We’ve discussed the tragedy of the commons, an economic theory that dates back to Aristotle: “What is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it.” It maintains that when people share a common resource, there’s no incentive for them to use it responsibly. Instead, they exploit it for all it’s worth, ultimately destroying it. Garrett Hardin maintained that either privatization or government regulation is necessary to prevent such abuses as overgrazing of pastures. But is tragedy inevitable? Elinor Ostrom, the 2009 Nobel laureate in economics, showed that many societies have found ways of sustaining the commons.
Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.—Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” 1968.
You may remember the story of the little red hen. She asks the other animals to help her plant her wheat, cultivate it, harvest it, grind it into flour, and bake the flour into bread. At each stage, there are no takers. Yet when she asks for help in eating the bread, everyone is ready to pitch in. That story reflects the experience many of us had of group projects at university. That is, everyone wants to participate in its success, but not everyone pulls their weight. I used to dislike group projects because there always seemed to be someone who let everyone else “carry” them, and no good way to get them to do their share of the work. If that’s how people behave, how do we go about sustaining the commons?
What are the commons?
In Medieval Europe, some resources were shared rather than privately held. For example, a village might have common grazing lands for use by certain members of the community. But only those community members had the right to use those lands, and they had to abide by the rules. That land wasn’t open for just anyone to use however they liked. The shared resource and the rules governing its use together constituted the commons.
Unfortunately, some confusion has arisen about the meaning of “commons”. Many use “commons” for resources such as aquifers that anyone can draw from. There’s no limit on who can use the resource, how much they take, or what damage they may do. When those who overuse or damage a resource don’t have to pay for it, of course there will be abuses. This led Hardin to conclude that government coercion was necessary to keep people from having too many children. But sustaining the commons need not entail Hardin’s totalitarian approach. The key to remember is that “commons” does not mean “open access”.
The most important distinguishing feature of a “commons” is that it involves one or several common-pool resources over which there are no established private property rights. The second distinguishing feature of a “commons” is that it involves actions on the part of the individuals who use it to maintain its productivity.—Sustaining the Commons, John M. Anderies and Marco A. Janssen, 2013.
These actions may involve contributing to or limiting their use of common resources. For example, there might be limits on how many sheep a family could graze on the land and when they could be there. Or they may have to contribute to the maintenance of common resources such as irrigation infrastructure. Contributions could be in the form of cash or labor.
Capitalist incentives for regulating consumption
You don’t have to leave home to find examples of regulating consumption. Water meters and electric meters both measure consumption so we pay for what we use. When resources are in especially short supply, as electricity during a heatwave, charging extra at times of peak demand can further limit consumption.
Some utilities provide incentives for consuming less. The city of Minneapolis charges less to residents who use smaller garbage cans, for example. Xcel Energy gives rebates for installing Energy Star appliances, and for allowing them to cycle off one’s air conditioner during times of high demand.
We’ve discussed previously how privatization can encourage good management of resources. That is, the resource is no longer a commons because it has become private property. However, private ownership is not the only way to manage resources well. And private ownership may not prevent people from using their own property in ways that adversely affect others. If farmers upstream over-fertilize their crops, the excess nutrients in the runoff will affect the ecosystem of the whole river. Or if a landowner removes ground cover so that their soil becomes unstable, their downhill neighbors could experience landslides. In practice, we usually need some regulation to limit how people use their own property.
Governing the commons for growing rice in Bali
On the Indonesian island of Bali, subaks governed rice cultivation for a millennium. These irrigation communities received water from a lake at the top of a volcano through a series of canals. Coordinating the distribution of the water accomplished two purposes: irrigation and pest control. Insects called plant hoppers spread from field to field unless there’s enough fallow land between them. If the rice farmers plant their fields at the same time, the fallow areas will be large enough to prevent the plant hoppers from spreading.
Religious rituals involving offerings at local water temples maintained the calendar for planting, watering, and harvesting. Only after the farmers made the appropriate offering could they plant their rice. That kept everyone on the same schedule even without a central authority.
In the 1960s the Green Revolution sought to increase the number of annual rice crops from two to three. Unfortunately the Green Revolution agronomists had no idea of the function of the water temple rituals. They insisted that the farmers adopt new varieties of rice, and the Indonesian government subsidized purchases of fertilizer and pesticides. But the plant hoppers thrived and spread, destroying much of the rice crop, and there wasn’t enough water to go around. The water temple rituals of the past had promoted a more workable distribution of water; the Green Revolution didn’t take this into account.
An anthropologist, Steven Lansing, was able to decipher the functioning of the water temple rituals. He built a computer model of the water temple system and showed how it maximized rice production. He was able to persuade the financial backers of the Green Revolution that building on the traditional system was the best way forward.
Principles for sustaining the commons
Dr. Ostrom and her colleagues studied numerous examples of sustaining the commons in various communities around the world. They were able to determine the principles for sustaining the commons.
- Clearly defined boundaries. Both the boundaries of the common-pool resource and the individuals or families who may use the resource must be clearly defined.
- Proportion between costs and benefits. The rules governing the resource must provide close equivalence between what users put in and what they receive from it.
- Collective-choice arrangements. The users of the resource or their representatives must have a say in the rules that govern it.
- Monitoring. Those who monitor the condition of the resource and its use are either users themselves or accountable to the users.
- Graduated sanctions. Those who violate the rules are subject to sanctions that grow more stringent with the seriousness of the violation and with repeated violations.
- Conflict-resolution mechanisms. There are simple, low-cost ways to resolve conflicts between users and between officials and users.
- Recognition of rights to organize. External government authorities cannot deny users the right to organize, and users have long-term rights to the resource.
For large systems comprising more than one jurisdiction, there is an additional principle: All of the above activities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises. The state government, for example, will enforce the same rules as the local one and will regulate the relations between neighboring local ones if necessary.
The commons in everyday life
Many of the resources you use daily are examples of commons. Every time you drive on a public road you are using a commons. To do so, you must be a licensed driver (a boundary on the users). You must obey the state and local traffic laws. The taxes on the gas your vehicle consumes and your license fees pay for the construction and maintenance of these roads, and (at least where I live) removal of snow and ice. If you exceed the speed limit, you may receive a ticket (a sanction). If you drive under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, you may receive a ticket or even a jail sentence (graduated sanctions). You may also lose your license.
If you are a fan of public media, you may enjoy them either as a member or as a “free rider”. We usually think of the “free rider” as a problem, but the public media model deliberately does not erect barriers; anyone can use the service. Those who can contribute do so freely, knowing that others may give less or nothing at all. Membership drives make it clear that each person should pay what they can afford and what it’s worth to them (proportion between cost and benefits).
You may belong to a homeowners’ association. In this case, you must join and pay the member fees if you own a home in that building or development. As a member, you may vote for the members of the board or run for office yourself (collective choice). You must obey the association rules, and there are sanctions for those who violate them. Homeowners’ associations help maintain the value of the property and save money by contracting for common services such as internet connections. They could also resolve disputes among homeowners.