Resource Politics and State-Society Relations: Why are certain states more inclusive than others?
Resource Politics and State-Society Relations: Why are certain states more inclusive than others?
复制标题
资源政治和国家与社会关系：为什么某些国家比其他国家更具包容性？
DOI：
10.1017/s0010417514000310
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
0.7
通讯作者：
Jin Sato
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jin Sato
为什么有些国家对自然资源采取更具排他性的自上而下的管理，而另一些国家则倾向于更具包容性，并寻求民间社会的参与？通过拒绝在“弱”和“强”的狭隘范围内对国家的简单描述，本文研究了国家作为现代化进程的一部分而寻求改造的边缘社会群体中的资源介导的关系。以暹罗和日本为重点，我强调了基于种族和劳动力，官僚心态和农业生态条件的替代解释。我认为，在资源部门的劳动力更嵌入的性质，使日本政府有必要与边缘人接触，而在暹罗这些部门的飞地性质允许精英建立一个独特的排他性制度。虽然日本政府很快学会了通过承认和接受现有的资源管理习俗来适应边缘地区的人们，甚至促进了森林联盟等地方组织的建立，但暹罗人一直是生活在国家领土边缘的土著群体，他们更具排斥性，甚至受到压迫。在日本和暹罗，针对土地和社会边缘的资源干预对国家-社会关系产生了持久的影响，远远超出了确保资源采购的初衷。了解这种关系的历史根源提供了一个新的角度来解释为什么国家不作为普遍存在于目前的辩论在泰国国家权力下放。
Why do some states resort to more exclusive top-down management of natural resources, while others tend to be more inclusive and solicit participation from civil society? By rejecting the simple characterization of the state within the narrow spectrum of “weak” and “strong,” this article investigates resource-mediated relations in the peripheral social groups that the state has sought to transform as part of the process of modernization. Focusing on Siam and Japan, I highlight alternative explanations based on ethnicity and labor, bureaucratic mindset, and agro-ecological conditions. I argue that the more embedded nature of the labor force in resources sectors made it necessary for the Japanese government to engage with marginal people, whereas the enclave nature of such sectors in Siam allowed elites to establish a distinctively exclusive system. While the Japanese state quickly learned to accommodate people at the fringes through its recognition and acceptance of existing customs in the management of resources, and even facilitated the creation of local organizations such as forest unions, the Siamese were consistently more exclusionary and even oppressed indigenous groups living at the state's territorial periphery. Resource interventions targeted at the fringes of land and society in Japan and Siam produced lasting effects on state-society relations that have extended far beyond their original intention of securing resource procurement. Understanding the historical roots of such relations offers a fresh perspective from which to explain why state inaction prevails in the present debate on state devolution in Thailand.