political and Economic Determinants of Communal Land Titling: Evidence from Quilombos in Brazil” examines when afrodescendent communities in Brazil are successful in bargaining for land titles. Christensen et al. in their paper, “Interest-based Negotiation over Natural Resources: Experimental Evidence from Liberia” investigate whether different types of bargaining strategies can empower Liberian communities to strike better deals for land and forests. Lastly, Russell & Toth in their paper, “This Land is Mine Land: Extractive projects and coercive benefits in India” focus on the consequences of bargaining over land and minerals for local development and conflict.

The last paper in the panel shifts the focus from the local to national public opinion around land and resources. McNamee & Peyton in their paper, “What do land acknowledgements do? Experimental evidence from Australia and the United States” investigate how land acknowledgements shape respondents' support for reparations for indigenous communities and their evaluation of a corporate practitioner in the United States and Australia. Together, these papers provide a broad overview of land and natural resource politics, bringing in contrasting insights from developed and developing countries.

Sub Unit

• Division 12: Comparative Politics of Developing Countries

Individual Presentations

• This Land Is Mine Land: Extractive Projects and Coercive Benefits in India - Aliz Toth, London School of Economics; Emily Russell, Stanford University

• Political and Economic Determinants of Communal Land Titling - Clara Bicalho

• Interest-Based Negotiation over Natural Resources - Darin Christensen, UCLA; Cyrus Samii, New York University; Alexandra Hartman, UCL

• What Do Land Acknowledgements Do? Experimental Evidence from Australia and US - Lachlan McNamee, Monash University; Kyle Peyton, Yale University

Chair

• Saad Gulzar Princeton University

Discussants

• Aliz Toth London School of Economics

• Nina McMurry Vanderbilt University

• Paul J. Schuler University of Arizona