Bureaucracy and new management paradigms: modeling foresters’ perceptions regarding community-based forest management in India

Published Date
May 2005, Vol.7(4):651–669, doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2004.02.001

Author 

• Sushil Kumar 
• Shashi Kant ^,

• University of Toronto, 33 Willcocks Street, Toronto, ON, Canada M5S 3B3

Received 5 August 2003. Revised 5 February 2004. Accepted 10 February 2004. Available online 30 April 2004. 

Abstract

Foresters’ perceptions (from Andhra Pradesh (AP), Haryana (HR), Himachal Pradesh (HP), and West Bengal (WB), states of India) about incongruity between forest departments’ bureaucracy and acceptability of community-based forest management (CBFM) are examined. Structural equation modeling is used, and variations in incongruity are explored across the four states and the two management levels. We construe organizational bureaucracy comprising of hierarchical rigidity, centralization of powers, non-participatory decision making, and organizational rigidity, and acceptability of CBFM being composed of structural acceptability, cultural acceptability, and organizational support. The analyses reveal variation in the degree of incongruity across the states—highest in HP, lowest in WB, and in middle for AP and HR—but no variation across management levels. The loadings of four conceptual components of organizational bureaucracy are invariant across the four states, but the loadings of three components of acceptability of CBFM systems vary. Organizational structure has the highest influence on acceptability of CBFM systems in HP and the lowest in WB; support mechanisms have an almost uniform impact in WB, HR and HP states, and lowest impact in AP; and organizational culture has the highest impact in HR and HP, lower impact in AP, and no impact in WB. These differences suggest that the uniform organizational reforms, across states, pursued by the Government of India may prove counter productive.

Keywords

Bureaucracy

Community forestry

Forest departments

India

Asia

Institutions

Structural equation modeling

---

Fig. 1.

 Table 1

Table 1.

Fig. 2.

 Table 2

Table 2.

 Table 3

Table 3.

 Table 4

Table 4.

 Table 5

Table 5.

• *
  Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-416-978-6196; fax: +1-416-978-3834

Copyright © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

For further details log on website :
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993410400022X