摘要
林权安排是当前国内外林业政策的一个热点和焦点问题。本研究以中国集体林权改革政策在基层的实践机制为研究着眼点,首先系统回顾了公共政策过程理论,制度变迁的理论,社会行动与制度变迁关系理论以及社会实践论理论,为研究奠定了理论基础：分析了集体林权改革政策基层实践的背景和环境,认为需要将集体林权制度改革从林业政策转变到综合农村发展政策；运用公共政策和布迪厄的惯习理论,从行动者惯习与认知角度,分析了基层行动者对自上而下的集体林权改革政策的解构,揭示出基层实践逻辑与国家逻辑的差异；运用场域理论,从资本、权力和网络关系角度,论述了基层行动者以争夺场域内的位置和资本为目标,在基层林业场域内展开相应的行动策略和行动；运用福建、江西和贵州等三省的调查问卷数据,通过计量统计模型分析了基层行动者内部分层和异质性对他们从林业经营中获益的影响和差异；运用主观博弈论的框架,构建出一个“解构·行动·获益”的集体林权改革政策实践框架,解释了集体林权改革政策基层实践与基层林业经营制度变迁的关系；运用“解构·行动·获益”框架论述了集体林权改革政策的变迁方向,对未来集体林权改革政策变迁提出一些建议。
本研究综合采用了公共政策、社会学、制度经济学和计量经济学的理论及研究方法,主要包括：运用布迪厄“场域—惯习—资本”社会学研究方法,分析集体林权行动者如何在充斥着各种政治、经济和社会竞争的特定邻里空间中做出行动决策；运用“过程—事件”社会学分析方法,通过案例深入分析基层行动者的实践过程和逻辑机制；运用计量经济学模型(logistic)分析基层相关行动者从集体林权改革中获益的差别化；运用主观博弈模型解释集体林权改革政策基层实践与制度变迁的关系；运用政策过程模型,反思现行的林业公共政策过程。
本研究成果主要体现在：(1)综合运用公共政策学、制度经济学、社会学对集体林权改革政策在基层的实践逻辑进行研究；(2)从社会行动者视角,较为全面地论述了集体林权改革政策在基层的实践过程；(3)首次尝试运用“解构·行动·获益”的整合框架来解释宏观政策在基层的实践逻辑,诠释集体林权改革政策的基层行动者展开的综合实践过程；(4)运用主观博弈论研究方法,从基层行动者的政策实践角度,解释集体林权改革的基层实践机制与基层林业经营制度变迁的关系。
本文的基本观点和结论是：在当前的基层林业场域内,行动者对集体林权改革政策具有不同的认知与解构逻辑,地方的解构实践与国家管理逻辑也存在差异,这构成了自上而下的集体林权改革政策在基层林业场域中的结构性力量差异；基于资本和权力网络的差异,行动者在基层林业场域中的行动策略和实践过程也具有显著差别,由此造成政策结果和行动者获益的差异以及政策目标的偏移；“解构—行动—获益”的集体林权改革政策的基层实践路径,从行动者的社会实践视角为制度转型期建立新的基层林业经营制度提供了微观动力。
本研究提出的政策建议包括：基于政策基层实践过程的行动者视角,集体林权改革政策的变迁需要关注基层行动者的行动能力建设、关注行动者之间的共识构建,关注农村基层行动者的行动环境构建、关注行动者获益的差别化。将集体林改纳入到农村综合型发展政策框架需要将三个核心的原则整合在一起：聚焦于民众；对林改问题的分析与政策处方需要采取综合型整体主义的思路；强调宏观政策与微观基层制度实践的联系。
The collective forest tenure reform has been a hot issue in the national public policy and this study is focusing on the local practice mechanism of this reform policy. In the Chapter II of this study, we first review the public policy process theory, theory of institutional change, the relationship between social action and institutional change and social practice theory, which laid the theoretical foundation for the study. The third chapter analyzes environmental and background of the local actor practice in the policy of collective forest tenure reform, and we conclude that the collective forest tenure reform policy needs to be transformed from single forest policy to integrated rural development policy. In the fourth Chapter, using the public policy theory and the theory of Bourdieu's habitues, from the perspective of recognition and habits of actors, through cases study, we discuss the deconstruction of local actors in the top-down policy of the collective forest tenure reform, analyzing the differences between local practice and national logic. In the Chapter V, using the field theory, from the perspective of capital, power and networking, through case discussing, we analyze that the local actors adopt different action strategies and actions to compete for the position and capital within local forestry field. In the Chapter VI, using the survey data from Fujian, Jiangxi and Guizhou provinces, through developing statistical models, we discuss the different benefit and impact from forestry management among different local actors based on the internal stratification and Heterogeneity. In the Chapter VII, using the framework of subjective game theory, we build a policy practice framework of the collective forest tenure reform, named "deconstruction·Action·benefit", then we use the theory of action and institutional change in the institutional economics and sociology to explain the relationship between local policy practice and local institutional change of the forest management system. In the Chapter VIII, we use the framework of "deconstruction·Action·benefit" to discuss the way of transformation of the collective forest tenure reform policy, and put forward some suggestions for the policy change in the future.
In this study, we use a combination of theory and methods such as public policy, sociology, institutional economics and econometrics, Which includes:using the Bourdieu's sociological research methods like "Field-Habitues-capital" to analyze how various actors in the collective forest tenure reform policy make decision and adopt actions strategies in the particular room filled political, economic and social competition; Using the Sociological theory of "process --event" analysis, through case-depth analysis, we study the process and logic mechanism of local actors' practice; using the econometric models (logistic), we analyze the differentiation of relevant local actors in the benefit from collective forest tenure reform; using the Subjective game model to explain the relation between local practice and the institutional change in the collective forest tenure reform policy; using the policy process model to reflect the current public policy process in forestry.
The achievement of this research mainly reflected in:(1) Integrated use of theory like public policy, institutional economics, and sociology to study the local practice logic of collective forest tenure reform policy; (2) From the perspective of social actors, we take a comprehensive analysis of various local actors'practice process in the collective forest tenure reform policy; (3) We first attempt to use the integrated framework of "deconstruction·Action·benefit " to explain the local practice logic of macro-policy, interpreting how the local actors take integrated practice in the collective forest tenure reform policy; (4) We use the methods of subjective game theory, from the perspective of actors'policy practice, to explain the relationship between local practice of collective forest tenure reform policy and local forest management institutional change.
The basic ideas and conclusions of this paper are:currently, within the local forest field, various actors have different recognition and deconstruction logic for the collective forest tenure policy and there are also existing great difference between the local deconstruction practice and national government management logic, which forms the structural power differences in the local forest field around the top-down collective forest tenure reform policy; Based on differences in the capital and power networks, the action strategies and practice of actors are also significant different in the local forest field, which may lead to difference of policy outcomes and benefits of different actors and offset of policy objectives; The interpretation way for the local policy practice logic, which is from deconstruction to action then to benefit differentiation, may provide a framework to explain the relationship between micro-social action and institutional change of local forest management.
The policy recommendations include:based on the local policy practice process, from the actors' perspective, the transformation of collective forest tenure reform policy need to focus on local actors' capacity building, action consensus building, action environment construction and benefit differentiation of various actors. In order to incorporate the collective forest reform policy into the integrated rural development policy framework, it needs to integrate the three core principles:focus on rural grass-roots actors; take comprehensive ideas to analyze the problems of collective forest tenure reform policy; emphasis on links between macro-policies and micro grassroots practice.
引文
[1]埃莉诺·奥斯特罗姆著,余逊达,陈旭东译.公共事务的治理之道—集体行动制度的演进[M].上海：上海三联书店,2000：33-82
[2]阿兰·斯密德著.刘璨,吴水荣泽.制度与行为经济学[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2002.102-142
[3]布迪厄·P著,李猛等译.实践与反思——实践社社会学导引[M].中央编译出版社,1998,157-186。
[4]布迪厄·P皮埃尔.《实践感》[M].北京：译林出版社,2003：22-172
[5]巴泽尔著,费方域,段毅才译.产权的经济分析[M].上海：上海人民出版社,1997：87-102
[6]鲍家伟.对集体林权制度改革中林地承包经营的几点认识[J].农业经济.2008(10)：35-37.
[7]边燕杰编.市场转型与社会分层——美国社会学者分析中国[M].北京：三联书店出版社,2002：83-115.
[8]陈政明.公共政策学—政策分析的理论、方法和技术[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社.2003：122-145.
[9]程云行.南方集体林区林地产权制度研究[D].北京林业大学,2007.
[10]蔡志坚,刘俊,谢煜,丁胜,必燕.福建林业社会化服务供给模式的研究[J].南京林业大学学报.2008(2).
[11]陈学群,吴守蓉,严耕.生态文明建设“四位一体”的理念模式[J].国家林业局.2009(4).
[12]丁胜,马天乐.江苏省建设林业社会化服务体系的探讨[J].林业经济问题.2003(5)：266-269.
[13](美)戴维—斯沃茨著.陶东风译,文化与权力——布尔迪厄的社会学[M],上海：上海译文出版社,2006,05.
[14]戴维·L·韦默编,费方域.朱宝秩译.制度设计[M].上海：上海财经大学出版社,2004.
[15]甘庭宇.集体林权制度改革面临的主要困难、挑战及应对措施[J],农村经济,2007,11.
[16]顾仲阳.中国林改第一村——福建省永安市洪田村林改纪实,人民日报,2007(7)
[17]华莱士,R.D.；沃尔夫,E.著.当代西方社会学理论——经典理论的扩展[M].北京：中国人民大学出版社,2006,285-292.
[18]回良玉,推进集体林权制度改革确保农民得实惠生态受保护[J],林业经济,2006,4.
[19]贺东航,王红.林改中县政府与下层群众的理性行为选择——以湖北省T县为例[J],林业建设,2008,2.
[20]H·佩顿·扬著,王勇译,个人策略与社会结构—制度的演化理论[M].上海：山海人民出版社,2004
[21]黄志勇.集体林权改革呼唤农业保险支持[J].农业经济.2008(8).
[22]贺东航,储建国,朱冬亮.集体林权制度改革中的社会公平研究[J].社会主义研究.2009(2)：109-113
[23]胡国斌.三农金融服务中山区林权抵押贷款风险及化解对策初析[J].浙江金融.2009(6)：13
[24]黄万里,蒙宽宏.林地流转价格计算方法研究[J].林业建设.2009(6)：12-15.
[25]何得桂.集体林权制度改革对乡村治理影响的研究——基于溪乡的经验[J].地方财政研究.2009.(8)：55-61
[26]黄森慰,苏时鹏,郑晶,黄安胜.集体林权改革推进新农村建设分析[J].台湾农业探索.2009(8)：27-29.
[27]江止铨,冯树清,吴满元.福建省生态公益林管护和补偿机制问题及对策探讨[J].林业资源管理.2009(3)：4-5
[28]吉登斯,A.著,李康等译：社会的构成——结构化理论大纲[M],三联书店,1998,24-30。
[29][英]吉登斯著,文军赵勇译.社会理论与现代社会学[M],北京：社会科学文献出版社,2003,32.
[30]贾治邦.中国农村经营制度的又一重大变革——对集体林权制度改革的几点认识[J].求是.2007(9)
[31][德]柯武刚,史漫飞.著,韩朝华泽,制度经济学—社社会秩序与公共政策[M].北京：商务印书馆,2004：180-192
[32]孔凡斌.退耕还林工程林权政策有效性分析[J].农业技术经济.2008(2)
[33]孔祥智.集体林权制度改革与农村公共产品供给--福建省的经验及意义[M].中国人民大学出版社.2008.4
[34]刘岳.国家政策在农村的实践过程和逻辑—以农业特产税征收为例[D].湖北：华中科技大学,2010
[35]刘世定.占有、认知与人际关系——对中国乡村制度变迁的经济社会学分析[M],华夏出版社,2003,2-15。
[36]刘金龙,叶敬忠,郑宝华.影响农民造林积极性的因素[J].世界林业研究.2000.
[37]刘畅,曹玉昆.关于进一步拓展森林保险业务的研究[J].林业经济问题.2005(4)：237-241.
[38]刘琼莲.论集体林权改革中的政府角色[J].郑州大学学报.2007(5)：24
[39]李或挥,孙娟,高晓屹.影响林农对林业保险需求的因素分析——基于福建省永安市林农调查的实证研究[J].管理世界.2007(11)
[40]李娅,姜春前,严成,邱水文,黄选瑞.江西省集体林区林权制度改革效果及农户意愿分析—以江西省永丰村、上芫村、龙归村为例[J].我国农村经济.2007(12)
[41]李莉,黄和亮,吴秀娟.林权抵押贷款借贷双方的行为分析——以福建省永安市为例[J].林业经济问题.2008(1)：28.
[42]厉以宁.厉以宁谈林权改与农地改革差异[J].我国新闻周刊.2008(10)：40
[43]李成强.林权改革破解“三农”融资担保难题—以宁国市为例[J].中国金融.2008(14)：74-75
[44]骆耀峰,刘金龙,张大红.集体林权制度改革：从单一的产权界定到综合农村发展政策[J].农业经济问题.2009(6).
[45]李圣军,刘传磊,李圣轩.集体林权制度改革对农户能源消费结构的影响分析.消费展望.2009(7)：29-32.
[46]马洪杰,布迪厄社会学的元理论[J],三农中国,2007,10.
[47]米切尔·黑尧.现代国家的政策过程[M].北京：中国青年出版社.2001
[48]马志雄.“均山制+林业专业合作”的集体林权改革路径探讨[J].山东省农业管理干部学院学报.2009(2)：56-58
[49]宁骚.公共政策学[M],北京：高等教育出版社,2003：237-240
[50]青木昌彦著,周黎明译,比较制度分析[M],上海：上海远东出版社,2001
[51]舒泽虎.公共政策学[M],上海：上海人民出版社,2005：101-109
[52]孙妍.林权制度改革对林地经营模式影响分析--江西省林权改革调查报告[J].林业工作研究.2006(6)
[53]中静,王汉生.集体产权在中国乡村生活中的实践逻辑——社会学视角下的产权建构过程 [J].社会学研究.2005(1).
[54]中端锋.当前林权改革中的三大争议问题——对江西林权改革的调查与思考[J].调研世界.2007(11)
[55]孙海芹.林权改革中资源转让存在的问题及建议[J].河北林业.2008(6)：12
[56]涂尔干著,胡伟华译：社会学方法的准则[M],华夏出版社,1998,125。
[57]吴德福,张玉伟,张洪生.采取得力措施确保林权改革顺利推进[J].我国林业.2009(4A).
[58]王铭铭.皮埃尔.布迪厄：制度、实践与社会再生产的理论[J].国外社会学.1997(2).
[59]王新清,集体林权制度改革绩效与配套改革问题[J],林业经济,2006,18(6)
[60]王勇,中国农民组织化问题研究[D],东北农业大学图书馆,2004.
[61]谢煜,蔡志坚,丁胜,必燕,张智光.集体林权制度改革后基层林业站职能的转变[J].南京林业大学学报.2007(9)：143-146
[62]肖泽忱,布仁仓,胡远满.我国集体林权改革存在的问题及对策探讨[J].林业资源管理.2008(6)
[63]薛晓源等编.全球化与新制度主义[M],社科文献出版社,2004,253.
[64]徐秀英.南方集体林区森林可持续经营的林权制度研究[M].北京：中国林业出版社,2005.
[65]于海,西方社会思想史(第三版)[M].上海：复口.大学出版社,2010,03。
[66]惠刚盈等.可持续天然林经营[M].林业出版社.2006.
[67]叶敬忠,刘金龙等.参与、组织、发展[M].中国林业出版社,2001.
[68]杨萍.论集体林权流转主体资格—以福建省集体林权制度改革为例[J].南京林业大学学报.2008(2)
[69]虞赞莹,丁思统.江西省林权制度改革初探[J].江西林业科技.2008(3)：60-61,72
[70]姚洪英,沈玉贤.集体林权改革在金融创新中存在的问题及对策[J].农业经济.2008(12)：27.
[71]严宏伟.林权改革将从根本上影响新农村建设战略的实施[J].民营科技,2009(8)：68.
[72]杨玮,张大红,米锋.以经济学视角看集体林产权制度改革[J].防护林科.2009(9)：83-84.
[73]章平.制度转型中的博弈学习行为：知识、策略与规则[M],浙江：浙江大学出版社,2010
[74]张金马.公共政策分析：概念·过程·方法[M],北京：人民出版社,2004：373
[75]张静.土地使用规则的不确定：一个解释框架[J],中国社会科学.2003(1).
[76]朱冬亮,贺东航.新机体林权制度改革与农民利益表达—福建将乐县调查[M].上海：上海人民出版社,2010.
[77]詹姆斯.C.斯科特.国家的视角—那些试图改善人类状况的项目是如何失败的[M].北京：社会科学文献出版社.2004
[78]左停,徐秀丽,唐丽霞.农村公共政策与分析[M].中国农业大学出版社.2008
[79]朱冬亮,肖佳.集体林权制度改革：制度实施与成效反思——以福建为例[J],中国农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007,24(3).
[80]张敏新,张红霄,刘金龙.集体林产权制度改革动因研究——兼论南方集体林产权制度内在机理[J],林业经济,2008,5.
[81]朱冬亮.集体林权制度改革中的社会排斥机制分析,厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版)[J],2007,3.
[82]张红霄,张敏新.集体林产权安排与农民行为取向——福建省建瓯市叶坊村案例研究[J],中国农村经济,2005,7.
[83]折晓叶,陈婴婴：产权制度选择中的结构——主体关系[J],社会学研究,2000(5)。
[84]朱勇茂,石家泉.论生态公益林管护工作中的矛盾与对策[J].林业财务与会计.2002(5)：44-45.
[85]郑宝华编.我国云南林地使用权的调查与研究[M].福特基金会资助研究项目,2003.
[86]钟艳,谷梅.林业社会化服务体系的问题与对策探讨[J].绿色我国.2005(4)：47-48
[87]张明林,付春.集体选择、智猪博弈与农业组织的合作机制研究--一个林业合作社的例子[J].商业研究.2006(6)
[88]朱冬亮,肖佳.集体林权制度改革：制度实施与成效反思——以福建为例[J].我国农业大学学报.2007(3)
[89]张蕾,文采云.集体林权制度改革对农户生计的影响——基于江西、福建、辽宁和云南4省的实证研究[J].林业科学.2008(7).
[90]朱建华,张小全,侯振宏.气候变化与林业：江泽慧主编,我国现代林业[M].我国林业出版社,2009.
[91]张洪生,吴永君.关于自然保护区集体林权制度改革问题的浅析[J].林业工作研究.
[92]赵晓峰.重读税费改革：国家、集体和农民关系的视角[J].人文杂志.2010(3)2009(4)：23
[93]Appasamy, P. P. (1993). Role of non-timber forest products in a subsistence economy:The case of a joint forestry project in India[J]. Economic Botany.47(3):258-267.
[94]Anthony Hall & James Midgley (2004):Social Policy for Development, Sage, San Francisco, USA.
[95]Agrawal, A., Yadama, G. (1997). How do local institutions mediate market and population pressures on resources?[J]. Development and Change.28:435-465.
[96]Arnold, M. (1998). Managing forests as common property[R]. Rome:UN Food and Agriculture Organization,.
[97]Angelsen, A. (1999). Agricultural expansion and deforestation:Modeling the impact ofpopulation, market forces and property rights[J]. Journal of Development Economics.58:185-218.
[98]Angelsen, A. and D. Kaimowitz. (1999). Rethinking the causes of deforestation:Lessons from economic models[J]. World Bank Research Observer.14:73-98.
[99]Berkes, F. edit. (1989). Common Property Resources. Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development[M]. London:Belhaven Press.
[110]Bromley, D. (1992). The commons, property, and common property institutions [A]. In: Bromley,D. (ed.). Making the Commons Work Theory, Practice and Policy.
[111]Birch, T.W. and Dennis, D.F. (19SO).The forest-land owners of Pennsylvania. USDA Forest Serrice Research Buller.In:Broomall.PA.Campbell, J..Outlook for UK.NE-66 (19SJ)
[112]Banerjee,A.K.(1996). Rehabilitation of degraded forests in Asia[C]. World Bank,Washington, DC:World Bank Technical Paper,270.
[113]Baumann, P. C. (1998). Historical Evidence on the Incidence and Role of Common Property Regimes in the Indian Himalayas[J]. Environmental History.3(4), pp.323-342.
[114]Benton, L., Short J. (1999). Environmental Discourse and Practice[M]. Oxford (etc.): Blackwell.
[115]Bourdieu P. The Forms of Social capital [A].in handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education[C]. Greenwood press,1986:241-258
[116]Baird I.G. Gearden P. (2003) Biodiversity Conservation and Resource Tenure Regimes:A case study from Northeast Cambodia. Environmental Management.Vol.32. No.5:541-550
[117]Christensen, S. R. and A. Rabibhadana. (1994). Exit, voice, and the depletion of open access resources:The political bases of property rights in Thailand[J]. Law and Society Review.28 (3): 639-655.
[118]Culler, Jonathan D., On deconstruction:theory and criticism after structuralism[M].N.Y.: Cornell University Press,1982.
[119]Dana, S.T. and Fairfax. S.K. (1980).Forest and Range Worthington.In:T.R. (1979). The Landscapes of Institutional Policy.1, New York:McGraw-Hil.
[120]Doornbos, M., Saith A. and White, B. (2000). Forests:Nature, People and Power[M]. UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
[121]D.S.Van meter and C.E.Van Horn. The policy implementation process:a conceptual framework [J], Administration and society, Vol.4, February,1975, PP.450-451.
[122]Feeny, D., Berkes, F., McCay, B. J., and Acheson, J. (1990). The tragedy of the commons: Twenty-two years later[J]. Human Ecology.18(1):1-19.
[123]FAO (2000). FAO Forest Resource Assessment[J/OL]. Rome.www.fao.org/forestry.
[124]FAO (2001).How Forests Can Reduce Poverty[R]. Rome:FAO and DFID.
[125]Firmin-Sellers, K.,1995, the Politics of Property Rights. The American Political Science Review.Menasha:Vol.89, Iss.4, P.867.
[126]FAO (2006). Global Forest Resource Assessment 2005. FAO Forestry Paper. Rome:No. 147.
[128]FAO (2006). Global forest resources assessment 2005[C]. Rome:FAO Forestry Paper.No. 147.
[129]FAO (2006). Understanding forest tenure in South and Southeast Asia[C]. Rome:Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper.No 14.
[130]FAO (2009), state of the world's forests 2009[C], Rome:FAO,2009
[131]CIFOR.(2005). Making forests work for the poor:Livelihood and Forest Program[DB/OL]. http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/scripts/newscripts.
[132]Gordon, H. S. (1954). The economic theory of a common property resource:The fishery[J]. Journal of Political Economy.62:124-142.
[133]Guthmann, J. (1997).Representing Crisis:The Theory of Himalayan Environmental Degradation and the Project of Development in Post-Rana Nepal[J]. Development and Change. 28 (1):45-69.
[134]Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science.162:1243-1248.
[135]Hodson, T., Englander, F., and O'Keefe, H. (1995).Rain Forest Preservation, Markets, and Medicinal Plants:Issues of Property Rights and Present Value. Conservation Biology. Vol.9, No.5: 1319-1321.
[136]Henrich, J. (1997). Market incorporation, agricultural change, and sustainability among the Machiguenga Indians of the Peruvian Amazon[J]. Human Ecology.25:319-351.
[137]Jodha, N. S. (1986). Common property resources and rural poor in dry regions of India[J]. Economic and Political Weekly.21:1169-1181.
[138]Jodha, N. S. (1992). Common Property Resources:A missing dimension of development strategies(discussion paper no.169)[R]. Washington, DC:the World Bank.
[139]Jepperson, R. L., "The Development and Application of Sociological Neoinstitutionalism." in Joseph Berger and Morris Zelditch, Jr.(ed.).2002. New Directions in Contemporary Sociological Theory, New York:Rowan and Littlefield. P.229-252.
[140]Kingsley, N.P. and Birch. T.W. (1980).The forest-land owners of Maryland. USDA Forest Service Research Bulletin. Broomall, PA.:NE-63.
[141]Kreutzwiser R. D., Wright C. S. (1990). Factors Influencing Integrated Forest Management on Private Industrial Forest Land[J]. Journal of Environmental Management.30,3146.
[142]Knox, M. A., Meinzen-Dick, R., Hazell, P. (1998). Property rights, collective action and technologies for natural resource management:A conceptual framework. SP-PRCA Working Paper No.1. Washington, DC:International Food Policy Research Institute.
[143]Long, N. (1988).Sociological Perspectives on Agrarian Development and State Intervention. In:A. Hall and J. Midgley (eds). Development Policies:Sociological Perspectives. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
[144]LONG N.Creating Space for Change:A Perspective on the Sociology of Development// LONG N. Development Sociology:Actor Perspectives. London:Routledge,2001.
[145]Long, N. and Long, A (eds) (1992). Battlefields of Knowledge:The Interlocking of Theory and Practice in Social Research and Development[M]. London and New York:Routledge.
[146]Long, N. and J. D. van der Ploeg (1994). Heterogeneity, Actor and Structure:Towards a Reconstitution of the Concept of Structure. In:D. Dooth (ed.). Rethinking Social Development: Theory, Research, and Practices[M]. Pp.62-89. Harlow:Longmans.
[147]Lipsky, M. Street-level Bureaucracy:Dilemmas of the individual in public services [M]. New York:Russell Sage Foundation,1980:5-9.
[148]Liu J. (1999).Farmer's Decision is Best-at least Second Best-Participatory development in China:Review and prospects[J]. Forests, Trees and People NEWSLETTER.38:13-20.
[149]Long, N. (2001). Development Sociology:Actor perspectives[M]. London:Routledge.
[150]Liu D. (2001). Tenure and management of non-state forests in China since 1950:A historical review[J]. Environmental History:6(2):239-263.
[151]Lu,W.,Lan-Mills, N., Liu, J., Xu J.2002. Getting the private sector to work for the public good[R]. London:International Institute of Environment and Development.
[152]Liu J. (2003). Support to private and community farm forestry in China[J]. Unasylva 212,54 (1):57-62.
[153]Liu J., Zhang S., Ye J., Wang Y. (2004).Forestry revenue policy in China:What has happened and why[J]. International Forestry Review.6(3-4):335-340.
[154]Liu Jinlong (2006). Forests in the Mist[D]. Wageningen University and Research.
[155]Mather A. S.(1987).The Structure of Forest Ownership. In Scotland:a First Approximation [J]. Journal of Rural Studies. Vol.3, Ko.2. pp.175-182.
[156]McKean, M. (1992). Success on the commons:A comparative examination of institutions for common property resource management[J]. Journal of Theoretical Politics.4:247-281.
[157]Mendelsohn, R. (1994). Property Rights and Tropical Deforestation[D]. Oxford Economic Papers. Vol:46. Special issue on Environmental Economics:750-756.
[158]Menzies N. K. (1996). Forestry. In:Needham, J., Science and civilization in China. Cambridge University Press.
[159]Mark Granovetter, "The Myth of Social Network Analysis as a Special Method in the Social Sciences." Connections, Sping/Summer,1990:13-16.
[160]Maltamo M., Uuttera J. and Kuusela K. (1997).Differences in Forest Stand Structure Between Forest Ownership Groups in Central Finland [J]. Journal of Environmental Management.51:145-167.
[161]McCay, B. J., Jentoft, S. (1998). Market or community failure? Critical perspectives on common property research [J]. Human Organization.57(1):21-29.
[162]Michael Goldman M. (1997). Customs in Common:The Epistemic World of the Commons Scholars[J]. Theory and Society. Vol.26, No.1:1-37.
[163]McCarthy, J. F. (2002). Power and interest on Sumatra's rainforest frontier:Clientelist coalitions, illegal logging and conservation in the Alas valley [J]. Journal of Southeast Asian Studies.33(1):77-106.
[164]Mag. Eva Kvarda M. E. (2004). 'Non-agricultural forest owners'in Austria-a new type of forest ownership[J]. Forest Policy and Economics.6:459-467.
[165]Ntsebeza, L. (2004). Democratic decentralization and traditional authority:Dilemmas of land administration in rural South Africa[J]. European Journal of Development Research, vol.21:3-22.
[166]Owubah, C. E., D. C. Le Master, J. M. Bowker and J. C. Lee. (2001). Forest tenure systems and sustainable forest management:The case of Ghana[J]. Forest Ecology and Management.149: 253-264.
[167]Owabah, C. E., Master, D. C. L., Bowker J. M. et. al. (2001). Forest tenure system and Sustainable Forestry Management:the case of Ghana[J]. Forestry Ecology and Management. No. 149:253-264.
[168]Paul A.Sabtier and Daniel A.Mazmanian. the conditions of effective implementation:a guide to accomplishing objectives [J], policy analysis,1999 (fall),pp.481-504
[169]Richards, M. (1997). Common property resource institutions and forest management in Latin America[J]. Development and Change.28(1):95-117.
[170]Richards M. (2000). Can sustainable tropical forestry be made profitable? The potential and limitations of innovative incentive mechanisms[J]. World Development.28:1001-1016.
[171]Ribet, J. C. (2002). Decentralization of Natural Resources:Institutionalizing Popular Participatio[R]. Washington, DC:World Resources Institute.
[172]R.Weatherley and M.Lipsky. street level bureaucrats and institutional innovation:implement ting special ediccation reform [J], Harvard education review,Vol.47,No.2,May,1975
[173]Ribe, J. C. (2005).Choosing Representation:Institutions and Powers for Decentralized Natural Resource Management.In:Carol J. Pierce Colfer and Doris Capistrano eds. The Politics of Decentralization[M]. PP.86-106. London:Earthscan,.
[174]Smith, R. J. (1981). Resolving the tragedy of the commons by creating private property rights in wildlife[J]. CATO Journal.1:439-468.
[175]Song Y., Burch, W., Gelalle, G. et. al.(1997). New rganizational strategy for managing the forests of southeast China-The share-holding integrated forestry tenure (SHIFT) system[J]. Forest Fkology and Management. Vol:91:183-194.
[176]Swaney, J. A. (1990). Common Property, Reciprocity and Community[J]. Journal of Economic Issues.24(2).
[177]Sharma, N. P. (1992). A Global Perspective on Forest Policy[A]. In:Sharma, N. P. (ed.). Managing the World Forest:Looking for Balance between conservation and development. pp. 17-33. Kendal/Hunt Pub. Co.
[178]Sundar, N. (2000). Unpacking the 'joint' in joint forest management[J]. Development and Change.31:255-279.
[179]Sayer, J., Unna Chokkalingam, U., John Poulsen, J.(2004) The restoration of forest biodiversity and ecological values[J].Forest Ecology and Management.201 (2004) 3-11.
[180]Sunderlin W. D., Hatcher J.1., Liddle M. (2009).From Exclusion to Ownership? Challenges and Opportunities in Advancing Forest Tenure Reform[R]. Washington D.C:Rights and Resources Initiatives.
[181]Swaney, J.A.,1990, Common Property, Reciprocity, and Community. Journal of Economic Issues.24,2;P.451.
[182]Sen, A.,1997,'Editorial:human capital and human capability', world development,25(12), December:1959-61.
[183]Schultz, T.W. (1964) Transforming Traditional Agriculture. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.
[184]Tucker C. M. (1999). Private Versus Common Property Forests:Forest Conditions and Tenure in a Honduran Community[J]. Human Ecology.Vol.27, No.2:201-230.
[185]Ulrich Schraml U.(2006). The nameless counterpart:a reconstruction of the experiences of private forestry extension officers with their clients[J]. European Journal of Forestry Research. 125:79-88.
[186]Welch, W. P. (1983). The political feasibility of full ownership property rights:The cases of pollution and sheries[J]. Policy Sciences.16:165-180.
[186]Wiersum, K.F., Ros-Tonen, M. (2005). The role of forests in poverty alleviation:Dealing multiple Millennium Development Goals. North-South policy brief. Wageningen, Netherlands, Wageningen University.
[187]World Bank,(2001).World Development Report,2000/2001STBZ:Attacking Poverty. Washington, DC:World Bank.
[188]Zhang D., Pearse H.P. (1997). The influence of the form of tenure on reforestation in British Columbia[J]. Forest Ecology and Management.98:239-250.