I am trying to understand and develop a theory for private management of commons, especially emerging from the shortcomings of the community management of the commons.
I am following the 'Tragedy of Commons', and the community management solution suggested by Elinor Ostrom.
Any good critique of Ostrom's work is also welcomed? Thanks for your suggestions.
Dear Sudhir Tripathi,
To my judgement, most successful methods for managing commons are hybrid, combining hierarchical elements (targeting hard-nosed free riders) with market elements (exploiting the potential for novelty and recombination) with communal elements (unleashing the community spirit). A good theory of such hybrid forms is Michael Thompson et al. Cultural Theory or, more on the policy side of things, our paper
Clumsy Solutions for a Complex World: The Case of Climate Change
Good luck with your project!
Christoph Engel
The main trend regarding intangible and tangible commons is towars the commodification and privatization. In relation with untangible commons, because of its unmaterial dimension these commodities are not subject of appropriation or commercialization per se (Polanyi). When they are commodified or privatized through patents or other privative rights, the acquire the character of «disguised commons».ble commons. There are several important books on Commons from a critical perspective: Stavros Stavrides, The City as Commons, London: Zed books and Christian Laval and Pierre Dardot, Communs, Essai sur la révolution au XXIe siècle La Découverte, 2014. This last book is available also in Spanish and has been very influencial among Latin American scholars.
Surely custom and tradition, underpinned by common values, are actually how Commons end up being managed most of the time, in most places? That's distinct from (but related to) Ostrom's arguments.
In life, there are many common pool assets (such as space in the streets and on the sidewalks) and actually almost all of them are managed informally - for example, the unstated rules about queuing in England or about how not to bump into people in the street.
Some sociologists in the 1970s - for example the ethnomethodologists who are currently out of fashion - wrote a great deal about the ways in which everyday life was underpinned by taken-for-granted assumptions that governed almost all behaviour. How a look also at Berger's book 'The Social Construction of Reality'
The sheer complexity of getting on with life means that most things we do - including our use of space, and other assets - can't possibly be governed by institutions (or even quasi-formal rules like those Ostrom writes about governing fisheries and so on).
For two (very) different perspectives on this, one from a traditional Tory standpoint and a the other from the radical left, a good staring point would be think about:
(a) the arguments of Edmund Burke (have a look at the recent book on him by Jesse Norman), and
(b) the arguments put forwards in James Scott's work - especially perhaps 'Seeing Like a State'
I agree with the other answers. The notions of "private" and "community" are both in my view too broad. For example, "private" includes profits, non-profits, charities, friendly societies, coops etc all with a very different approach. And where to do faith communities sit as they straddle state, private and community in many countries? Community includes formal and informal networks but also shared values and assumptions and normative behaviours, as mentioned above. So I would go for a more sophisticated breakdown. Virtual communities also manage some commons now. The concept of "management" is also perhaps unhelpful as commons are maintained, curated, built, re-built, nurtured, destroyed and re-created not just managed. Intangibles are very important and relate to health and well-being in profound ways e.g. loneliness and its links to disease and its sustenance through networks or even just behaviours (saying hello). I think the issue is in fact too big for over-arching analysis and generalisation and that would be my fundamental criticism of much work and thinking. Commons often thrive at the micro and meso levels whereas thinking is often misdirected to the macro.
You might want to approach your inquiry from the back door - what is fair and just? I suggest John Rawls's A Theory of Justice, in which he devises a simple but powerful 'commons' exercise in which citizens ignorant of their place and assets in a fictional society must choose blindly what level of society will be most beneficial to them. Good luck.
Dear Raúl Delgado Wise, Harold Carter, Andrew William McCulloch, Paul Young,
Thank you very much indeed and I appreciate your time, and ideas. These are going to be very useful and though provoking for me.
Kind regards
:)
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology