Sections
Home » People Power » Rewriting the “Tragedy of the Commons”

YES! I want to try YES!
Magazine.
YES! by Email
Join over 62,000 others already signed up for FREE YES! news.
[SAMPLE]  [ARCHIVE]
YES! This Week email logo
Sign up for our weekly highlights email. 

David Korten's Agenda for a New Economy: 3 Ways to Get the Book

Posters ad (generic)

Hot or Cold: the YES! Klean Kanteen

 

Rewriting the “Tragedy of the Commons”

What cooperation and sharing have to do with saving the world.

Mexican forest, photo by Lara Danielle

"Mexico has become a global leader in safeguarding its expansive forests. And it has done so not by fencing the forests behind "no trespassing" signs, but by giving local communities ownership rights and an opportunity to take responsibility for their stewardship."

-Luis A. Ubiñas, "At Climate Talks, An Answer Grows Outside."

Photo by Lara Danielle

It was two years before the first Earth Day in 1970 when Garrett Hardin penned the famous essay “Tragedy of the Commons,” and it fit a certain bleak and despairing mood of the time. Paul Ehrlich had just published The Population Bomb, a Malthusian account of a world overwhelmed by sheer numbers of people. Against the backdrop of that gloom, Hardin’s theory came as another dose of bad news, “proving” that we also had no hope of controlling our appetite for natural resources. Since no one owned the oceans or the atmosphere, we would inevitably fish and pollute them into oblivion. Hardin offered a few suggestions, but his title summed it up: we were witnessing a tragedy whose script could not be revised.

Oddly, a decade later his argument fit just as easily the exuberant, privatizing mood of the Reagan years. No one owns the sky or the sea? Well, then, let’s sell them! The race was on to privatize everything, from fishing rights to kids’ playgrounds, on the theory that this was the only way to manage them well. Society was the problem, the individual was the solution.

The race was on to privatize everything, from fishing rights to kids’ playgrounds, on the theory that this was the only way to manage them well.

The only thing that Hardin’s argument didn’t fit was the facts, at least not all of them. For eons communities had managed to protect all kinds of resources without private ownership. In America and in England, it’s true, a couple of centuries of enclosure and corporatization made this harder to recall. But around the world most of the pasturelands, forests and streams, had long been controlled by communities, drawing on deep traditions of custom and collective wisdom. Even in the U.S. we had classic examples—the acequia irrigation systems of New Mexico, which may be the only sustainable water systems in the American west, or the lobster fishery of Maine, protected from overfishing less by law than by long custom.

And in the years since “The Tragedy of the Commons” appeared, even a cursory glance around the landscape reveals that Hardin’s gloom has been disproven a thousand times. For example, I’m willing to bet that many of the people reading this book turned on their local public radio station this morning. Here’s how public radio works: give away your product for free with no advertising, and then twice a year wheedle people to make a donation to pay for it. Turn that in as your business plan at some bank and they’ll laugh you out the door, but public radio has been the fastest-growing sector of the broadcast industry for years. And now we have low power F.M. and community radio, not to mention the explosion of free content on the Internet.

Elinor OstromA Nobel for Common(s) Sense
An interview with economics laureate Elinor Ostrom, who studies the way communities self-organize to solve common problems.

I’ve spent most of my life as a writer—and one of the sweetest parts of that job is knowing that whatever I produce ends up in a library, an institution dedicated to the idea that we can share things easily. There are innumerable other examples—and they are the parts of our lives that we usually care most about. They don’t show up on balance sheets because they’re not producing profit—but they are producing satisfaction.

These things we share are called commons, which simply means they belong to all of us. Commons can be gifts of nature—such as fresh water, wilderness and the airwaves—or the products of social ingenuity like the Internet, parks, artistic traditions, or the public health service. But today much of our common wealth is under threat from those hungry to ruin it or take it over for selfish, private purposes.

We have to  figure out how to cooperatively own and protect the single most important feature of the planet we inhabit—the thin envelope of atmosphere that makes our lives possible.

The most crucial commons, perhaps, is the one now under greatest siege, and it poses a test of whether we can pull together to solve our deepest problems or succumb to disaster. Our atmosphere has been de facto privatized for a long time now—we’ve allowed coal, oil and gas interests to own the sky, filling it with the carbon that is the inevitable byproduct of their business. For a couple of centuries this seemed mostly harmless—CO2 didn’t seem to be causing much trouble. But two decades ago we started to understand the effects of global warming, and now each month the big scientific journals bring us new proof of just how vast the damage is: the Arctic is melting, Australia is on fire, the pH of the ocean is dropping fast.

All That We Share, book link

All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons

By Jay Walljasper
The New Press, 2010, 288 pages, $19

Support YES! when you buy here from an independent bookstore.

If we are to somehow ward off the coming catastrophes, we have to reclaim this atmospheric commons. We have to figure out how to cooperatively own and protect the single most important feature of the planet we inhabit—the thin envelope of atmosphere that makes our lives possible. Wrestling this key prize away from Exxon Mobil and other corporations is the great political issue of our time, and some of the solutions proposed have been ingenious—most notably the idea put forth by commons theorist Peter Barnes and others that we should own the sky jointly, and share in the profits realized by leasing its storage space to the fossil fuel industry. For that to work, of course, we would have to reduce that storage space quickly and dramatically. Barnes’ Cap-and-Dividend plan offers one way to make that economically and politically feasible.

But for this and other necessary projects to succeed, we need first to break the intellectual spell under which we live. The last few decades have been dominated by the premise that if we privatize all economic resources it will produce endless riches. Which was kind of true, except that the riches went to only a few people. And in the process they melted the Arctic, as well as dramatically increasing inequality around the world. Jay Walljasper performs the greatest of services with this book. It is—choose your metaphor—a bracing slap across the face or the kiss that breaks an enchantment. In either case, after reading it you will be much more alive to the world as it actually is, not as it exists in the sweaty dreams of ideologues and economics professors.

The commons is a crucial part of the human story that must be recovered if we are to deal with the problems now crowding in on us. This story is equal parts enlightening and encouraging, and it is entirely necessary for us to hear it.


Bill McKibben authorThis article is excerpted for YES! Magazine from  All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons by Jay Walljasper and On the Commons (The New Press). Noted environmental author Bill McKibben is scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College and one of the founders of the 350 campaign to curb climate change. His most recent book is Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet.

“The Commons Offers a New Story for the Future” by Bill McKibben originally appeared in All That We Share: A Field Guide to the Commons: How to Save the Economy, the Environment, the Internet, Democracy, Our Communities, and Everything Else That Belongs to All of Us Copyright © 2010 by Jay Walljasper, published by The New Press, Inc. and reprinted here with permission.

Interested?

McKibben, B. (2010, December 21). Rewriting the “Tragedy of the Commons”. Retrieved February 22, 2012, from YES! Magazine Web site: http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/rewriting-the-tragedy-of-the-commons. All Rights Reserved


You won’t see any commercial ads in YES!, in print or on this website.
That means, we rely on support from our readers.

||   SUBSCRIBE    ||   GIVE A GIFT   ||   DONATE   ||
Independent. Nonprofit. Subscriber-supported.




Reader Comments

Free software commons under attack

Posted by rich at Feb 11, 2011 06:06 PM
Another commons that is under siege is that of free software, some companies use free software in their commercial products without giving back to the community that produced that software.

Life Principles

Posted by Scott at Jun 20, 2011 04:22 PM
There is a way to get the best of both worlds - commons and privatization. Henry George is the most well known individual to articulate the following basic principles and although he sought to use the proceeds to support infrastructure the more balanced approach is to distribute the proceeds equally among all peoples. It goes like this -

1. Remove ALL LAND from the Capitalistic System

2. Charge yearly leases for ALL LAND based upon a percentage of current assessments.

3. Redistribute 100% of the revenue from the lease fees back to every man, woman and child equally in the form of a yearly Land Dividend. This effectively makes the yearly lease fee on the AVERAGE piece of Land exactly equal to the yearly Land Dividend. Everyone retains a private right to the land but must remit the lease fee yearly. Of course larger tracts of Land will pay more on the yearly lease fee than they receive from the Land Dividend but on the flip side marginal pieces of Land will realize a net gain from the Land Dividend.

There are also simple ways to remove all forms of taxation and institute a consumption tax that can be used to subsidize desirable consumption patterns as well as for ecological restoration. As for infrastructure costs those should be the burden of those who use the various forms of infrastructure which can also be implemented in a simple manner. I can share more details with you if you'd like-)

Re: Life Principles

Posted by Joe at Nov 26, 2011 08:18 PM
History has witnessed some social experiments that may bare out some interesting points.

North Vietnam and South Vietnam.
North Korea and South Korea.
East Germany and West Germany.

Those countries WITH property rights of some kind are far more prosperous than the more social forms of government.

A little closer to home, you have only to look at the abject poverty on government managed Indian reservations.

Confiscation of property. Annual taxes charged for lands you may not use. Redistribution of wealth. A little to socialistic for me.

As far as "subsidize desirable consumption patterns" go, I'd rather not have people like Barney Frank, peta, and the makers of Twinkies influencing my "desirable consumption patterns"

I think I'll pass. All of this is a little to socialistic for me.

Joe


Property rights boost prosperity.

Niall Ferguson: The 6 killer app's of prosperity
http://www.ted.com/talks/ni[…]ler_apps_of_prosperity.html


Stossel - 'The Tragedy Of The Commons'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IdzaEiYx5o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo_OB6iX_5o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmAGuZgtxE8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRV88SBSU3w

Life Principles

Posted by Scott at Nov 27, 2011 09:14 AM
Property rights. That's exactly what I am talking about. Everybody has property rights under this system and it's the idea is to have it managed on a local level - county by county. Essentially everyone in the county own the land equally by sharing in the value. The Land is used exactly the same in this scenario as it is used today only speculation in Land is removed and the value remains equally with the people.

Taxing consumption works the same way - county by county. For example if there is a logging company that isn't replanting the logged areas a tax can be applied to the companies products that -

1. Penalize the company by raising the price of it's products thereby encouraging future responsible behavior.

2. Uses the revenue generated from the tax to replant.

If you look from the perspective of locally controlled (county) resources and government it can clearly be seen how the participation of local peoples in decision making processes empowers them and creates much more responsible human beings. With equal access to Land individuals are much more free to choose a career path more in tune with their values.

Life Principles

Posted by Scott at Nov 27, 2011 09:58 AM
To clarify there is no management of Land in this scenario other than by the Landholders there is only management of the received lease fees for redistribution back to everyone equally. All value of Land is based on the personal desires of individuals. Removing speculation in Land removes the greed factor and allows the True value of Land to blossom. Here is an example -

Let's assume there are 4 plots of Land -

1. Plot 1 is 1/4 acre near the city center which carries with it a greater opportunity for business. Based on supply and demand this Land is more valuable because of it's location and the commercial opportunities that come with it. Let's say the value of this land is $100,000. The Landholder is single.

2. Plot 2 is 1/4 acre in the suburbs. This Land is further from city amenities and more likely only desirable for residential use. The Landholder rents the house to a young couple. Based on supply and demand this parcel is valued by the assessor at $35,000.

3. Plot 3 is 3 acres 10 miles outside city limits. The value of this Land is based on close location to a city but the serenity that the country offers. The value of this Land, even though it is a larger parcel than the other two, there is less demand for it and so it's value is $25,000. This is the Landholder that is the owner of the Parcel 2 house and is renting it out to the young couple. This Landholder is single.

4. Plot 4 is 100 acres 10 miles from the city with a good water supply, great soil and nice creek running through it. The demand for this Land is high because of it's aesthetic nature, good water supply and commercial opportunity through farming or other agriculture endeavors so the value of this Land is $200,000. This Landholder is married with 2 children.


By applying the same formula to the value of each parcel, say .025, we get the following lease fees.

Parcel 1 pays $2,500 yearly

Parcel 2 pays $875 yearly

Parcel 3 pays $625 yearly

Parcel 4 pays $5,000 yearly

The total revenue from lease fees is $9000. There are eight individuals in this scenario so the $9000 is then divided 4 ways and each individual receives a Land Dividend check for $1,125. This is the lease fee of the average parcel of Land minus the subsidy paid to the children which can be placed into a trust fund until they leave home so they can afford a house (preferably), car, college, etc...

If at any time the property is sold only the value of the improvements is sold and the lease on the Land is passed onto the buyer. This makes a distinction between property - that value which we labor to create - and Land - that which none of us labored to create but which we all need to live. This avoids the tragedy of the commons by sharing the Land through monetary compensation and gives everyone the ability to become a Landholder no matter their financial position. This creates a much more prosperous system than those you've mentioned as the value of the Land remains with the people.

This is a very simple system to implement as the current county assessments are already in place with the only distortion in value created by speculation which would quickly dissolve once this system was up and running. Doing it on a county by county basis (there are over 3000 counties in the U.S.) maintains the integrity of the system by keeping it locally in the hands of those benefiting from it. Don some research and you will find that Land historically has been the mother of all monopolies and the greatest influencer on economic disparity. Even your examples of private property bear that truth out.

Scott

PS - Please accept my apologies for not providing examples in my first post. Until one really begins to understand the foundation of our social structure it can be difficult to see what gives the "fat cat" the advantage and where we need to begin reformers in order to remove that advantage so we can all engage Life on an equal platformtim.




Life Principles

Posted by Scott at Nov 27, 2011 09:59 AM
Mistake - the $9000 is divided 8 ways.

Life Principles

Posted by Scott at Nov 27, 2011 10:12 AM
One more point I would like to make. If you can actually see how this works you will understand that productivity/prosperity requires resources and by placing the resources into the hands of everyone equally though monetary compensation we can all be productive/prosperous based on our own efforts. In this scenario individuals will choose to engage in occupations that are more satisfying to themselves. This scenario removes the chains of wage labor. As these chains are removed, labor becomes more scarce and those who would profit off the labor of another would be forced to increase wages just to get workers. It's a win-win. The only losers are those who currently gain from the labor of others which includes speculators in Land who sit on idle parcels until the efforts of the community create infrastructure value around these parcels and then they sale them. Idle Land decreases prosperity for the whole. Even those losers eventually win by becoming more responsible human beings.

Scott

PS - I really need to edit my posts before posting - too many errors -)

Re: Life Principles

Posted by Joe at Nov 27, 2011 11:50 AM
"Everybody has property rights under this system and it's the idea is to have it managed on a local level - county by county."

Isn't that the current setup?

----

"Removing speculation in Land removes the greed factor and allows the True value of Land to blossom."

Price fixing by the government usually leads to rapid price depreciation.

I disagree that the taking of property by the government removes the greed factor. Under the system you propose the "owners" are really lease holders and the land is owned by the county government.

----

"For example if there is a logging company that isn't replanting the logged areas a tax can be applied to the companies products..."

Until you get some eco-nazi who doesn't want ANY trees cut down.

So a ridiculously high tax is imposed.
-> The logging company puts a moratorium on logging operations in the county.
-> Jobs are lost.
-> People move out of the county because of the lack of opportunity.
-> Property values decline.
-> Small businesses cut back in personnel and production because of the drop in demand. Some businesses decide to close and/or relocate.
-> Property values decline further as businesses close.
-> County has to RAISE TAXES because there are fewer taxpayers that are covering county expenses.
-> Some people move out of the county to avoid the taxes, lack of jobs, and declining opportunities in the county.
-> Property values decline further.
-> etc.
Examples: California, Illinois, United States.

Joe

Life Principles

Posted by Scott at Nov 27, 2011 02:50 PM
Sorry that you just can't seem to get your eyes off of the government factor. When you start to understand that this concept places the resources directly under the ownership of the people then you will start to get the picture. For now you'll just have to keep on keeping on. Best of luck to you my friend,

Scott

Re: Life Principles

Posted by Joe at Nov 27, 2011 08:18 PM
And a tip-of-the-hat to you Scott.

Have an uncommonly good holiday season.

Joe

Life Principles

Posted by Scott at Nov 27, 2011 09:27 PM
You too my friend-)

People Who Love YES! Find Out Why... Subscribe Today

Personal tools