North American cultures of property: How societal beliefs about property rights affect forest policy in the United States, Canada, and Mexico

Around the globe, countries suffer from persistent forest management problems. One frequently suggested way to improve forest management is to adjust the property rights structure governing forest resources. However, changing property rights institutions is very difficult. This study considers why property rights institutions in forests are so hard to change, and when more substantial change can occur. It argues that there are three major constraints on change in property rights institutions: the interests associated with a given property rights arrangement; interactions of property rights institutions with other societal institutions; and social ideas about property rights. Most studies of institutional change consider only the first two of these variables: interests and institutional interactions. This study examines all three, placing special emphasis on social ideas. It asks, how do social ideas about property affect institutional change? To answer this question, the dissertation looks at three case studies in North America where forest management problems are prevalent. The United States, Mexico and Canada each have different dominant property regimes in the forest sector and have attempted to solve forest management problems by modifying these regimes. Using document analysis and elite interviews, this study determines which major social ideas about property are present in each country. Then it examines the impact of these ideas by looking at specific decision points where policy choices were made that affected property rights institutions. In two of the cases, institutional change did occur; in the third, it did not. In Mexico and British Columbia, changes in forest policy represented important changes in communal and public property rights institutions, respectively. In North Carolina, forest policy remained constant, and no changes were effected in private property rights institutions. In all three cases, ideas were important in determining whether change in dominant property rights institutions occurred. Social ideas about property rights were found to constrain institutional change by defining a narrow set of legitimate policy options. More substantial change in property rights institutions was found to occur when social ideas had been challenged or had undergone a substantial shift which allowed policymakers to consider new policy options.