THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG

Institutional theory suggests that, in a country’s formal protected and unprotected areas,
institutions should be well defined, appropriate and enforceable at all times. 110 This means
comprehensive legislation regarding conservation, transparent government policies and highly
specified property right arrangements and contracts. Achieving this involves an evaluation,
appreciation and understanding of relevant paradigms existing within the local environment
and in particular, the relevant institutions to benefit and aid proper design of development
policy. This should be augmented by a clear identification and description of some statistical
correlations between the level of development and various social, political and institutional
indicators. 111
In addition to formal structures of laws, government policies and property rights, every
country and society has an equally important parallel system of unwritten rules that govern
everyday human behavior. These are unwritten rules or informal institutions. These can be
cultural and behavioral norms, mores, beliefs, traditions and other rules governing
organizational relationships and co-ordination processes. 112 Such institutions can be more
influential. A society’s informal rules can for instance be more influential than a country’s
formal rules. This is because, such informal rules are deeply embedded in individual practices
and they represent an accumulation of social convention and conviction. 113 However, it is
imperative to note that, the process of institutional building or more precisely institutional
development is a more elaborate one in which institutions change. Institutions cannot be
safely assumed to remain constant as in some other areas of social and economic life. 114
Therefore, this makes the application and analysis of new institutions in relation to
biodiversity not only interesting, but also disturbing and challenging. Like Bromley and
Cernia noted, this is borne out of the fact that, intersecting formal and informal institution in
the realm of development and more prominently in the link to biological diversity
maintenance can be a great hurdle to overcome. 115 Overcoming this hurdle takes into account
zeroing on the different characteristics and aspects of embedding the nature of institutional
make up. Some of the aspects requiring greater attention include: (i) organizational, that is to
say; the extent to which organizations and institutions coincide, (ii) formal (iii) created at a
specific time and place by a specific means as opposed to having evolved from more diffuse
sources (iv) embedded in as opposed to differentiated from other institutions (v) universal as
110 North, D. 1986. Institutions and Economic Growth: A historical Introduction. Paper prepared for conference
on the role of institutions in Economic Development. Ithaca, New York: Cornwell University.
111 Scully, G. W. 1988. The institutional Framework and economic development: Journal of Political Economy.
96 (3): 652-662.
112 Pyhala, A. 2002. Institutions, Participation and protected Area Management in the Amazonia. A paper
presented at the biennial Conference of IASCP; Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe.
113 Greif, Aand D. Laitin. 2004. An Endogenous Theory of Institutional Change. American Political Science
Review 98(4): 633-52.
114 Sabel, C. F. 2005. A Real Time Revolution in Routines. In The Firm as a Collaborative Community, edited
by C. Heckscher and P. Adler. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
115 Bromley,D.W and M.M,Cernea. 1989. The management of common Property natural Resources :Some
Operational Fallacies. Washington DC: The World Bank.
32