News
In 1968 Garrett Hardin introduced a concept now widely known, that of the “Tragedy of the Commons.”
It is a phrase that symbolizes the degradation of the environment and society's overuse of scarce common resources. It describes a situation where the pursuit of each person's rational interest leads to the destruction of the whole. When people are compelled to pursue their own self-interest to the maximum, it leads to ruin and destruction.
In this system, rational creatures are unable to cooperate or stop their behavior before catastrophe strikes. From Hardin's model, a formal game has emerged called the Prisoner's Dilemma. The players are herders grazing their animals in a common meadow. They can either cooperate to limit grazing to a sustainable limit, or break from the group and overgraze in the pursuit of maximum profit. If each chooses the dominant strategy of overgrazing, neither player receives any profit as they exhaust the available resources and degrade the pasture for future years. If they cooperate and limit their grazing to sustainable levels, both players are rewarded at the end of the season.
These ideas have bearing on theories of collective action. Yet it would be a mistake to take just one model as the black and white solution. Some think that group interests flow naturally from rational self interest but it is not necessarily so.
One issue is the “Free Rider” problem. When no one can be excluded from the benefits of the commons, each person is motivated “not to contribute to the joint effort” and to ride free on the efforts of others. The conclusion is that without some form of coercive pressure, cooperation will not happen. However, just what kind of pressure and coercion is the key question.
Often simplistic solutions pit private, unregulated ownership based on self-interest against nature. Alternately, coercive government oversight and external regulation by government agencies offer a way to limit over-consumption, but this sets people against each other. Yet, without controls, we are left with overgrazing, soil erosion, and fewer fish, less water, degraded air, and unhealthy food all coming at a higher cost.
Both extremes are unworkable. No single, simple size fits all. It is more complex, requiring the successful integration of variable dynamics. As the Nobel economist Elinor Ostrom points out, many predetermined models fail in the field. What is needed is a full understanding of the environment, its limits and capacities, and a clear picture of all the variables inherent in a particular situation. The engagement of those affected along with some incentive enforcement measures are critical to successful common resource management. Rules should be designed by all the participants. However, the ability of people to escape the various dilemmas and tragic outcomes presented in each situation varies. One cannot rely solely on either private or public solutions, that is, “market-based” or “state-based.” In the end a rich mixture of components is required.
Success enables individuals to achieve productive outcomes where the temptation to cross beneficial boundaries is discouraged. In such settings, public and private institutions mesh and depend on each other, not working at odds against each other. Black and white prescriptions and simplistic solutions based on political talking points tell us nothing about how such policies are to be implemented.
The way limits are maintained and how rights are monitored have to be hammered out. Details are most important, not the ideology. We need to explore how the specific objectives and options relate to the physical environment, human capabilities, and our limitations. The aim of self-organizing and self-governing for collective action embraces complex processes and the interests of everyone involved with the aim of real problem solving. Assuming that other individuals involved are evil or incompetent defeats efforts to figure out solutions and leads, instead to a lack of trust. Protecting the environment is a human problem and requires human solutions.
A new way of organizing our behavior is needed. In this dynamic, each person must take into account the choices of the others, as when jointly harvesting a common resource, everyone is affected by the choosing. This represents a full acknowledgment of our interdependence in the use of natural resources.
Without coordination of use, everyone receives less as the tragedy of the commons theory points out. The unchecked pursuit of independent, personal, albeit rational self-interest inevitably leads to an irrational outcome: less benefit for everyone. In the end up we are faced with a series of concentric, overlapping circles of problems to be solved in environments characterized by uncertainty. Coming to terms with the environment is the greatest challenge of the 21st century. Solutions begin not with denial, but with our collective acknowledgment of the problems at hand.
------------------------------
Jeff Evans is a sales consultant for Simplicity Solar in Grand Junction. He writes on renewable energy and sustainable living issues and can be reached at jeff.ecolife@gmail.com.
It is a phrase that symbolizes the degradation of the environment and society's overuse of scarce common resources. It describes a situation where the pursuit of each person's rational interest leads to the destruction of the whole. When people are compelled to pursue their own self-interest to the maximum, it leads to ruin and destruction.
In this system, rational creatures are unable to cooperate or stop their behavior before catastrophe strikes. From Hardin's model, a formal game has emerged called the Prisoner's Dilemma. The players are herders grazing their animals in a common meadow. They can either cooperate to limit grazing to a sustainable limit, or break from the group and overgraze in the pursuit of maximum profit. If each chooses the dominant strategy of overgrazing, neither player receives any profit as they exhaust the available resources and degrade the pasture for future years. If they cooperate and limit their grazing to sustainable levels, both players are rewarded at the end of the season.
These ideas have bearing on theories of collective action. Yet it would be a mistake to take just one model as the black and white solution. Some think that group interests flow naturally from rational self interest but it is not necessarily so.
One issue is the “Free Rider” problem. When no one can be excluded from the benefits of the commons, each person is motivated “not to contribute to the joint effort” and to ride free on the efforts of others. The conclusion is that without some form of coercive pressure, cooperation will not happen. However, just what kind of pressure and coercion is the key question.
Often simplistic solutions pit private, unregulated ownership based on self-interest against nature. Alternately, coercive government oversight and external regulation by government agencies offer a way to limit over-consumption, but this sets people against each other. Yet, without controls, we are left with overgrazing, soil erosion, and fewer fish, less water, degraded air, and unhealthy food all coming at a higher cost.
Both extremes are unworkable. No single, simple size fits all. It is more complex, requiring the successful integration of variable dynamics. As the Nobel economist Elinor Ostrom points out, many predetermined models fail in the field. What is needed is a full understanding of the environment, its limits and capacities, and a clear picture of all the variables inherent in a particular situation. The engagement of those affected along with some incentive enforcement measures are critical to successful common resource management. Rules should be designed by all the participants. However, the ability of people to escape the various dilemmas and tragic outcomes presented in each situation varies. One cannot rely solely on either private or public solutions, that is, “market-based” or “state-based.” In the end a rich mixture of components is required.
Success enables individuals to achieve productive outcomes where the temptation to cross beneficial boundaries is discouraged. In such settings, public and private institutions mesh and depend on each other, not working at odds against each other. Black and white prescriptions and simplistic solutions based on political talking points tell us nothing about how such policies are to be implemented.
The way limits are maintained and how rights are monitored have to be hammered out. Details are most important, not the ideology. We need to explore how the specific objectives and options relate to the physical environment, human capabilities, and our limitations. The aim of self-organizing and self-governing for collective action embraces complex processes and the interests of everyone involved with the aim of real problem solving. Assuming that other individuals involved are evil or incompetent defeats efforts to figure out solutions and leads, instead to a lack of trust. Protecting the environment is a human problem and requires human solutions.
A new way of organizing our behavior is needed. In this dynamic, each person must take into account the choices of the others, as when jointly harvesting a common resource, everyone is affected by the choosing. This represents a full acknowledgment of our interdependence in the use of natural resources.
Without coordination of use, everyone receives less as the tragedy of the commons theory points out. The unchecked pursuit of independent, personal, albeit rational self-interest inevitably leads to an irrational outcome: less benefit for everyone. In the end up we are faced with a series of concentric, overlapping circles of problems to be solved in environments characterized by uncertainty. Coming to terms with the environment is the greatest challenge of the 21st century. Solutions begin not with denial, but with our collective acknowledgment of the problems at hand.
------------------------------
Jeff Evans is a sales consultant for Simplicity Solar in Grand Junction. He writes on renewable energy and sustainable living issues and can be reached at jeff.ecolife@gmail.com.
