Our common future/The future of our commons

Tine De Moor (UU)

Commons are everywhere!

What explains this revival of collective action?

Collective action in particular in new media initiatives, eg. Wikipedia, Creative Commons

Open access movement New initiatives that are based on collective action (see also e.g. Groupon)

Failure of market and state? 2009-Nobel prize Economic Sciences for Elinor Ostrom

What are commons really?

Where does the term come from? Long-term historical evolution, focus on Europe

What do commons stand for? From local pastures to global commons

What makes commons different from state or market?

What can we learn from commons-research AND practice for policy?

Looking back to look forward

Long-pre-history of term commons Long-term approach is also needed because:

Effects of specific form of resource management often become apparent only after long period of time.

Resilient institutions require time to be built & tested (trial-and-error)

Long-term development can contribute to our institutional toolbox: methods and techniques to deal with change and crises.

Where does the term commons come from?

From Late Middle ages-onwards (12th c.): rise of collective management of resources both in town and countryside

Towns: guilds Countryside: commons, waterboards etc.

E.g. Netherlands: Markegenootschappen and Meenten

Historical common referred to land that was: 'used by several people or households during a certain period, in distinction to land that was used by only one person or household throughout the whole year

Great variety of types but mainly two forms of commons

Features of commons and similar institutions for collective action

Exclusive membership Initiative taken by local villagers Devised and adjusted their own rules In dialogue with local powers Group responsibility

Marke Raalterwoold (Overrijsel, Netherlands)

(before) 1445 1859

markenboek 1615 (incl. copies of earlier regulations) - 1859

Eskdale commons (Cumbria, England), Middle Ages - c. 1859

Common rights:pasture, peat and turves, bracken

Gemene and Loweiden (Near Bruges, Belgium): 14th

century-today

Common rights: mainly pastureland

Selfgovernance and self-regulation:Monitoring and sanctioning

Commoners set-up their own regulation and restricted their own behaviour:

Right to vote in meetings (linked to household) Obligation to attend meetings Election of representatives Rotation of responsibilities

Management tools Provision of monitors and systems of sanctions for malefactors

often graduated fines: 3 strikes and youre out

Enforcement of collective exploitation Increasing regulation of grazing on the commons

Limiting of commercial activity Limits on the amount of each resource to be appropriated

Dealing with the market: Rules against over-use due to commercialisation

1. Limitation of the number of cattle in relation to the capacity of resource: 1. Cattle had to be in possession of user during previous

winter2. Grazing of cattle bought before grazing period was

restricted3. Grazing cattle of non-entitled users was forbidden4. Linkage of the number of cattle to surface of arable in

private property

2. Selling products from the common was forbidden (outside the village)

3. Use of common limited to own needs

Parallel to commons

Development of other forms of co-operation Between craftsmen in towns: guilds

Sharing of resources and services (e.g. communal guild house) Collective buying of working materials Collective insurance against risk for members and family

Between users of waterboard services Fraternities, beguinages etc.

19th century: co-operatives, labour unions, ..

Advantages of institutionalised collective action, as in the case of commons

Economies of scale Search and information costs:

internal agreement on the price of the goods according to set rules that are not changed unless there is an urgent need to do so

if there is a change all members are aware of this via collective meetings with compulsory attendance

Bargaining costs: Rights on the use of resources is made clear via clear access rules

Policing and enforcement: prevention of freeriding via stimulating social control and graduated sanctioning

Monitoring often shared and rotating task,

Why have we forgotten about the commons?

From late 18th c. onwards: The individual becomes the central unit in society

Enlightenment Nation State: organisation of society becomes centralised, including legal and economic basis

The state decides upon on the economic framework The state decides upon the legally acceptable forms of institutions.

-> gradual disappearance of the commons

19th century: centralised dissolution of common land in the whole of Western Europe

From 19th century onwards

Debate on commons is dominated by ideas that individual (homo economicus) seeks individual gain, not collective welfare

that collective resources are bound to being overharvested

See Malthus, Lloyd, Hardin (1968): The tragedy of the commons

Tragedy of the commons (1968)

Main issue: how to deal with growing world population?

Problematic about commons-metaphor: No communication No regulation/institutionalisation No boundaries, only open access

Main solution: state or market Linkage of commons as local phenomenon to global

issues

> emergence of the term commons in global context (e.g. global commons)

> blurred vision of what commons really were/are

Features of well-managed commonsOstroms design principles

Governing the commons( (1990):

Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties);

Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources are adapted to local conditions;

Collective-choice arrangements allow most resource appropriators to participate in the decision-making process;

Effective monitoring by monitors who are part of or accountable to the appropriators;

There is a scale of graduated sanctions for resource appropriators who violate community rules;

Mechanisms of conflict resolution are cheap and of easy access;

The self-determination of the community is recognized by higher-level authorities.

Elinor Ostrom

Important aspects of Ostroms view

Importance of resilience: long-term survival of institutions (reduces costs)

Stress on self-governance: bottom-up formation and management-> Recognition of capability of local communities to avoid tragedies and solve dilemmas in a cost-effective way

Stress on diversity of common pool arrangements: local conditions should be taken into account in regulation

The role of technology

Well-known example of Nepali irrigation systems (Ostrom 1990): technology/innovation can destroy

cooperation-incentives

Similar: new media allow to collaborate, but does this go together with the same incentive-structures?

Trust without visibility? Reciprocity without community-context? -> what is the role of new media in resilient cooperation? Can it help to built resilient institutions?

Important aspects of Ostroms view

Importance of resilience: long-term survival of institutions (reduces costs)

Stress on self-governance: bottom-up formation and management-> Recognition of capability of local communities to avoid tragedies and solve dilemmas in a cost-effective way

Stress on diversity of common pool arrangements: local conditions should be taken into account in regulation

Identifying the potential of collective action and cooperation for a sustainable and resilient society and economy

BUT: common management is no panacea:No size fits all!

Essential features of commons

Trying to solve a social dilemma: the individual interest versus the common good

Often in times of scarcity Via:

Self-governance Regulation/institutionalisation Boundaries/exclusiveness

Need for legal and political secure environment

Spectrum of institutional arrangements to govern resources

State/public

High administration costs

Not always effective regulation

Costly to persecute and punish defectors

Collective action:

Self-regulation and sanctioning is

cheaper and often very effective

Effects of individual behaviour on group are felt directly by group members

Market/private:

Externalisation of costs

Sanctioning remains responsibility of

state

Presentations Our common future/The future of our commons

Commons as institutions for collective action in different settings, dealing with different types of resources:

Western Europe and Developing Countries Tangible and non-tangible commons

Well-delimited and self-governed institutions NOTE: We do not deal explicitly with global commons

Wikipedia: Global commons is that which no one person or state may own or control and which is central to life. A Global Common contains an infinite potential with regard to the