For another perspective on tragedy of the commons read: Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:03:48 -0500 > From: [email protected] > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Tragedy of the Commons revisited (RE: the precautionary > principle...) > To: [email protected] > > Quick note: > > It wasn't accurate for me to characterize the Tragedy of the Commons > (proposed by Garrett Hardin 1968, Science 162: 1243-1248) as an economic > theory, though it is, in part. It is every bit as much an ecological theory > to explain why over-population is a serious problem and why people should > not be free to breed as much as they please. This origin in the > overpopulation debate would explain why this theory is apparently so much > better-known in ecology and in economics. > > The theory has been used to argue for government regulation of open-access > resources, like fish and herps, and also for privatization of property owned > by the government (national parks, rangelands, etc.) and property owned by > nobody (open ocean). Both applications of the theory have their failings. > > As Beryl Crowe (1969, Science166, 1103-1107) argued in a response to the > original paper, government regulation tends to break down because the broad > coalition that inspires the creation of the regulatory agency is less > interested and less determined than the people the agency is meant to > regulate. Through relentless pressure, the regulated parties eventually > take over the regulating agency, making it an expensive Potemkin regulator. > > Privatization has numerous problems with which most of us are probably > familiar. To name a few: > > (1) People don't necessarily manage resources more sustainably on their own > property than they do on communal property. > > (2) Privatization, when it works, works on economically valuable resources, > and only when the value of those resources accrue to the owners of the > resource disproportionately. The wetland adjacent to the river filters the > water for people downstream, but not so much for the person who owns the > wetland. The view from your ranchette house is worth more to you than it > costs anyone else to have your house mar the beauty of the natural > landscape. > > (3) Privatizing a resource by dividing up the land or water in which it's > found doesn't work so well if that resource is highly mobile, like wild fish > and birds or clean water.. > > (4) Private property is the heart of capitalism, and, for all its virtues, > one of the main things capitalism rewards is the prior possession of wealth. > Privatized resources accrue disproportionately to the wealthy. Privatizing > public or open-access resources, like fisheries, national parks, and public > schools, ultimately amounts to handing the best of these resources over to > the wealthy and reducing or eliminating whatever access everyone else once > had. > > Anyway, I mostly wanted to correct my assertion that the Tragedy of the > Commons was primarily an economic theory. Someone told me that in my early > training, and it didn't occur to me to question it until I had echoed that > error to the forum. > > Jim Crants
