Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)
climateandcapitalism.com
Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)
1–10 of 32 posts
Re: Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)
#2The commons was developed thousands of years ago in order to be dismantled hundreds of years ago to illustrate why capitalism is inevitable.
Re: Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)
#3Interesting article, I didn't know that "tragedy of the commons" was used to argue in favor of private ownership, rather I always thought it was used to demonstrate the need for some amount of regulations for things that cannot be meaningfully privatized (the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the streets we use etc...). So pretty much the opposite of what the original author argued for apparently.
It's also interesting that the article points out that in practice communities self-regulate to avoid the issue of over-using a shared resource. It seems it doesn't work so well in a globalized economy. While social ties might work well enough in rural England in the 17th century to self-regulate sheep herding it doesn't seem to translate very well to our modern society where the "commons" is the great coral reef dying or coastlines getting submerged tens of thousands of kilometers away from me.
Re: Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)
#4Interesting article, I didn't know that "tragedy of the commons" was used to argue in favor of private ownership, rather I always thought it was used to demonstrate the need for some amount of regulations for things that cannot be meaningfully privatized (the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the streets we use etc...). So pretty much the opposite of what the original author argued for apparently. It…
Came here to say the same - easier for farmers to self regulate number of livestock allowed on a patch of land, harder for "global citizens" to self regulate global carbon dioxide emissions, air quality, etc. and many of the largest corporations have no reason to do so
Re: Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)
#5I think the mental model is useful.
I think of it every time I stand at one of those coveyer belts to pick up luggage in an airport and the crowd slowly creeps in closer, each person trying to get a better view by standing in front of someone else, who then does the same.
Always fascinating to observe the group dynamics and the designs (like a painted line to show you how far back to stand) used to try to informally enforce the norm that helps everyone get their case easily.
I'm not sure you can abandon every good idea that's been abused, even if it's got a weird origin story. But I've not personally witnessed it being used to support privatization, I can see how someone would get annoyed if they kept seeing that happen.
Re: Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)
#6Interesting article, I didn't know that "tragedy of the commons" was used to argue in favor of private ownership, rather I always thought it was used to demonstrate the need for some amount of regulations for things that cannot be meaningfully privatized (the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the streets we use etc...). So pretty much the opposite of what the original author argued for apparently. It…
> It seems it doesn't work so well in a globalized economy.
It doesn't work because we are essentially at the stage where nations take on the role of the individuals in the original example. Countries have much to gain by quickly exploiting the resources common to all countries before the others can. This leads to the tragedy of the commons on a global scale.
We need world government with real power in order to solve this problem, just as national government has solved it for more local issues.
Re: Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)
#7Interesting article, I didn't know that "tragedy of the commons" was used to argue in favor of private ownership, rather I always thought it was used to demonstrate the need for some amount of regulations for things that cannot be meaningfully privatized (the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the streets we use etc...). So pretty much the opposite of what the original author argued for apparently. It…
The argument can be used for both or either purpose. However, the modern popularizer of the term, ecologist Garret Hardin, lamented that the idea is widely misinterpreted. He claimed that he should have called it "the tragedy of the unregulated commons."
I suppose if you just hear about the idea briefly during a single lecture of an intro econ course, it's easy to grasp the benefits of private ownership without recognizing the limitations. Specifically that some common resources are not susceptible to private ownership, such as those you list, but are still susceptible to the tragedy of the commons when left unregulated. Hence the widespread misreading of the hypothetical.
Re: Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)
#8Interesting article, I didn't know that "tragedy of the commons" was used to argue in favor of private ownership, rather I always thought it was used to demonstrate the need for some amount of regulations for things that cannot be meaningfully privatized (the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the streets we use etc...). So pretty much the opposite of what the original author argued for apparently. It…
Yes, as long as there is no controller of the commons that prevents these abuses they probably would happen; interestingly the first time I heard about it was in Junior High when it was definitely sold as "This is why socialism doesn't work kids!" and I remember being confused because my media-fed understanding of rural England in the timeframe was that whoever tried something like would end up inside the Wicker-Man.
Re: Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)
#9Interesting article, I didn't know that "tragedy of the commons" was used to argue in favor of private ownership, rather I always thought it was used to demonstrate the need for some amount of regulations for things that cannot be meaningfully privatized (the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the streets we use etc...). So pretty much the opposite of what the original author argued for apparently. It…
AFAIK, ocean fisheries are clear evidence of what you are saying. In this article, and even more so in its follow-on, the author seems to be mostly occupied with criticizing Hardin's paper, as if that alone was the only word on the issue.
Re: Debunking the tragedy of the commons (2008)
#10Interesting article, I didn't know that "tragedy of the commons" was used to argue in favor of private ownership, rather I always thought it was used to demonstrate the need for some amount of regulations for things that cannot be meaningfully privatized (the quality of the air we breathe, the water we drink, the streets we use etc...). So pretty much the opposite of what the original author argued for apparently. It…
Yes, as long as there is no controller of the commons that prevents these abuses they probably would happen; interestingly the first time I heard about it was in Junior High when it was definitely sold as "This is why socialism doesn't work kids!" and I remember being confused because my media-fed understanding of rural England in the timeframe was that whoever tried something like would end up inside the Wicker-Man.
"as long as there is no controller of the commons that prevents these abuses they probably would happen"
That is exactly the opposite of what the article argues.