pull down to refresh

Even before Hardin’s ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ was published, however, the young political scientist Elinor Ostrom had proven him wrong. While Hardin speculated that the tragedy of the commons could be avoided only through total privatisation or total government control, Ostrom had witnessed groundwater users near her native Los Angeles hammer out a system for sharing their coveted resource. Over the next several decades, as a professor at Indiana University Bloomington, she studied collaborative management systems developed by cattle herders in Switzerland, forest dwellers in Japan, and irrigators in the Philippines. These communities had found ways of both preserving a shared resource – pasture, trees, water – and providing their members with a living. Some had been deftly avoiding the tragedy of the commons for centuries; Ostrom was simply one of the first scientists to pay close attention to their traditions, and analyse how and why they worked.
Ostrom’s principles of commons management now underlie not only the Namibian conservancy system but hundreds of similar efforts throughout the world. Many have revived and adapted conservation practices developed centuries ago, developing new rules suited to current circumstances. Their creators cooperate in the management of coral reefs in Fiji, highland forests in Cameroon, fisheries in Bangladesh, oyster farms in Brazil, community gardens in Germany, elephants in Cambodia, and wetlands in Madagascar. They operate in thinly populated deserts, crowded river valleys, and abandoned urban spaces.
While conservation almost always carries at least some short-term costs, researchers have found that many community-based conservation projects reduce those costs and, over time, deliver significant benefits to their human participants, tangible and intangible alike. And while community-based conservation began as a reaction to top-down conservation strategies, it can operate in parallel with large parks and reserves – and even foster their creation. In northwestern Namibia, two neighbouring conservancies have proposed to establish a ‘people’s park’ where livestock would be excluded and tourist numbers would be limited by a permit system, allowing lions and other large predators to more easily avoid conflicts with humans. Should the national legislature approve the conservancies’ proposal, the region could serve as a core habitat from which large carnivores can range in relative safety – since the region’s biological diversity is now protected not only by law, but by supportive human neighbours.
I don't think it's right to say "tragedy of the commons is false". It's more accurate to say that the conceptualization of private vs public was insufficiently nuanced.
The kind of community norms and regulation that Oster talks about is functionally the same as a private system where each community member has a sort of easement over the resource. In both systems, it's essential that non-community members be excluded from free access.
The whole point of tragedy of the commons is that scarce resources can't be freely available to everyone, without being depleted at a suboptimal rate. That remains true.
reply
Came here to say this, you beat me to it.
I think one of the takeaways of Ostrom's work is that stakeholders can come up with their own solutions. You don't need a top down central planner to come up with solutions for them.
I wonder how Ostrom is viewed by the progressive left and by the libertarians.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b OP 1 Jun
They can come up with their own solutions, but the conclusion of her work iirc was that working solutions follow a similar, complicated framework.
reply
The social enforcement of these norms can be far more harsh than most of us would find palatable.
reply
Well put.
My additional gloss would be that basically every pronouncement on issues pertaining to "public", "private" and (especially) "the state" is insufficiently nuanced. If your mental models of the world are caricatures, you will be wrong in perpetuity, which seems a pretty accurate description of things as best I can tell.
reply
It reminds me of discussions we've had about "rights". "Public" and "private" are often useful shorthands, but on the edges shorthands don't always hold up.
reply
52 sats \ 1 reply \ @drlh 2 Jun
I think it's right to say, at least for original study because it is based on the fact that fisher would continue to take fish from the pond on everyone's detriment. But this assumption breaks when you think of the fisher's motivation: what he gonna do with it? Sell to everyone else? There is no market stipulated in the issue afaik. And primitive people are ready to kill when you stupidly erode natural resources.
Limited resources create natural monopolies that's true, and usually people don't benefit from rich resources under their soils, only a handfull of elite.
reply
Look at the Chinese fishing fleet off the coast of Argentina for the counter to that point.
The community still has to exert their ownership wrt to outsiders, which means they resolved the tragedy of the commons internally, by making it not a real commons.
reply
I had a similar reaction to the title. I'm surprised the author felt comfortable writing it after observing several commons that were functioning but fraught with discord.
reply
Even if you don't end up on the anarchist side being aware of the problems with state ownership and the complexities it creates helps you see many things more clearly.
So many just assume the status quo is like a law of nature.
reply
I think it is easy to avoid the tragedy of the commons within small communities like that. But the moment those commons extend to larger regions expanding beyond jurisdictions and geographies, I think the tragedy becomes more apparent and harder to avoid.
reply
Great reminder that the “tragedy of the commons” isn’t a law of nature — it’s a failure of imagination. Ostrom proved that communities aren’t doomed to destroy shared resources. With local knowledge, cooperation, and clear rules, they can thrive without top-down control or privatization. The real tragedy is how often this gets ignored by policymakers.
reply
which policymakers?
reply
which policymakers?
The policymakers Hardin referred to were mainly government officials and economists who believed that only top-down control or privatization could solve resource management problems. But Elinor Ostrom’s work showed that local communities themselves can successfully manage shared resources without centralized control, through cooperation, clear rules, and accountability.
reply
which were you referring to
reply
which were you referring to
I was referring to the policymakers mentioned in the context of Hardin’s 'Tragedy of the Commons'—mainly government officials and economists who believed only government control or privatization could solve resource issues. Ostrom’s research challenged that by showing community-based management can work well.
reply
have you read hardin?
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @crrdlx 23h
My understanding of Ostrom's work is this: the tragedy of the commons doesn't go away, but we can do better. Historically, the solution to the tragedy has been regulation from on high...an authority (government) metes out a law: thou shalt only have one cow in the commons per household. Punishment is issued for violators.
As I understand, Ostrom said local communities can better self-regulate than a distant authority from somewhere far away. Self-regulation, self-rules, self-enforcement by the locals is more optimal. You still can't herd a 100 cows on the commons, but maybe you can have two for your family of four because your neighbor who lives alone doesn't need an entire cow and you've agreed to share some of your milk with the neighbor.
reply