A Critical Review of Dowsley, Martha. 2008. Developing Multi-level Institutions from Top-down Ancestors. International Journal of Commons. Vol.

2, No.1 January 2008, pp. 55-74. By Banar Suharjanto, 25412069

Introduction Using studies on institutional arrangement within five polar bear range countries, which are the United States, Canada, Denmark, Norway and the USSR, Dowsley (2008) suggests that top-down institutions are now should be transformed into multi-level institutions to meet the dynamic emergences of local interests. The transformation is seen as more efficient than dismantling the institutions and built the new ones since those institutions are already functioning. Although avoids discussing detailed element of transformation process, through chronological examination, Dowsley (2008) proposes a comprehensive assessment and framework on institutional transformation especially of top-down institutions into multi-level ones. Summary The paper is divided into seven sections. In the first section, it is introduced that top-down management of natural resources has aroused some problems. However, it is also noticed that those type of management are already functioning although very poorly and the modification of such existing institutions would be more efficient rather than develop totally new management. The second section illustrates the evolution of international policies on polar bear hunts, from top-down decision that totally bans the hunts, allowing non-economic-purposed traditional hunts, and finally permitting the economic-purposed hunts under some guidelines. The backbone of the evolution is that conservation issues could meet socio-cultural needs. Third section of the paper shows that there are multiple objectives involved in polar bear hunt management. Among them are from wildlife preservationist, local natives and hunting communities. Management systems accommodating them are proven more effective than the rigid one in the USSR banning the hunt totally. When the USSR collapsed, the illegal hunts in the country emerged significantly since there were no community agreements on the hunting system. The fourth section signifies the importance of adjusting institutional scale to biophysical and socio-cultural scale. Since polar bears inhabit wide range of area crossing many countries, it is important to built cross-country governance, while to meet socio-cultural interest, the local and territorial scale of institutions should be introduced. The fifth section emphasizes on the need of transforming existing institutions rather than dismantling them and built the new ones. The sixth section proposes that the weakness of bottom-level parties of the institutions could be strengthened by building horizontal links among them. The last section summarizes and gives concluding remarks. It is suggested that the process of building resources management system should be iterative, where small steps is repeated over times, especially at the local level. It is also emphasized that the governance should concern to local level institution since this level is often biased, multifaceted and weak in advocating local needs. The paper also suggests that horizontal linkage is important to strengthen the local institutions.

Critics The top-down policy reinforced by bottom-up indicators is examined by many researchers. Fraser et al. (2006) emphasizing on planning methods suggest that there should be three steps in establishing policy on environmental management which are integrated data collection, connecting the data with decision making processes and selecting institutional scale for performing the policy. Giving more detailed steps than Dowsley (2008), Fraser et al. (2006) emphasizes on the simple and transparent process during the data collection conducted by the experts and local community members. However, Dowsley (2008) takes advance in recognizing that biophysical scale, rather than political borders, is a significant element that should be noticed in choosing institutional scale, while Fraser et al. (2006) identify it as potential. Another research on natural resource management is done by Castella et al. (2007). The study proposes that researchers can take part in the management by bridging communication gap among stakeholders especially between the lower level and decision makers at higher level. While Dowsley (2008) also recognizes the need of scientific communities in the horizontal level of stakeholders to strengthen the bargaining power, Castella et al. (2007) also put researchers into vertical linkage bridging the lower level and the upper level. Furthermore, Castella et al, (2007) investigate the possible method to be used in assessing indicators at lower level and suggest that different tool should be used at different type of manageable areas (e.g. at biophysical, socio-cultural and institutional scale). Compared to previous studies conducted by Fraser et al. (2006) and Castella et al. (2007), Dowsley (2008) proposes wider perspective on assessing natural resource management. While focusing on the need of transforming the top-down ancestral type of management into multi-level institutional processes, the paper also recognizing detailed steps of the transformation such as the need of scientist involvement, the importance of biophysical scale perspective and the recognition that transformation process is iterative involving small steps overtime. Avoiding the distracting discussions on every detailed element of management aspects, this paper provides sufficient framework in assessing the possibility of institutional transformation especially from top-down approach into multi-level approaches. Conclusion While it is admitted in the concluding remarks that the polar bear hunting management model among the five countries is not fully transformed into multi-level institution, the model is properly used by Dowsley (2008) to propose notable framework to be considered in transforming top-down institution into multi-level one. The paper chronologically investigates the development of the transformation and draws conclusion that it is more efficient to transform the existing top-down institutions into multi-level ones than dismantling them and built totally new institutions since they have function and are rooted in the manageable area. Although the detailed and technical aspect of management transformation are not discussed further, this paper provides comprehensive study and framework on assessing institutional transformation.

References Castella, Jean-Christophe; Kam, Suan Pheng; Quang, Dang Dinh. 2007. Combining Topdown and Bottom-up Modeling Approaches of Land Use/Cover Change to Support Public Policies : Application to Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in Northern Vietnam. Land Use Policy 24 (2007), pp. 531-545; Dowsley, Martha. 2008. Developing Multi-level Institutions from Top-down Ancestors. International Journal of Commons. Vol. 2, No.1 January 2008, pp. 55-74; Fraser, Evan D.G.; Dougill, Andrew J.; Mabee, Warren E.; Reed, Mark; McAlpine, Patrick. 2006. Bottom-up and Top-down : Analysis of Participatory Processes for Sustainability Indicator Identification as a Pathway to Community Empowerment and Suatainable Environmental Management. Journal of Environmental Management 78 (2006), pp. 114-127.