POLS304 Exam prep tragedy of the commons PDF

Preview

Summary

Ostrom / Hardin big ideas essay on the tragedy of the commons....

Description

Garret Hardin and Elinor Ostrom big ideas :! Garret’s - tragedy of the commons ! Elinor’s - common pool approach to collective planning !

INTRODUCTION : Through this period of hyper-development resources are depleting rapidly due to population needs and wants continuing to expand. International population growth is also exponential. If our world is considered to be finite, this would mean that resources, as distributed per capita, must decrease. Therefore, the issue that ultimately rises here pertains to the allocation of resources, and how we manage such in order to promote both individualism and sustainable development." Two influential schools of thought have emerged in response to this situation. Garrett Hardin, and Elinor Ostrom both attempt to provide explanation as to why complications occur in the first place, and then digress into theoretical methods of rectification. Hardin has established the ‘tragedy of the commons’ which surrounds the ideals of population control, and privatisation of, or strictly managed, lands. In contrast, Ostrom’s philosophy highlights the need for various means of organisation by citizens, revolving around a common pool resource, and a common property regime. The two thought processes are seemingly contradictory. There are contextual differences surrounding the definitions of the commons and resources, as well as a separation in the approach to management systems. The distinctions raised here are the attributing features to the suggestions of greater success in Ostrom’s theory. Despite this, there remain some similar features which connect them. Namely, this revolves around aspects relating to the origins of belief. !

1.0 HARDIN : Tragedy of the commons Hardin’s stance on this matter arose from questions relating to how we continue to live well in a planet which is considered to be finite in its resources, as population continues to swell. He wanted to provide a means which did not strip resources or damage the welfare of economies alike. The tragedy of the commons example hypothesised a shared pasture which is collectively owned and used by four people with their livestock. The assumption here is that the people on the land will not cooperate as they would rather feed into greed and take as much as possible until the resources are used up (ie. add more cows until the land is ruined). Garrett Hardin’s argument suggests that collective ownership does not work for this reason, and thus in order to encourage sustainable development, and avoid tragedy, there must be reconsideration towards the methods of managing resources or ‘commons’. The proposed solution to this encompasses the need to either:! i) Divide and privatise land, granting responsibilities to owners; OR ! ii) Appoint an individual manager to control the parameters regarding use of land. ! The resolution focus here was centred around population control. In his article “The Tragedy of the Commons” Hardin expressed that an aspirational standard of living is unachievable if population continues to increase, and states that if resources are to be shared then the “freedom to breed is intolerable”. ! 1  of 4

2.0 OSTROM : Beyond the tragedy of the commons Elinor Ostrom retaliated Hardin’s approach with a theory that looks beyond the tragedy of the commons. Instead of attempting to find a singular approach to a multi-faceted issue, Ostrom’s resolution looks to collaborate a range of norms which contextualise the different ways people view the world. Retrospectively, humans have organised themselves in collective environments without a need to privatise all resources. Specifically, this theory identifies common-pool resources (resources which are naturally or human-made) that are able to be managed in a cooperative manner. Here, she has recognised a significant area of care, whereby, we cannot be fully reliant on government or privatised corporations to have sole management power in regard to the allocation of all resources. Globalisation has resulted in dissonant effects between citizens and people in control. This has especially been identified in the case of seed in India as described by Vandana Shiva, who explained the notion of “Earth Democracy” in relation to people being on the land in order to protect the resources on the planet. Instead there is call for a common property regime which is an arrangement or norm which do not involve allocating property rights. ! From this Elinor determined that there is a need to “Build enough diversity to cope with the diversity of the world, and allow multi-tier systems at multiple scales so that you don’t try and have a uniform plan which is predicted to cure everything, and instead of curing it, kills it.”, and thus, set out eight principles for managing the commons: ! 1. Well defined boundaries ! 2. Congruence between appropriation and provisions, rules and local conditions ! 3. Collective-choice arrangements: Representation and Participation in rules and decision making ! 4. Locally representative monitoring officers ! 5. Graduated sanctions; measured and just sanctions for misbehaviour ! 6. Conflict-resolution mechanisms; informal adjudication local and normal adjudications of disputes available ! 7. Recognition of rights; those involved in managing something have a stake in it that needs to be respected, and people have a right to self-self-government ! 8. Nested enterprises"

3.0 Comparisons : It is important to outline the similarities between the two theories in order to distinguish areas which may need to be considered skeptically, and those which can be inferred reliable due to their recurrence. ! ! 3.1 Rooted Liberalism Against socialism :! Both procedures are enacted in opposition of socialist or marxist views. The belief engrained here is that the autonomous abilities of individuals are imperative. However, there still remains contrast. Despite both theorists declining the need for authoritative leadership, Hardin streamlines a privatised solution, whilst Ostrom concludes that community based outputs are key. ! 2  of 4

3.2 Population & Resources : It is commonly agreed upon here that an increase in population causes a depletion in resources. This is more accepted as a matter of fact due to the inherent correlations that can be determined due to evidence pointing to the decrease of resources in areas where population growth is more extreme (ie. developing countries). Again, in this sense there is agreement, however, the ways in which Ostrom and Hardin address this are departed. Where Ostrom views this as an opportunity to learn new things, Hardin seeks a darker perception in the need to reduce or limit population expansion. !

4.0 Contrasts : Following this, it is necessary to identify the distinctions in theory when establishing what method is going to reap greater benefits from an environmental policy perspective. ! ! 4.1 Commons vs. Resources Throughout the explanations of his theory, Hardin assumes an interchangeable link between the idea of the commons and resources. This is noted as his analogy of the pastures prescribes the commons the status of a resource, when in actuality the concerned resource is the pasture itself. In light of this the commons denotes the form of resource governance that should be applied to the common-pool resource. In assuming the terms are interchangeable, Hardin blurs his perception towards the effectiveness of the commons as a type of management. Moreover, Ostrom clearly separates the terms as she applies meaning to the aforementioned common-pool resource. " " 4.2 Conflicts in management systems " Whilst Hardin assumes that people are incapable of negotiating or sharing values, requiring a shift toward secure management, Ostrom sees opportunity to harness the prospects from current humanity norms. However, this does not intrinsically assume that the multitude of principles expressed by Ostrom are necessarily completely accurate. For example, in terms of defined boundaries, the concept of this is attractive, however, in practice it does not always work. As explained by Bronwyn Hayward, the boundaries as set out in the Canterbury water situation looked to involve stakeholders through identifying known water forums and groups in order to determine means of redress for the development of water systems. However, this ultimately failed to serve the great proportion of the population through city use. Nonetheless, the potential gaps in Ostrom’s knowledge are secured by the variation it allows for. Whereas Hardin’s strict approach could be considered insufficient. ! " 4.3 Western-centric shift in norms! Both Hardin and Ostrom recognise that there is a clear influence from the American standard of living and development on the effect on resources. It is clear that this Westernised approach to hyper-development and measuring prosperity with economic growth, as suggested by Tim Jackson, cannot continue to increase respectively to an increase in population density. However, the approaches to this are significantly distanced. Whilst Hardin focuses on a need to continue this standard as the issue to 3  of 4

redress, Ostrom sees the opposite in considering ways that the international community can shift its norms of development in order to encourage more sustainability in resources. ! " CONCLUSION : Overall, it can be concluded that the comparative aspects drawn from these theories present evidence towards what is definite and what should be regarded with caution. In particular, it is evident that both approaches have evolved in opposition of what they both describe as centralised authoritarian leadership. The views both repel that of Marxism / Socialism, however, they pose what could be considered relatively extremest perspectives on Marxism and therefore may have left out relevant factors which could provide more substance in terms of cooperative ownership, instead of simply ruling it out as an option. Aside from this, it can be determined that there is a clear correlation between population increase and resource depletion. Whilst, the two theorists may approach this in varying ways the grounding statement reigns true. Furthermore, the main contrasts that arise between these two concepts are rooted in the faults that can be noted in Hardin’s approach. Specifically, by allocating no boundaries to the definitions of the commons and of resources, the terms in his theory become interchangeable. Comparatively, in analysing Ostrom’s perspective, the two are distinct entities whereby the commons is one means of managing resources through shared allocation of land, etc. and resources are merely the sharable goods. Furthermore, Hardin seeks to re-order these things through privatisation, whilst the alternative highlights an appreciation for a range of management forms. Finally, the consideration of Western ideals in both conversations sparks seperate responses. Namely, Ostrom departs from the need for aspiration of such life style, whereas, Hardin begs resolution toward ensuring it remains. ! Ultimately, the comparisons and contrasts that are presented following an analysis of both ideologies, highlight significant omissions in Garret Hardin’s research. There remains influence from this research in some areas of economics. Although, it is clear from the overwhelming success attributed to Ostrom’s philosophy, that the separations in knowledge are damaging to the application of Hardin’s. !

4  of 4...