This book makes two central claims: first, that mineral-rich states are cursed not by their wealth but, rather, by the ownership structure they choose to manage their mineral wealth and second, that weak institutions are not inevitable in mineral-rich states. Each represents a significant departure from the conventional resource curse literature, which has treated ownership structure as a constant across time and space and has presumed that mineral-rich countries are incapable of either building or sustaining strong institutions - particularly fiscal regimes. The experience of the five petroleum-rich Soviet successor states (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan) provides a clear challenge to both of these assumptions. Their respective developmental trajectories since independence demonstrate not only that ownership structure can vary even across countries that share the same institutional legacy but also that this variation helps to explain the divergence in their subsequent fiscal regimes.

A study of the relationship between environmental cooperation and state building in post-Soviet Central Asia.

An exploration of the energy-water nexus and how fossil fuels energy production affects the quality and quantity of water resources.

This book argues that these outcomes are linked to the ownership structure that petroleum-rich states choose to manage their wealth.

"Comparative environmental politics (CEP) is a vibrant field of scholarship and practice that addresses a range of environmental issues facing communities, non-state actors, and nation-states. It draws not only on the disciplinary study of politics and policy, but as this volume shows, is enriched by interdisciplinary insights from anthropology, geography, sociology, law, and development studies. Moreover, the governance of environmental issues is increasingly recognized as central to political economy, political theory, political behavior, and political institutions. The contributions explore the main theoretical debates and critical thematic issues that have emerged in the field and are authored by a broad cross-section of scholars. All the contributors synthesize what they see as the state of art in their respective thematic areas, and indicate where additional research could yield fruitful inquiry"--

This review analyzes the methods being used and developed in global environmental governance (GEG), an applied field that employs insights and tools from a variety of disciplines both to understand pressing environmental problems and to determine how to address them collectively. We find that methods are often underspecified in GEG research. We undertake a critical review of data collection and analysis in three categories: qualitative, quantitative, and modeling and scenario building. We include examples and references from recent studies to show when and how best to utilize these different methods to conduct problem-driven research. GEG problems are often characterized by institutional and issue complexity, linkages, and multiscalarity that pose challenges for many conventional methodological approaches. As a result, given the large methodological toolbox available to applied researchers, we recommend they adopt a reflective, pluralist, and often collaborative approach when choosing methods appropriate to these challenges.

Both international forest and climate negotiations have failed to produce a legally binding treaty that addresses forest management activities - either comprehensively or more narrowly through carbon capture - due, in part, to lack of US leadership. Though US cooperation is crucial for facilitating both forest and climate negotiations, the role of federalism in constraining these trends has been given scant attention. We argue that, as embodied in the US Constitution, federalism complicates the US's role in creating any legally binding treaty that directly regulates land uses (e.g. forest management). Because federalism reserves primary land use regulatory authority for state governments, voluntary, market-based mechanisms, like REDD and forest certification, should be included within any binding treaty aimed at forest management, in order to facilitate US participation.