Note: This statement does not seek to exhaust all approaches to the study of resources in the social sciences. It offers a perspective which may be useful for some researchers to consider. We welcome proposals offering other research questions and methodological approaches dealing with the question of resources and society. The issue is too important to be restricted in any way.

South Asia, and indeed much of the world, is an arena of great resource conflicts. From urban pollution to anti-dam struggles to Enron to indigenous rights and intellectual property, resource issues span the spectrum from the local to the global and are at the heart of much of public debate and controversy today. Although this makes the theme of resources (both natural and man-made) pertinent for an in-depth examination, the variety of concepts and assumptions that constitute "resources" have rarely been systematically pursued as a central question in any of the social sciences. The fields that study resources are largely dominated by economics and natural science approaches, yet, a moment's reflection suggests that this theme is a focal point where the concerns of all social science and humanities disciplines and sub-disciplines intersect.

Resources as meaning a "stock" or "reserve" is closely linked to traditional ideas of development as a process that seeks to unleash modern productive potential within national boundaries. Not surprisingly perhaps, studies linked to the sciences, engineering and economics falling within this perspective have dealt with the question of resources in a narrow and reductionist manner, especially where the key questions were limited to a better technical understanding of natural processes (e.g., earth, air, water) or their products, especially, energy. However, even where a technical approach was coupled with explorations within the confines of other disciplines (e.g., sociology, law), it has produced a slew of fragmented knowledges that is often limited to specific locales, historical junctures and narrow areas.

Bringing the social element early into a discussion of resources is clearly necessary for a better understanding of social change, but is that enough? Can we talk of resources except in reference to production, energy, and development, and if we do, will we understand "resources" better? Is there any correspondence between natural and social science understandings of key terms in the environmental field, especially, scarcity, sustainability, waste, pollution, value, and indeed, "nature" itself?

This fellowship program is an opportunity to re-visit the issue of resources, to re-think the relation between nature, disciplinary knowledge, social institutions and actors. We need to understand better how the social sciences have approached each of the great natural resources (e.g., forests, water, minerals) and how they think of man-made resources (e.g., information, urban space, social capital, etc.). How is social knowledge on resources generated in South Asia, both at the level of raw data as well as theories that explain the data? How is this knowledge transmitted: horizontally across disciplines, vertically to policy makers and grassroots activists, and temporally across generations?