2 ms·

I'll read the article once I can get past the paywall, but something important to note in the meantime: "The tragedy of the commons" was debunked years ago: h

I'll read the article once I can get past the paywall, but something important to note in the meantime: "The tragedy of the commons" was debunked years ago: https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false-and-dangerous-myth https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false... The features of successful systems, Ostrom and her colleagues found, include clear boundaries (the ‘community’ doing the managing must be well-defined); reliable monitoring of the shared resource; a reasonable balance of costs and benefits for participants; a predictable process for the fast and fair resolution of conflicts; an escalating series of punishments for cheaters; and good relationships between the community and other layers of authority, from household heads to international institutions.

Eueudhsbsj32 2mo ago
Isn't Ostrom just saying that with effective regulations informed by local knowledge, it is possible for shared resources to be successfully managed? The "tragedy of the commons" is just what happens in the absence of effective rules governing the use of a resource when individuals are free to act in their own interests.
- KaiserPro 2mo ago
  I grew up near a place that still had a common, the list of bylaws was massive. I think it was >40 and was prominently displayed on the entrance. The thing is, like most commons, the land was maybe not directly owned, but there was a management responsibility. as in it was owned by the crown but was granted for the use of the towns folk so long as Harry Big Cheese to hunt thrice a year at some obscure feast day. the point was, management was there, and enforced. Any common that didn't have effective management would fall foul of its rights and legal action would be taken. Or riots. Common land is owned, but there are group rights.
- underlipton 2mo ago
  That's not a "tragedy of the commons," then. It's a "tragedy of ineffective governance." And governance doesn't have to be top-down.
rfv6723 2mo ago
Ostrom didn’t “debunk” the tragedy of the commons. She showed that it can be avoided when you have stable communities, clear boundaries, repeated interactions, monitoring, and real consequences for free riders. The problem is that those conditions are much harder to maintain in a highly mobile, anonymous modern society. When people can easily enter, exit, and dump costs on strangers, trust and enforcement break down — which is basically where the tragedy of the commons comes from.
- underlipton 2mo ago
  She showed that the commons wasn't the common element in systems that weren't sustainable. If the "tragedy" is that every commonly-held asset is doomed to destruction, and you have common, predictable examples of ones that don't, the thesis is debunked. >The problem is that those conditions are much harder to maintain in a highly mobile, anonymous modern society. This also isn't true. You don't need identities when the heuristic is behavior, and action can be taken by either the public or by agents empowered by the public.
diogocp 2mo ago
> The features of successful systems The tragedy of the commons is what happens in the unsuccessful systems.
- underlipton 2mo ago
  The point is that the issue isn't the commons (lack of direct ownership), it's culture and accountability for actions (the existence or lack of responsibility). TTOTC rides on the idea that systems, as a rule, fall into chaos and anarchy without a clear owner, but that's simply not true.

Eueudhsbsj32 2mo ago

Isn't Ostrom just saying that with effective regulations informed by local knowledge, it is possible for shared resources to be successfully managed? The "tragedy of the commons" is just what happens in the absence of effective rules governing the use of a resource when individuals are free to act in their own interests.

KaiserPro 2mo ago
I grew up near a place that still had a common, the list of bylaws was massive. I think it was >40 and was prominently displayed on the entrance. The thing is, like most commons, the land was maybe not directly owned, but there was a management responsibility. as in it was owned by the crown but was granted for the use of the towns folk so long as Harry Big Cheese to hunt thrice a year at some obscure feast day. the point was, management was there, and enforced. Any common that didn't have effective management would fall foul of its rights and legal action would be taken. Or riots. Common land is owned, but there are group rights.
underlipton 2mo ago
That's not a "tragedy of the commons," then. It's a "tragedy of ineffective governance." And governance doesn't have to be top-down.

rfv6723 2mo ago

Ostrom didn’t “debunk” the tragedy of the commons. She showed that it can be avoided when you have stable communities, clear boundaries, repeated interactions, monitoring, and real consequences for free riders. The problem is that those conditions are much harder to maintain in a highly mobile, anonymous modern society. When people can easily enter, exit, and dump costs on strangers, trust and enforcement break down — which is basically where the tragedy of the commons comes from.

underlipton 2mo ago
She showed that the commons wasn't the common element in systems that weren't sustainable. If the "tragedy" is that every commonly-held asset is doomed to destruction, and you have common, predictable examples of ones that don't, the thesis is debunked. >The problem is that those conditions are much harder to maintain in a highly mobile, anonymous modern society. This also isn't true. You don't need identities when the heuristic is behavior, and action can be taken by either the public or by agents empowered by the public.

diogocp 2mo ago

> The features of successful systems The tragedy of the commons is what happens in the unsuccessful systems.

underlipton 2mo ago
The point is that the issue isn't the commons (lack of direct ownership), it's culture and accountability for actions (the existence or lack of responsibility). TTOTC rides on the idea that systems, as a rule, fall into chaos and anarchy without a clear owner, but that's simply not true.