In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

3 Poverty reduction has been at the forefront of global discussions for several decades but has recently gained fresh momentum, with various parties urgently pushing for policies and programs that would enhance the well-being of the world’s 1 billion poor.1 The United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted in the 1990s provide a normative framework and specific targets for poverty reduction efforts. On the other hand, Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (comprehensive country-based strategies for poverty prevention), which are based on consultative processes with a wide range of stakeholders, provide an instrumental road map for achieving the MDG targets. Embedded in these global policy efforts is a crucial need to better understand the manifestations of poverty and the factors affecting it in order to inform policy and practice. Poverty-related research has shown that despite their low asset endowment and vulnerability to shocks, the poor employ various strategies to improve their well-being, which in some cases have proved effective in addressing some of the vital needs that poor households face (Moser 1998; Krishna et al. 2004). However, the success of these strategies is highly dependent on the sociopolitical and legal environments in which the poor live (Uphoff, Esman, and Krishna 1998). Therefore, to make poverty reduction policies and programs effective in reaching the poor, it is necessary to understand what existing mechanisms the poor use and how these can be strengthened through various measures , whether via direct interventions in the form of well-designed and welltargeted programs or indirect ones in terms of favorable pro-poor policies. More attention has recently been given to the value of institutions in poverty reduction. Although the role of institutions and their development has been widely recognized in natural resource management (NRM) studies (see Ostrom 1990, 2005; Agrawal 2001; and James Acheson’s 2006 review), their importance for broader poverty reduction efforts is now gaining more attention (Narayan 2002; Ellis, Kutengule, and Nyansulu 2003). The institutions of collective actionandpropertyrightshaveparticularlybeenidentifiedasessentialforenhanc1 Introduction and Overview ESTHER MWANGI, HELEN MARKELOVA, AND RUTH MEINZEN-DICK 1. World Bank estimates for 2001. 4 Esther Mwangi, Helen Markelova, and Ruth Meinzen-Dick ing the livelihood options of the poor because the most vulnerable and marginalized rural groups often lack access to resources because they do not have secure property rights and find participation in collective action too costly in terms of time and resource constraints (Ostrom 2000). The United Nations Office of the High Commission for Human Rights defines poverty as “a human condition characterized by the sustained or chronic deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living and other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.”2 For many of the world’s rural poor, property rights are part and parcel of economic rights and entitlements, and their ability to engage in collective action is an essential choice, capability, and source of power. Property rights to natural resources are the key institutional assets on which rural people build their livelihoods. Secure property rights, both individual and communal, provide not only an income stream today but also incentives to invest in productive technologies and sustainable management of the resources for the future. The rural poor are usually those with the weakest property rights; thus, secure rights over land, water, trees, livestock, fish, and genetic resources are fundamental mechanisms for reducing poverty (Carter 2003). However, many government programs are implemented without an understanding of the complexity of property rights and have actually reduced tenure security for poor and marginalized groups, for example, by allowing elite capture of property. A better understanding of how the poor can protect and expand their access to and control of resources can make a powerful contribution to poverty reduction. There is also growing recognition of the importance of collective action as a valuable asset for poverty reduction. Through formal and informal groups, smallholders can work together to overcome limitations of wealth, farm size, and bargaining power. Collective action is also needed to adopt many NRM technologies and practices that operate at the landscape level (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2002). In addition, collective action can contribute to poverty reduction throughmutualinsurance,sustainablemanagementofnaturalresources,increased opportunities for income generation, and improved provision of and access to public services (Bebbington 1996, 2007; Dercon 2002; Meinzen-Dick et al. 2002). As in the case of property rights, the poor and women are often at a disadvantage when it comes to collective action because of social exclusion, lack of...

Share