ABSTRACT
In recent years, many states have favoured the introduction of new processes of governance in rural areas, thereby creating a variety of arrangements for the dispersion of political power and obscuring the boundaries between state and civil society (Goodwin 1998; Higgins and Lockie 2002; Little 2001; Murdoch and Marsden 1998; Woods 1998). The transition to rural governance coincides with the emergence of neo-liberalism, a political agenda based on the tenets of individualism, the free market and decentralization. Various forms of devolution, partnership, co-management and corporatist arrangements provide new avenues of influence for some rural actors to take effective steps towards improving their circumstances (see Herbert-Cheshire 2003; MacKinnon 2002). Indeed, government action is partially directed at helping local actors and/or communities work within networks that can expand their capacities for self-government (Herbert-Cheshire and Higgins 2004). However, it should be no surprise that these changes are unevenly distributed geographically, function less effectively when local interests are in conflict, and may still be controlled by external elites, both state and nonstate.2 In some areas, local leaders become discouraged and find resistance to the changes that threaten local viability difficult to sustain (see Gray and Sinclair 2005). Understandably, most studies of rural governance focus on spheres of action and locations where rural governance is well developed. However, this chapter investigates a situation in which centralized decisionmaking remains intact, despite some concessions to greater local participation.
