The Tragedy of the Commons

Not such a tragedy after all

Elinor Ostrom - Winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2009 Image - © Prolineserver 2010 / Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 3.0

In 1968, the term, “tragedy of the commons,” was used for the first time by ecologist Garret Hardin. In his article in Science magazine, Hardin claimed that it is inevitable that shared resources will be exploited by individuals even when they understand that this is contrary to the long term interests of their community. In other words - most people are only looking out for themselves and will take what they want regardless of the consequences for others. This idea had been popular since the mid nineteenth century and was the basis for economic theories and government policies for much of the 20th century.

Then, in the 1980s, Elinor Ostrom, an American academic who had experience of successfully managed Common Pool Resources (CPRs) questioned this assertion. Ostrom went into the field to conduct her research and found that, whether it was a case of pasture management in Africa or irrigation systems in Nepal, the key to successfully managed commons was how the people involved interacted. Her research showed that human interaction is a type of ecosystem in itself and that the choices of the human ‘actors’ impact on the physical world just as much as other natural factors. She also found that these human ecosystems, given certain criteria, could become a system capable of safeguarding the commons and allowing everyone to benefit.

To study this interaction, Ostrom developed the concept of Social-Ecological systems - SESs. The SES system is heavily based on theories of resilience rooted in ecology which holds that social and ecological systems are made up of many elements that interact. The research showed that the systems used by robust, self-organised governance systems are designed to meet the very particular environment in which they exist.

According to Ostrom a failure to see this grassroots capacity to self-regulate has often caused very bad effects when governments take over a resource. Furthermore her research shows that, a lack of understanding of the importance of trust and reciprocity in these systems, often causes, ironically, depletion of natural resources after national governments have taken over.

“Humans are not only selfish maximisers of immediate benefits to self nor are they always altruistic seekers of group benefit. When the context makes it feasible for individuals to gain trust that other individuals in the setting are trustworthy reciprocators, they can solve social dilemmas and sustain cooperation over a prolonged period.” (1)

(USDA Photo by Lance Cheung)

Don’t be afraid to co-operate

A worry that many people - even at governmental levels - have, is that if they move forward to cooperate they may find themselves at a disadvantage if others don’t cooperate as well. The research undertaken by Ostrom and others suggests that to establish a system of cooperation it is necessary to have some generous cooperators willing to make the first move. But once the co-operation begins everyone benefits and it tends to be true that co-operation begets cooperation. This means that the risk of being the first one to cooperate diminishes.

“...consistent contributors suffer no apparent cost from their actions relative to individuals in other groups who follow less cooperative strategies.”(2)

The research undertaken by Ostrom and her team also showed that while each commons is unique and there is no ‘one size fits all’ formula, there are values that influence the human ecosystems in the management of resources. For example, clear communication, trust, fairness and reciprocity are key and play a role in both creating a co-operative venture and also in protecting same from abuse.

“There is abundant evidence that individuals sanction those who engage in selfish activities at the expense of other group members. For example, people who violate social norms are often ostracized. Similarly, there is strong evidence that people are prepared to make sacrifices to help others on a quid pro quo basis. All of these studies, however, demonstrate a clear behavioural norm of the willingness of a large proportion of subjects to make decisions, at a monetary cost to themselves, that can be viewed as a reciprocal response to the prior play of others...Norms of fairness and reciprocity appear to shape the expectations of these group members beyond strategic responses.” (3)

Ground Rules

Like all sustainable and replicable endeavours Ostrom found that there are practical ground rules and principles needed to manage commonly held resources:

1. The Commons need to have clearly defined boundaries. Who is entitled to have access and to what?

2. Rules should fit local circumstances. One size does not fit all. The local people should read their own reality and they should be the ones who decide what is best to meet local needs.

3. Participatory decision-making is vital. As many people as possible should be involved in writing the rules. We are more likely to follow rules if we have had a hand in writing them.

4. The Commons must be monitored. Once rules have been decided there needs to be a way to ensure they are being kept and that everyone is accountable.

5. There should be a system of graduated sanctions - e.g. warnings and fines - as well as informal reputational consequences.

6. Conflict resolution should be readily available. A system of mediation needs to be set up and needs to be accessible to all so that problems can be solved easily and cheaply.

7. If necessary the Commons need the right to organise. Depending on the circumstances this may involve consultation with government or other ‘higher’ agencies.

8. The Commons work best when nested within larger networks. Though some resources can be managed locally, some might need wider regional cooperation. An irrigation network, for example, will most likely involve many people and many areas.

Practical and hopeful

In 2009, Elinor Ostrom became the first woman to win the Nobel Prize for the economic sciences. She won the prize for her work on the management of resources held in common. The following statement beautifully sums up her entire project -

“These experiments showed that humans might be better labelled as Homo cooperaticus, who are naturally willing to work together but may quit if they are suckered, rather than Homo economicus, who are rational, narrowly self-interested, and never willing to cooperate.”(4)

(1) Walker and Ostrom, Trust and Reciprocity as Foundations for Cooperation: Individuals, Institutions, and Context, April 6, 2007

(2) ibid

(3) ibid

(4) Elinor Ostrom (1933–2012): Pioneer in the Interdisciplinary Science of Coupled Social-Ecological Systems- http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi %2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001405)