Participation Effectiveness for Policy Acceptance and Social Learning in Natural Resource Management Across Political Regimes

Research on political participation stresses the relevance of political rights and institutions for success. But we lack systematic knowledge on how those variables matter for institutionalized participation at a basic level of distinction: political regimes. Stakeholder participation in natural resource management has spread widely, even to autocracies, driven by expectations of beneficial socio-political outcomes. Two of the main ones are policy acceptance and social learning. However, can we expect participation to be equally effective in achieving those results in democracies as well as in autocracies? Despite questions on determinants of efficiency of participation, the institutional settings and the political environment appear as crucial. Therefore, we should expect significant differences in policy acceptance and social learning between regimes. But the literature is ambiguous. In democracies many scholars find support for both results, while others argue for caution. In dictatorships there is virtually no research on social learning and little on policy acceptance, although there is evidence that policy acceptance can be achieved. I explore these uncertainties by analyzing policy acceptance and social learning in stakeholder participation in 146 biosphere reserves across 55 countries (14 autocracies). The study is based on a 2008 survey to reserve managers that collected data on the participation of diverse stakeholders (NGOs, communities, politicians, bureaucrats, scientists). I depart from the assumption that the socio-political structure conditions the effects of participation on social learning and policy acceptance. In autocracies, the resources necessary for the reproduction of political beliefs (in terms of institutional and material opportunities) will be concentrated to state actors. The limited political rights and the higher repression and control over definitions of legitimate frames should limit stakeholders’ agency, making social learning difficult (compared to democracies) especially across state actors. However, this concentration of resources should be as efficient in obtaining policy acceptance as participation in democracies.