Property

ABP104
Oct 2, 2023
Tragedy of the Commons: Explanation
u Commons = resources that are shared and whose benefits
accrue to many
u Tragedy of the Commons
u = a situation/dilemma where people—acting independently,
rationally, & in their own best interest—over-use or deplete a
common resource, which harms the interests of the group
u motivated by self interest / acting “rationally”
u caused by incentive to “cheat” / you don’t want to lose out
u result = common resource is over-used or depleted…
…even when it is clear that it is in no one’s long term
interest to do so
Where did the idea come from?
u Garrett Hardin: 1968 article in
Science

u Neo-Malthusian
u concern with overpopulation
u but argument comes to frame
how environmental degradation
is understood more broadly

u Grazing Parable: https://

www.youtube.com/watch?
v=WYA1y405JW0
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/gh/
gh_pictures.html
Does it describe
the depletion of
cod stocks?

http://www.fishsec.org/2011/09/30/polish-fishermen-
protest-2007-sanctions-for-illegal-cod-fishing/

http://www.declineoftheempire.com/2011/06/the-international-conspiracy-to-catch-all-tuna.html
How does Hardin propose we address the
dilemma?
u Proposed Solutions
(assuming “tragedy of the
commons” is the root of
environmental problems):
u Privatization
u Government Regulation

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-are-macro-environment-factors.htm

http://mathbench.umd.edu/modules/env-science_tragedy-commons/page12.htm
Critiques of “Tragedy of the Commons” Thinking

u The “solutions” also have problems

u Privatization & government regulation
can also lead to environmental
degradation/over-use/depletion… &
exclude the poor

u Countless egs that don’t fit Hardin’s

model, eg lobster fisheries in Maine http://www.benekeith.com/images/beverage/229/poachedmainelobster.jpg

u Are the assumptions correct? Eg, are

people always motivated by self
interest? Are there really no social
controls?
Hardin Failed to Identify Property-Rights
Regimes
u Feeny et al. (1990) re-assessed the
Tragedy of the Commons 22 years
later, and found that Hardin was
imprecise with how he defined
“commons”
u Hardin was talking about common-
pool resources (including fisheries,
wildlife, water, and forests)
u Common-pool resources are hard to
control access to or exclude people
from using. They are also defined by
subractability - each user can
subtract from the welfare of other
users
Hardin Failed to Identify Property-Rights
Regimes
u Property-rights regimes include: open
access, private property, communal
property, and state property
u Each can be viable for sustainability
under specific conditions, and each
has challenges
u “Although the nature of the
property-rights regime under which
the resource is held is important,
that information is not sufficient to
draw valid conclusions concerning
behaviour and outcome.” (Feeny et
al., 1990)
u Common property is not the same
as open access
Critiques - Steven Davis, Public vs.
Private Land
• In In Defense of Public Lands, Steven
Davis does a deep dive into the
environmental and economic
implications of privatizing public
land.
• He finds that private ownership does
not necessarily lead to better
environmental results, as
environmental health relies on
whether or not it is economically
lucrative.
• In a competitive and individualistic
global economy, often private land
owners will be forced to make bad
long term decisions for short term
survival.
 Public vs. Private Land
u Privatization can increase ecosystem fragmentation, which is increasingly
dangerous for biodiversity loss as climate change worsens.
u Analysis in the US (Davis, 2018) shows that public lands (federal, state, and
county parks) are more biodiverse, more resilient, and are safe havens for
more imperilled species.

% of discrete population occurrences of % of imperilled species found only in a

imperilled species found given jurisdiction
Critiques of Tragedy of the Commons

“We’ve swallowed the idea of the ‘tragedy of the commons’

hook, line and sinker, when in reality this is a ruse that
actually reflects the ‘tragedy of capitalism’ and its endless
wars of plunder (Le Billon 2012). Garrett Hardin’s (1968)
Achilles’ heel was that he never stopped to think about how
grazing cattle were already privately owned. What might
happen when we reconvene an actual commons as a
commons without presuppositions of private ownership
(Jeppesen et al. 2014)?” -Simon Springer
Critiques - Coercive Conservation
u Marginalized
resource users
with little other
option for
survival
u Arms race
between
authorities and
poachers
u Continuing to
treat nature as
a resource
u Degradation
Critiques of “Tragedy of the Commons” Thinking

u Empirical evidence shows that

commons can be managed effectively
by the community (without tyrannical
enforcement or privatization)

u Collective action and cooperation are

the rule, not the exception

u We don’t always act from self interest,

& we talk to one another.
Elinor Ostrom, 2009 Nobel
Laureate in Economics http://
u Common Property Theory documents a www.shareable.net/sites/default/files/blog/top-image/elinor_ostrom.jpg

number of possible arrangements.

Examples of successful common property
regimes
u Forest and meadow commons in
Japan
u Turkish coastal fisheries
u New Jersey cooperative fish market
u South Indian cooperative irrigation
Ostrom’s Successful Commons
Management Must Include:
u Boundaries
u Proportionality
u Collective Choice
u Monitoring
u Sanctions
u Conflict Resolution
u Autonomy

u Are all commoners equal?

Climate change as a tragedy of the
commons?
u Atmosphere as commons
u http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120883813
Summary
u “Tragedy of the Commons” as an influential model/parable
for understanding GEC
u While it can adequately explain some egs of the tragedy of
open access (eg overfishing of cod), it looks past the many
egs where shared resource management works
u related, it has questionable assumptions regarding self-
interest, etc.
u Atmosphere as commons – how to commonly manage this
shared resource?
u Why does it matter? How you explain environmental issues
will shape what policies you support to address them!
First Essay

u A question will be posed based on course content that has been covered prior
to the assignment. The question may draw on a specific topic or series of
readings, or may require you to draw from material across different weeks in
the course. The assignment will require you to provide a reasoned and
substantiated argument in relation to the question posed and to demonstrate
your engagement with, and analysis of, course content thus far.
u Purpose:
u The written assignments make sure that students are keeping up on their
reading, which is essential to success in the course. They also provide an
opportunity to demonstrate your critical reading skills and comprehension,
your ability to evaluate and critique written words, and to synthesize
ideas from various sections of the course. Additionally, these assignments
will provide an opportunity to practice and develop your writing skills and
to receive constructive feedback on an ongoing basis.
First Essay
u A good essay will:
u Effectively answer the assigned question(s).
u Develop a clear thesis statement/argument and support this argument
throughout the essay by drawing on relevant evidence from course
lectures and readings.
u Be well-structured and express ideas in a coherent manner with proper
spelling, grammar, and sentence structure.
u Will provide some critical analysis beyond merely repeating what is
written on lecture slides.
u A great essay will:
u Make connections between broader course themes and concepts, where
applicable (eg. social construction, population, property, political
economy, market environmentalism, etc.)
First Essay
u A good essay will avoid:
u Making broad, sweeping statements about the state of the world or
particular regions in the world without adequate supporting evidence from
course materials.
u Talking in generalities without making specific points relating to course
content and the assigned question(s).
u Excessive personal narrative as a stand-in for well-supported
argumentation.
u Writing as a stream of consciousness without a cohesive flow of ideas or
paragraph/essay structure.
u Derogatory and offensive language towards regions of the world or
populations of people.