Connecting land tenure to land restoration
In: Development in practice, Band 33, Heft 7, S. 762-770
ISSN: 1364-9213
18 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Development in practice, Band 33, Heft 7, S. 762-770
ISSN: 1364-9213
In: Local development & society, Band 3, Heft 2, S. 312-314
ISSN: 2688-3600
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 86, S. 126-135
ISSN: 0264-8377
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 81, S. 39-48
ISSN: 0264-8377
In: Development in practice, Band 25, Heft 7, S. 1067-1073
ISSN: 1364-9213
Inefficient infrastructures, lack of employment opportunities and poor social amenities are some of the rural challenges Nigeria is facing. These challenges persist mainly due to ineffective approaches used in tackling them. This thesis argues that Nigeria can improve this situation by taking a "territorial development" approach. The work develops an approach of "Territorial Rural Development" for Nigeria and shows conditions for its implementation. ; Die vorliegende Dissertation zeigt auf, dass Nigeria die Lebensbedingungen in ländlichen Regionen mit dem Ansatz der "Territorialen Entwicklung" verbessern kann. Häufige politische Veränderungen sowie Versäumnisse der Politik standen der Verwirklichung bisher jedoch entgegen. Vor diesem Hintergrund entwickelt die Arbeit einen Ansatz zur "Territorialen Ländlichen Entwicklung" in Nigeria und zeigt Voraussetzungen für eine erfolgreiche Umsetzung auf.
BASE
In: Development Southern Africa, Band 30, Heft 6, S. 812-825
ISSN: 1470-3637
In: Development in practice, Band 23, Heft 2, S. 264-277
ISSN: 1364-9213
In: Development in practice, Band 23, Heft 2
ISSN: 0961-4524
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 92, S. 104482
ISSN: 0264-8377
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 125, S. 106479
ISSN: 0264-8377
In: Administrative Sciences: open access journal, Band 9, Heft 1, S. 21
ISSN: 2076-3387
This paper evaluates how land governance is re-arranged in a state re-structuring process. We compare the cases of the (re-)unification of China with Hong Kong with that of West and East Germany. The division and (re-)unification of these states mark different land governance re-arrangements. The China-Hong Kong (re-)unification relied on a one-country two-system (OCTS) approach, while in West and East Germany, (re-)unification resulted in the creation of a one-country one-system (OCOS). Our key interest is to identify similarities and differences in both cases and the implications of the differences. To support the analysis, we view land governance and (re-)unification from theoretical to practical lenses—structuration theory and the government tools-based approach. This supports the construction of a conceptual and analytical framework, with which we conduct an in-depth exploration to evaluate land governance re-arrangements. We find that the conceptual and analytical framework proves effective for countries, with entirely different land governance regimes, to decide whether to merge or adapt. We do not conclude which approaches for (re-)unification are appropriate to land governance re-arrangements since all countries have different historical contexts and institutional arrangements. Instead, we recommend that governments consider adaptive land governance in signification structures and focus on hierarchical enforcement in legitimation structures. While multi-level land governance in the domination structure phase is strongly required, issue-and-project-based land governance has a pivotal role in providing cross-boundary infrastructures. Nevertheless, further empirical analysis is recommended to verify how and where the re-arrangement processes are initiated and structured.
This paper evaluates how land governance is re-arranged in a state re-structuring process. We compare the cases of the (re-)unification of China with Hong Kong with that of West and East Germany. The division and (re-)unification of these states mark different land governance re-arrangements. The China-Hong Kong (re-)unification relied on a one-country two-system (OCTS) approach, while inWest and East Germany, (re-)unification resulted in the creation of a one-country one-system (OCOS). Our key interest is to identify similarities and differences in both cases and the implications of the differences. To support the analysis, we view land governance and (re-)unification from theoretical to practical lenses-structuration theory and the government tools-based approach. This supports the construction of a conceptual and analytical framework, with which we conduct an in-depth exploration to evaluate land governance re-arrangements. We find that the conceptual and analytical framework proves effective for countries, with entirely different land governance regimes, to decide whether to merge or adapt. We do not conclude which approaches for (re-)unification are appropriate to land governance re-arrangements since all countries have different historical contexts and institutional arrangements. Instead, we recommend that governments consider adaptive land governance in signification structures and focus on hierarchical enforcement in legitimation structures. While multi-level land governance in the domination structure phase is strongly required, issue-and-project-based land governance has a pivotal role in providing cross-boundary infrastructures. Nevertheless, further empirical analysis is recommended to verify how and where the re-arrangement processes are initiated and structured.
BASE
In: Land use policy: the international journal covering all aspects of land use, Band 141, S. 107112
ISSN: 0264-8377