Is anyone familiar with the concept? I need to draft a letter to someone and although common pool/property resources is not the subject, I do need to refer to it with slightly more familiarity than “hey, I read this Wikipedia article.”
From what I gather, it challenges conventional wisdom that says private ownership is the optimal pathway to avoiding the tragedy of the commons. But I’m not quite grasping how non-governmental groups that informally set access and usage rules to resources they don’t own are not forming a quasi-government that does own the resource—and thereby mirrors the traditional response to a common good.
Again, I don’t need to become an expert, sound like an expert or hold myself out as someone who is knowledgeable in the field. But I do need to understand the concept enough to relate it to the basic subject matter (sustainable development).
I’ve read the Wiki article and have been poking about different sites. Any Doper insight? Any Doper-vetted brief introduction out there?
The 'tragedy of the commons" comes from the concept that if nobody can stop anyone else from using the resources, the resource is “used up”, because the natural tendency is to grab yours before someone else takes it all. It came from the “common grazing area” that was a feature of many primitive communities, which could quickly get grazed to nothing if times were good and everyone had plenty of cows or goats. It is also applicable to resources as diverse as whales or fish - someone wrote an article pointing out that it was more profitable for every 1800’s whaler to kill as many whales as fast as possible (then move on to another endeavour), than to consider the idea of sustainable harvests.
What you are asking about would be a cooperative or government or some other concept where, yes, someone CAN tell each person how much of a resource they are entitled to. I don’t see the difference between that and private ownership, except that a large group of individuals may have some say - but not complete individual autonomy - in the allocation from that resource. If it is restricted (ultimately, by force or force of law) then it is in some way private. It may simply be a democratic corporation or NGO that “owns” it.
Keeping it simple, say I run out to the public grazing yard with a big stick and kick everyone else out. It’s not perfect (some sneak in at night), and not necessarily exclusive (someone with a bigger stick; I allow my friends), and if anyone called the sheriff he’d come and take my stick away. In the meantime, my actions have avoided the tragedy of the commons, yet this is distinct from private ownership and I suspect the Nobel Prize committee will not have me on speed dial.