Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Critical Analysis of the Relationship between Local Ownership and Community Resiliency *

Critical Analysis of the Relationship between Local Ownership and Community Resiliency * Abstract Collectively, current resource‐development literature has given little attention to organizational features of ownership as important variables in community resilience. By drawing from six local buyout cases in Canada's forest sector, we reveal the complexity and numerous constraints on local ownership and expose a more nuanced context than most sociologists tend to consider. Our findings suggest that the meaning of local ownership and community resilience varies depending upon the composition (e.g., private vs. public; mill vs. forest license vs. coupled mill & forest license), type (social, cooperative, trust and/or direct‐share ownership), extent of ownership (percentage of local versus extra‐local shares), and the level of control (e.g., proportion of locally held seats on the Board of Directors) associated with ownership. Future research on local ownership should more carefully differentiate between the nature of local ownership and its associated outcomes. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Rural Sociology Wiley

Critical Analysis of the Relationship between Local Ownership and Community Resiliency *

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/critical-analysis-of-the-relationship-between-local-ownership-and-Tkyaujrypn

References (39)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
2006 Rural Sociological Society
ISSN
0036-0112
eISSN
1549-0831
DOI
10.1526/003601106778070653
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Collectively, current resource‐development literature has given little attention to organizational features of ownership as important variables in community resilience. By drawing from six local buyout cases in Canada's forest sector, we reveal the complexity and numerous constraints on local ownership and expose a more nuanced context than most sociologists tend to consider. Our findings suggest that the meaning of local ownership and community resilience varies depending upon the composition (e.g., private vs. public; mill vs. forest license vs. coupled mill & forest license), type (social, cooperative, trust and/or direct‐share ownership), extent of ownership (percentage of local versus extra‐local shares), and the level of control (e.g., proportion of locally held seats on the Board of Directors) associated with ownership. Future research on local ownership should more carefully differentiate between the nature of local ownership and its associated outcomes.

Journal

Rural SociologyWiley

Published: Sep 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.