Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-l48q4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-28T16:23:56.498Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

TURFs and clubs: empirical evidence of the effect of self-governance on profitability in South Korea's inshore (maul) fisheries

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2011

Emi Uchida
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, 216 Coastal Institute, 1 Greenhouse Road, Kingston, RI 02881, USA. Email: emi@uri.edu
Hirotsugu Uchida
Affiliation:
Department of Environmental and Natural Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island, USA. Email: uchida@uri.edu
Jung-Sam Lee
Affiliation:
Korea Maritime Institute, Seoul, Korea. Email: jlee8793@kmi.re.kr
Jeong-Gon Ryu
Affiliation:
Korea Maritime Institute, Seoul, Korea. Email: mobydick@kmi.re.kr
Dae-Young Kim
Affiliation:
Korea Maritime Institute, Seoul, Korea. Email: jkryu@kmi.re.kr

Abstract

Self-governance of natural resources has started to gain increasing attention as an alternative to command-and-control and market-based tools. However, a fundamental question remains: is self-governance economically beneficial, allowing it to serve as an alternative management tool? This paper uses a unique set of survey data from a territorial-user-right-based South Korean inshore (maul) fishery and applies an empirical strategy to provide some of the first quantitative evidence that self-governance benefits maul fishermen. We find that members of the self-governance group perceive the management system as having had a positive impact on four out of the eight criteria we tested: stock recovery, curtailed fishing effort, reduced disputes among fishermen and declining incidents of illegal fishing. Considering that these groups have been in existence on average for less than seven years, these results indicate that the management scheme has made good progress overall.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aakvik, A., Heckman, J.J., and Vytl acil, E.J. (2005), ‘Estimating treatment effects for discrete outcomes when responses to treatment vary: an application to Norwegian vocational rehabilitation programs’, Journal of Econometrics 125(1): 1551.Google Scholar
Abadie, A. and Imbens, G.W. (2006), ‘Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects’, Econometrica 74(1): 235267.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A. (2001), ‘Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources’, World Development 29(10): 16491672.Google Scholar
Black, D.A. and Smith, J.A. (2004), ‘How robust is the evidence on the effects of college quality? Evidence from matching’, Journal of Econometrics 121(1): 99124.Google Scholar
Buchanan, J.M. (1965), ‘An economic theory of clubs’, Economica 32(125): 114.Google Scholar
Cancino, J.P., Uchida, H., and Wilen, J.E. (2007), ‘TURFs and ITQs: Collective vs. individual decision making’, Marine Resource Economics 22: 391406.Google Scholar
Cheong, S.-M. (2004), ‘Managing fishing at the local level: the role of fishing village cooperatives in Korea’, Coastal Management 32: 191202.Google Scholar
Christy, F.T. (1982), Territorial Use Rights in Marine Fisheries: Definitions and Conditions, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 227, Rome: FAO, pp. 10.Google Scholar
Cunningham, S. and Bostock, T. (2005), Successful Fisheries Management: Issues, Case Studies and Perspectives, Delft: Eburon Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Gaspart, F. and Platteau, J.-P. (2007), ‘Heterogeneity and collective action for effort regulation: lessons from the Senegalese small-scale fisheries’, in Inequality, Cooperation, and Environmental Sustainability, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, pp. 159204.Google Scholar
Homans, F.R. and Wilen, J.E. (2005), ‘Markets and rent dissipation in regulated open access’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49: 381404.Google Scholar
Jentoft, S. (2003), ‘Co-management – the way forward’, in Wilson, D.C., Nielsen, J.R. and Dengbol, P. (eds), The Fisheries Co-Management Experience: Accomplishments, Challenges and Prospect, Fish and Fisheries Series, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 114.Google Scholar
Lee, K.N., Gates, J.M., and Lee, J.-S. (2006), ‘Recent developments in Korean fisheries management’, Ocean and Coastal Management 49: 355366.Google Scholar
MOMAF (Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) (2008), 2008 Comanagement Implementation Plan (Yondo Jayul Granry Yeoup Choojim Gehwoek).Google Scholar
Ostrom, E., Dietz, T., Dolšak, N., Stern, P.C., Stonich, S., and Weber, E.U. (2002), The Drama of the Commons, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Plackett, R.L. (1983), ‘Karl Pearson and the χ2 test’, International Statistical Review/Revue Internationale de Statistique 51(1): 5972.Google Scholar
Platteau, J.-P. and Seki, E. (2001), ‘Community arrangements to overcome market failures: pooling groups in Japanese fisheries’, in Aoki, M. and Hayami, Y. (eds), Communities and Markets in Economic Development, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 344402.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P.R. and Rubin, D.B. (1984), ‘Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score’, Journal of the American Statistical Association 79(387): 516524.Google Scholar
Ruddle, K., Hviding, E., and Johannes, R.E. (1992), ‘Marine resource management in the context of customary tenure’, Marine Resource Economics 7(4): 249273.Google Scholar
Townsend, R.E., Shotton, R., and Uchida, H. (2008), Case Studies in Fisheries Self-governance, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504, Rome: FAO.Google Scholar
Uchida, H. (2009), ‘Fishery comanagement for sustainable fishery: lessons from Japan’, in Economics of Rebuilding Fisheries, Newport, RI: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
Uchida, H. and Baba, O. (2008), ‘Fishery management and the pooling arrangement in the sakuraebi fishery in Japan’, in Townsend, R.E., Shotton, R. and Uchida, H. (eds), Case Studies in Fisheries Self-governance, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504, Rome: FAO, pp. 175189.Google Scholar
Uchida, H. and Makino, M. (2008), ‘Japanese coastal fishery co-management: an overview’, in Townsend, R.E., Shotton, R. and Uchida, H. (eds), Case Studies in Fisheries Self-governance, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504, Rome: FAO, pp. 221229.Google Scholar
Uchida, H. and Watanobe, M. (2008), ‘Walleye pollack (suketoudara) fishery management in the Hiyama region of Hokkaido, Japan’, in Townsend, R.E., Shotton, R. and Uchida, H. (eds), Case Studies in Fisheries Self-governance, FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 504, Rome: FAO, pp. 163173.Google Scholar
Uchida, H., Uchida, E., Ryu, J.-G., Kim, D.-Y., and Lee, J.-S. (2008), Fishery Comanagement in Korean Coastal Fisheries, Seoul: Korea Maritime Institute.Google Scholar
Uchida, H., Uchida, E., Lee, J.-S., Kim, D., and Ryu, J. (2010), ‘Does self management in fisheries enhance profitability? Examination of Korea's coastal fisheries’, Marine Resource Economics 25(1): 3759.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.C., Nielsen, J.R., and Dengbol, P. (2003), The Fisheries Co-Management Experience: Accomplishments, Challenges and Prospects, Fish and Fisheries Series, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Yates, F. (1934), ‘Contingency tables involving small numbers and the χ2 test’, Supplement to the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society 1(2): 217235.Google Scholar