The Tragedy of the Commons  ## Metadata - Author: [[Stuff You Should Know]] - Full Title: The Tragedy of the Commons - Category: #podcasts - URL: https://share.snipd.com/episode/fe8e0665-ba0e-499a-a661-eb5e4b1ef7b5 ## Document Notes ## Highlights - **Tragedy of the Commons Explained** - The tragedy of the commons describes how shared resources get ruined. - It assumes self-interest leads to overuse and depletion of common goods. Transcript: Josh Clark Think that's one of the reasons why it's had such an enormous impact on the world. Yeah. Because it is so easy to wrap your head around. We should probably say we're talking about the tragedy of the commons. And for those of you who aren't familiar, it's this idea, this concept that if you have a shared resource, a commons, say, and people are able to use it at their own leisure for their own Purposes. Eventually, as they seek to maximize their profits, they're going to overuse this commons and inevitably it'll be ruined because people can't have anything nice, essentially. ([Time 0:01:25](https://share.snipd.com/snip/ef8b6256-fb7b-44f9-91da-b2ef876d36b4)) - Here are five quotes from the podcast episode that I consider impactful: > The central area of my high school was called the Commons. And it just occurred to me 35 years or so after I graduated that that's what that meant. > > — **Chuck Bryan** This quote highlights the everyday, unintentional connection to the concept of "the commons". > If everybody was making one dollar off of their cows when everything was being grazed on sustainably, then if you add one more cow, now everybody's making 85 cents off of their cows because you're starting to overtax the commons. > > — **Josh Clark** This quote illustrates the economic mechanism behind the Tragedy of the Commons. > The reason why the world is headed toward a bad place or a bad place already is because freedom to breed is intolerable. So there's just too many people. > > — **Chuck Bryan** This quote reveals Garrett Hardin's controversial views on overpopulation. > The tragedy of the commons played out, I feel like, for the most part, when things were privatized and outside industry were allowed to come in and have a share of the commons. That's when it was, that's when the problems really began. > > — **Josh Clark** This quote offers a counterpoint to Hardin's theory, suggesting privatization exacerbated the problem. > It's got to be the local parties that come up with these rules. The addition of outside people stepping in, it seems to be when all of the problems start because their interests are not the same as local interests. > > — **Chuck Bryan** This quote summarizes one of Eleanor Ostrom's key findings on successful commons management. Transcript: Chuck Bryan Know what's funny? You're going to laugh at me here. Josh Clark They're all going to laugh at you. Chuck Bryan The central area of my high school was called the Commons. Yeah. And it just occurred to me 35 years or so after I graduated that that's what that meant. Josh Clark Oh, I see. I thought you were going to say, like, my teenage years were the tragedy of the Commons. Chuck Bryan No. I just, I don't know. I never thought about the word because it was when you're in high school, it's just selling the commons, we'll meet in the commons. But it never occurred to me that that's what that meant. Just like a common area shared by everybody. Josh Clark It didn't either. To me, I know exactly what you're talking about. There was, if not high school, then maybe middle school. There was some school where that was called that too. And I wonder if it was like a surreptitious shot at kids, like they're all sheep. Because I don't think that's true. But one of the major uses for commons traditionally has been for grazing. That's a really good example. If you let a bunch of people graze on a shared resource, but they're taking what they can from that resource to make money for themselves, to support themselves, then just because humans Are rational, selfish, horrible beings, that meadow or that high school cafeteria will be ruined. Chuck Bryan Yeah, that's right. And the idea of the tragedy of the commons started out in 1968 in an article from Science, the journal Science. It was called The Tragedy of the Commons, and it was by a biologist named Garrett Hardin. And he was sort of piggybacking on a 19th century English mathematician and economist named William Forster. Josh Clark I would say piggybacking or hijacking. Chuck Bryan Hijacking. William Forster Lloyd. And you mentioned grazing, and this is sort of the thought experiment Hardin went with, which is like you have a grazing field, and let's say three farmers have use of it, and they're Letting their cows and sheep graze out there. But at some point, one of them is going to get an extra fat cow that they sell for pretty good money. And they're like, hey, well, if that worked out, maybe I can add like an additional cow and maybe it'll make, you know, the value of all of these cows go down a little bit, including my own, Because they're not getting as fat because I've added another cow here. Right. But if I can sell it for this much money and it's only costing me a fraction of that for, you know, the, uh, um, what would you do? Extra cow? Well, I mean, it would only cost a fraction of loss, uh, of resources for the other cows. Like I'm still coming out ahead. And so bada bing, bada boom, that's what I'm going to do. Josh Clark Right. Yeah. So if everybody was making one dollar off of their cows when everything was being grazed on sustainably, then if you add one more cow, now everybody's making 85 cents off of their cows Because you're starting to overtax the commons. But that person who added that cow, that's an extra 85 cents they wouldn't have had before, right? Yeah. Chuck Bryan And if you able to sell that cow for like five bucks, that 85 cents is a pittance compared to what you're making on the other side. Josh Clark Right. So there's always under the logic of the tragedy of the commons, there's always a reason to add another cow and add another cow and add another cow because your returns are always going To be more than the cost that you can offset with the returns, right? Chuck Bryan Well, that and you're also on the assumption that like everyone else is going to be adding cows. So I'm not going to be the only sucker not adding cows. Right. Josh Clark So you're either a sucker or you're just somebody who wants to survive because if people start adding cows and you're the one farmer who's like, I'm not going to do that. I find that morally repugnant. I really like sustainably grazing here and I'll just take one for the team. In very short order, that would find that they were no longer making money. No more team. Exactly. Because each additional cow was taking an additional fraction. So let's say that every time you added a cow, it reduced the price that all the other cows got by 15%. That's not a steady price because if you reduce a dollar by 15%, now you're getting 85 cents for a cow. But now when you're adding another cow, that reduces that 85 cents by 15%. So all of a sudden you're making 72 cents and then 61 cents and then 52 cents, right? But again, if you're adding cows, that's always extra almost found money. If you're not adding cows, then the cows that you had originally are now getting less and less and less until you're making zero money. So you are forced into adding cows. And that's why it's considered the tragedy or why Garrett Hardin called it the tragedy of the commons, because inevitably, under these circumstances, which have long been considered To be universal circumstances, basically, the commons will always get ruined and depleted and everybody will be totally up the creek. That's right. Chuck Bryan And if Hardin was basically like there's a couple of solutions here, you can either divide this area up and now each person has their own little private part of the pasture that they're Only in control of and no one else can get on it and graze there. Or a government body is going to have to step in and regulate this stuff and manage it. And, you know, if you listen to Hardin and we'll talk a little bit about the problems with this guy in a second. Josh Clark Yeah. Chuck Bryan But if you listen to Hardin, he'll say, when you divide this thing up and make it just private and everyone, you know, is incentivized to basically preserve their plots and do it sustainably So their profits are maximized with, you know, making sure the land isn't ruined so they can keep profits maximized. Josh Clark Yeah, because now it's their land and they suddenly realize, oh, this is a finite resource. If I start to degrade this land, it's only coming out of my profits because the other farmer's land is not degraded. So I'm the only one in competition with myself here, really. And I need to make sure that this land is preserved because now it's the goose that laid the golden egg and I need to keep it nice and healthy and happy. That's the direct result of privatization, as far as Garrett Hardin was explaining, as far as the tragedy of the commons goes, right? Simple solution. Just give people an incentive to take care of it by ... ([Time 0:02:08](https://share.snipd.com/snip/ac0c7ddc-fe7e-40e1-9445-3b37f5f91054)) - **The Extra Cow** - Hardin's thought experiment involves farmers sharing a grazing field. - One farmer adds an extra cow, increasing profits despite slight overall value decrease. Transcript: Chuck Bryan Hijacking. William Forster Lloyd. And you mentioned grazing, and this is sort of the thought experiment Hardin went with, which is like you have a grazing field, and let's say three farmers have use of it, and they're Letting their cows and sheep graze out there. But at some point, one of them is going to get an extra fat cow that they sell for pretty good money. And they're like, hey, well, if that worked out, maybe I can add like an additional cow and maybe it'll make, you know, the value of all of these cows go down a little bit, including my own, Because they're not getting as fat because I've added another cow here. Right. But if I can sell it for this much money and it's only costing me a fraction of that for, you know, the, uh, um, what would you do? Extra cow? Well, I mean, it would only cost a fraction of loss, uh, of resources for the other cows. Like I'm still coming out ahead. And so bada bing, bada boom, that's what I'm going to do. Josh Clark Right. Yeah. So if everybody was making one dollar off of their cows when everything was being grazed on sustainably, then if you add one more cow, now everybody's making 85 cents off of their cows Because you're starting to overtax the commons. But that person who added that cow, that's an extra 85 cents they wouldn't have had before, right? Yeah. Chuck Bryan And if you able to sell that cow for like five bucks, that 85 cents is a pittance compared to what you're making on the other side. ([Time 0:03:51](https://share.snipd.com/snip/172fc46d-e5ec-47f2-aa88-b4b1291d3cdf)) - **Privatization and Sustainability** - Privatization incentivizes sustainability, according to Hardin. - Owners become responsible for preserving their own resources for continued profit. Transcript: Josh Clark That's right. Chuck Bryan And if Hardin was basically like there's a couple of solutions here, you can either divide this area up and now each person has their own little private part of the pasture that they're Only in control of and no one else can get on it and graze there. Or a government body is going to have to step in and regulate this stuff and manage it. And, you know, if you listen to Hardin and we'll talk a little bit about the problems with this guy in a second. Josh Clark Yeah. Chuck Bryan But if you listen to Hardin, he'll say, when you divide this thing up and make it just private and everyone, you know, is incentivized to basically preserve their plots and do it sustainably So their profits are maximized with, you know, making sure the land isn't ruined so they can keep profits maximized. Josh Clark Yeah, because now it's their land and they suddenly realize, oh, this is a finite resource. If I start to degrade this land, it's only coming out of my profits because the other farmer's land is not degraded. So I'm the only one in competition with myself here, really. And I need to make sure that this land is preserved because now it's the goose that laid the golden egg and I need to keep it nice and healthy and happy. ([Time 0:07:22](https://share.snipd.com/snip/983c5143-b9ae-448f-bcae-b4256fd71d7d)) - **Overpopulation and Welfare** - Hardin links societal problems to overpopulation and the welfare state. - He argues against international aid, fearing it enables unsustainable population growth. Transcript: Chuck Bryan Yeah, but here's the thing. It wasn't like he was some big champion of the government because if you read the whole article, Hardin is like, and another thing. The reason why the world is headed toward a bad place or a bad place already is because freedom to breed is intolerable. So there's just too many people. We're making too many babies. And the welfare state that the government is encouraging is taking away the natural consequence of what happens if you have too many kids. Like they're going to not be able to sustain that and the kids are going to starve to death. So we're overbreeding and all of a sudden everyone's going, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. And he said, and another thing, he said, this overbreeding, it could actually be a strategy where a cohesive group could come along to increase their power. And they're like, wait a minute, are you talking about the great replacement? And he said, I don't know what that is. Right. And they said, well, it'll be a thing at some point. ([Time 0:09:15](https://share.snipd.com/snip/dad683ce-2d83-4761-a472-c0c7bfa1c0c9)) - **Lifeboat Ethics** - Hardin's "Lifeboat Ethics" uses a lifeboat metaphor to argue against aiding the poor. - He suggests limited resources necessitate prioritizing one's own group. Transcript: Josh Clark He's like, I like the ring of it, though. Yeah, exactly. It's catchy. So, yeah. Yeah, his whole thing was we, using scare quotes, are overbreeding meant poor nonwhite countries are overbreeding. That was basically his whole thing. And that, yes, because there was such thing as international aid in the way of food, in the way of money, that people could just keep having kids and knowing that the Western wealthier Governments were going to take care of them. He was like, that's not what we should be doing. And here's why the tragedy of the commons. And to say that, by the way, I read another paper of his too called Lifeboat Ethics. The argument against helping the poor. Yeah. That was the subtitle. So he really just put it out there. But he basically said, OK, let's imagine that all of the countries in the world are lifeboats. Some are ridiculously overloaded with people, others, the wealthier, more advanced ones. Let's say that they're in a lifeboat that seats 100, and they only have 90 people. But there's tons of people swimming around them trying to get in the lifeboat. Do you pick 10 people out of these thousands of people out there to let come into your lifeboat? If so, how do you pick those people? What do you tell the people you don't pick? And he ultimately concludes that just don't help anybody. Then you don't have to worry about playing favorites or anything like that. Plus, you keep your 10-person safety buffer in case things change for you and your lifeboat, and you're fine. He actually argues against guilt. You shouldn't feel any guilt. And as a matter of fact, we shouldn't put guilt on people for making decisions like these because they're just smart. And then secondly, he also says that if you are one of those people like that one farmer who is like overgrazing, is morally repugnant, and I'm not going to do it. If you were like that farmer in this lifeboat and you said, I just, I can't do this. I can't sit there and watch people drown while I'm sitting here. I'm going to give up my seat for somebody else. Harden argued that just by virtue of a person accepting your seat, they are less moral than you. And that over time, as more people in the lifeboat give up their seat for moral reasons, morality will be replaced in this lifeboat with self-interest. And then what do you have then? So he makes all these like. Like if you're a rational person and you take emotion out of it, you're like, you know, I guess that kind of makes sense in a little bit. But the moment you add in any a drop of humanity to it, you're like, this is horrible that this guy wrote a series of papers arguing this. ([Time 0:10:12](https://share.snipd.com/snip/85ef0916-d24d-40d8-8d06-e40494f4089b)) - **Neoliberalism and Privatization** - The tragedy of the commons influenced the rise of neoliberalism. - The idea of privatization as a solution gained traction during the environmental movement. Transcript: Josh Clark To the ease and convenience of Amazon One Medical and Amazon Pharmacy, health care just got less painful. Learn more at health.amazon Okay, so the tragedy of the commons became like the dominant way of looking at the world among Western nations because it did two things. It said that you can solve this problem everyone is going to have. Anytime you have a shared resource, people are going to deplete it. That's what it said, no matter where you are in the world, no matter who you are. But we want to save these shared resources because this paper came out at about the same time that environmental consciousness came up. So it was like perfect timing for that. But it also said, just privatize, buddy. And at that time, neoliberalism was on the rise. And they're like, yes, privatize. Take all these government run things and put them in the hands of corporations and we'll all be better off. ([Time 0:17:02](https://share.snipd.com/snip/f86021ac-a48e-4c47-a4fb-e97f766d18f3)) - Here are five reflection questions based on the podcast episode "The Tragedy of the Commons": 1. **How has the concept of "The Tragedy of the Commons," despite its flaws, influenced environmental policy and resource management?** Consider both the positive and negative impacts of its widespread adoption. 2. **What are the limitations of applying a generalized model like "The Tragedy of the Commons" to diverse real-world situations?** Think about the importance of context, cultural differences, and local knowledge in managing shared resources. 3. **How can the principles outlined by Elinor Ostrom in "Governing the Commons" be applied to contemporary challenges related to climate change, pollution, and other global environmental issues?** Consider the role of local communities, collaborative governance, and the limitations of purely market-based solutions. 4. **To what extent do the assumptions underlying "The Tragedy of the Commons," such as inherent human selfishness and the pursuit of profit maximization, reflect accurate depictions of human behavior?** Consider alternative models that emphasize cooperation, community values, and long-term sustainability. 5. **What are the potential ethical implications of applying neoliberal policies, like privatization, to shared resources, particularly in light of the critiques of "The Tragedy of the Commons"?** Think about the distribution of benefits and costs, and the role of social justice in resource management. Transcript: Josh Clark It said that you can solve this problem everyone is going to have. Anytime you have a shared resource, people are going to deplete it. That's what it said, no matter where you are in the world, no matter who you are. But we want to save these shared resources because this paper came out at about the same time that environmental consciousness came up. So it was like perfect timing for that. But it also said, just privatize, buddy. And at that time, neoliberalism was on the rise. And they're like, yes, privatize. Take all these government run things and put them in the hands of corporations and we'll all be better off. Chuck Bryan Yeah. And, you know, one of the ways that happened was and we're going to talk about sort of different versions of this here and there in this episode. But environmental trading markets emerged and that came from Canada, actually, an economist named J.H. Dales in 1968. But the 80s and 90s are when they really kind of started flying off the shelf. But that's like when the government comes in with a regulation, let's say, to cap whatever. In this case, like, let's say they're capping emissions on— Baseball caps. Baseball caps? I need to get rid of some baseball caps, so that's great. Josh Clark Oh, you have too many? Do you have any good Hawks ones? I'm on the lookout for those. Chuck Bryan I have one Hawks cap that I wear. Josh Clark I got you. Chuck Bryan I just gave away a second one because it was too big, but your head is too small for this thing. Josh Clark It is a really tiny head. I'm like that one Safari Hunter in Beetlejuice. Do you know what your hat size is? Like.6? Okay. That's good. Chuck Bryan So let's say it's fisheries because we're going to talk about fisheries a lot. So, you know, the government will come in and say, hey, you're overfishing. So we're going to cap how many fish you can harvest or make it a certain size in a certain area or something like that. And then here's your permit, fishery A, and here's your permit, fishery B and fishery C. And they grant these permits. But, and this is the key to the ETMs, environmental trading markets, the word trade, you can trade as, i.e., buy and sell these permits, which, and this is something that I don't fully Understand, or maybe I do understand, and that's the whole point. But if company A is, well, let's say it's environmental, like, hey, you're a factory, and we're incentivizing you to clean up your pollution, and here's your permit or whatever. If company A does a really good job and does the right thing and comes in, like way under the amount of emissions that they're supposed to hit. By simply selling that to company B, who's like, man, we're not too good at that. I mean, is it creating like, doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose? Josh Clark No, it doesn't. And we talked about this in the acid rain episode. Do you remember whatever happened to acid rain, that thing? Oh, yeah. We it can work and it does work. We actually reduced sulfur dioxide emissions that were associated with acid rain so much that acid rain went away. And it was like the ozone layer of like the early 80s, I think, in 70s. Like it was a big, scary thing. And we took care of it because of cap and trade schemes. Chuck Bryan So it can work. But how? That's what I don't get. If one company is lowering their output, but another one is increasing theirs because they just bought the other companies, then how is that a net loss? Josh Clark Because of the cap, because you put the cap at something close to a target that you want to reduce things to. So you don't make like some sky high cap that's more than what you're at now. You make it less. And then maybe a couple years later, you make it less than that. So those caps, those little shares or whatever, those allowances that they can trade, they get more and more valuable the less and less they represent, because the law is kind of bringing These emissions down further and further. So ultimately, you're rewarding a company by reducing their emissions because they can make money selling that to another company. And that other company is actually technically being punished because they're having to shell out more money than they budgeted for because they're emitting more than they are supposed To. So ultimately, you're penalizing and rewarding through this cap and trade scheme, but you're also creating an artificial cap. All these companies could just pollute as much as they want. But this government is saying, no, you actually can't. Here's your level. Here it is divided among the 10 companies. Go to town. Chuck Bryan Does that make sense? Well, yeah. The thing I still don't get, though, is is the company that's, you know, buying extra emissions, whatever, output from the company that's like really good at it, are they allowed to Go over the cap? No. Josh Clark But let's say they have a cap to put out 10 pounds of CO2, right? Yeah. And they know they're putting out 15 that year. Well, this other company that's putting out five pounds of CO2 that year, they can sell their other five pounds. So no one goes over the cap, the total cap, but different companies can contribute different amounts based on how much of those allowance shares they can purchase or sell. Does that make sense? Chuck Bryan Yeah, I guess so. Josh Clark I promise it works. It worked for sulfur dioxide. It does work. The problem is, is it's also like it requires a lot of buy in from industry or really heavy handed government regulation. Chuck Bryan Well, either way, it became a big deal in the 80s. And by the end of the 80s, the World Bank referred to Tragedy of the Commons as, quote, the dominant paradigm within which social scientists assess natural resource issues. Policies in a bunch of different areas. So you can't just look at the entire thing as a whole and say like, well, it's been a huge success. Like you can pick out something like acid rain, say it was a success in this case. But there's humans involved. So you never can tell. Well, it's not like you never can tell. I guess they can forecast. But there's not just one big blanket like, nope, this is the exact solution. Josh Clark Right, for sure. And it depends on the industry, right? Like you said, acid rain, that was a great success story. Fisheries are another example. If you take a fishery, like you were saying, and you divide up the total catch between companies, those companies can actually go around and buy, you know, huge portions of the other Company's shares, right? And so all of a sudden, they're basically one company with all of the rights to catch all of the fish in that fishery beca... ([Time 0:17:38](https://share.snipd.com/snip/6e06442b-1513-471d-97b3-73d4d9c499be)) - **Environmental Trading Markets** - Environmental trading markets (ETMs) let companies trade emission permits. - This incentivizes pollution reduction while setting an overall emissions cap. Transcript: Chuck Bryan Dales in 1968. But the 80s and 90s are when they really kind of started flying off the shelf. But that's like when the government comes in with a regulation, let's say, to cap whatever. In this case, like, let's say they're capping emissions on— Baseball caps. Baseball caps? I need to get rid of some baseball caps, so that's great. Josh Clark Oh, you have too many? Do you have any good Hawks ones? I'm on the lookout for those. Chuck Bryan I have one Hawks cap that I wear. Josh Clark I got you. Chuck Bryan I just gave away a second one because it was too big, but your head is too small for this thing. Josh Clark It is a really tiny head. I'm like that one Safari Hunter in Beetlejuice. Do you know what your hat size is? Like.6? Okay. That's good. Chuck Bryan So let's say it's fisheries because we're going to talk about fisheries a lot. So, you know, the government will come in and say, hey, you're overfishing. So we're going to cap how many fish you can harvest or make it a certain size in a certain area or something like that. And then here's your permit, fishery A, and here's your permit, fishery B and fishery C. And they grant these permits. But, and this is the key to the ETMs, environmental trading markets, the word trade, you can trade as, i.e., buy and sell these permits, which, and this is something that I don't fully Understand, or maybe I do understand, and that's the whole point. But if company A is, well, let's say it's environmental, like, hey, you're a factory, and we're incentivizing you to clean up your pollution, and here's your permit or whatever. If company A does a really good job and does the right thing and comes in, like way under the amount of emissions that they're supposed to hit. By simply selling that to company B, who's like, man, we're not too good at that. I mean, is it creating like, doesn't that kind of defeat the whole purpose? Josh Clark No, it doesn't. And we talked about this in the acid rain episode. Do you remember whatever happened to acid rain, that thing? Oh, yeah. We it can work and it does work. We actually reduced sulfur dioxide emissions that were associated with acid rain so much that acid rain went away. And it was like the ozone layer of like the early 80s, I think, in 70s. Like it was a big, scary thing. And we took care of it because of cap and trade schemes. Chuck Bryan So it can work. But how? That's what I don't get. If one company is lowering their output, but another one is increasing theirs because they just bought the other companies, then how is that a net loss? Because ([Time 0:18:28](https://share.snipd.com/snip/09a6a1ef-255c-4b31-8bfb-3f710d038b8d)) - **Fisheries and Monopolies** - Privatizing fisheries can lead to monopolies despite catch limits. - Smaller fishing crews get out-competed by large corporations buying up permits. Transcript: Chuck Bryan Yeah. And like in the case of a fishery, like if you're a small fishing crew or something, good luck kind of working your way up and maybe establishing yourself as one of the larger companies, Especially if the people that are buying these things up are people that don't live around there, these corporations that don't have necessarily a local interest. And again, while they might be like hitting, you know, staying under the threshold environmentally, it might be working out, but you're consolidating the wealth. Sometimes there's regulations on that where they say you have to be, you know, like on the fishing boat and like, you know, like Chick-fil if you're going to buy a Chick-fil franchise, You got to manage that thing. Exactly right. Josh Clark You want that Chick-fil Cadillac. Exactly. Chuck Bryan But sometimes there aren't regulations like that. And what's been proven over and over, especially with ETMs, if there's a way for a system to be exploited for profit, then a company will come along and do it no matter what. ([Time 0:25:08](https://share.snipd.com/snip/a9bdd5b6-7767-4165-b5fd-b6cdb1231296)) - **Overlooked Aspects** - Hardin's tragedy of the commons framework overlooks communication and care for land. - It assumes profit maximization as the sole motivation, ignoring real-world complexities. Transcript: Josh Clark That's basically the neoliberalism T-shirt, what you just said. Yeah, exactly. Chuck Bryan Here's the thing. If you look at the actual tragedy of the commons, Hardin sort of just conveniently leaves a lot of stuff out. Like he's assuming in this argument that like the people, the farmers that are sharing this grazing spot aren't talking to each other at all about what's going on and saying like, hey, We're ruining this land, by the way. Maybe we should dial it back. Like everybody get rid of two cows. And it also assumes that their only interest is to maximize profit and to not care for the land. And that's just not always the case. Josh Clark No, I mean, that's really a tough sell to a neoliberal policymaker. Like they, they're just like, you're crazy. You're so naive for even thinking that. Of course, their goal is to maximize profits. But what's really cool, as we'll see a little later on, real world examples prove that that's not true. They disprove the tragedy of the commons by themselves. It wasn't like, oh, let's set up this crazy, really kind of rickety experiment and see if we can disprove the tragedy of the commons. No, people went out and looked at real world, for example, indigenous treatment of common resources. And they're like, these people have been managing and not depleting these things for thousands of years now because they came up with their own sensible rules that aren't neoliberal In nature. Chuck Bryan Yeah, for sure. If you look at the original sort of like it's not just a theoretical thing. If you look at the paper by William Forrester, I think it said Forrester earlier, not Forrester, Lloyd, this is the one Hardin, would you say hijacked to begin with? He did. He did. He was talking about actual English commons, which was how it used to work in medieval England was the Lord would own all this land, but there were people that lived on it. It wasn't like, hey, this is my private land. No one can be here at first. Yeah. So the people that lived there, they, you know, they had to graze their animals and fish out of the streams and ponds and things like that. And they were allowed to with, you know, through certain age old customs, sometimes the local government would step in and kind of help manage this stuff and limit grazing and things Like that. But it wasn't like this set codified system in place all over England. It was just they had been working it out for centuries like this. It wasn't perfect, but it was sustainable and they didn't just destroy their land because they all had self-interest to keep it sustainable. ([Time 0:26:04](https://share.snipd.com/snip/a6d3b601-b704-4e05-a2b4-44d364fe39cb)) - **Fencing of the Commons** - Enclosing the commons in England changed the concept of private property. - This shift arguably contributed to the emergence of capitalism and a landless working class. Transcript: Josh Clark Right. And then they were enclosed, and enclosure was this huge, massive, overlooked, world-changing event. And we need to do an episode on the fencing of the commons someday because it's just, it changed the entire mentality. Remember our episode on the Luddites and how they emerged from a world that was just, it just completely turned everything on its head? Yeah. That's what happened with Enclosure when they fenced the commons. It changed everything. And the concept of private property, like, really kind of developed out of that, at least in the West. Right. So we'll do a whole separate episode on that. But suffice to say that it seems to be once the commons were fenced and were no longer a shared resource, that's when the issues started to come up. If you ask Karl Marx, he would have said that this is where we came up with the landless proletariat, the working class who had to work for wages because they no longer owned anything. It created the very, very wealthy class that didn't actually have to do anything because all they had to do was start renting this private property of theirs to the people who needed To work. It created a whole system of problems. And in fact, some people are like, however you feel about capitalism, you can kind of trace this back to the beginning of capitalism, the fencing of the commons. The irony of all this is that William Forrester Lloyd was arguing against Adam Smith's capitalist that the invisible hand of the market will always guide things to a good outcome, he Created ultimately the tragedy of the commons as a thought experiment to show, like, no, actually, people don't, people aren't guided to this bottom good. ([Time 0:28:38](https://share.snipd.com/snip/9e9f1f87-9e21-4a69-ba70-0a95acedff59)) - **Ostrom's Research** - Eleanor Ostrom studied real-world commons governance, challenging Hardin's theory. - She found successful long-term resource management by local communities. Transcript: Chuck Bryan Uh, we don't have a definitive answer. I was just kidding. You got me. We should talk about Eleanor Ostrom, though. This is a woman who wrote a book in 1990 called Governing the Commons, colon, the evolution of institutions for collective action. And she's probably like at the top of the list for really bringing this to the upper echelons of the political world worldwide, I guess. She took a bunch of examples all over the world of controlled CPRs like grazing areas. It's always a good one in Switzerland in this case, forests in Japan, meadows in Japan, and of course fisheries and things like that, in this case in the Philippines. So kind of really kind of picking different spots all over the world and examining these and how they've worked out. And basically argued that like, hey, these things had been working out for centuries. And it worked out pretty good because lived there who was involved. And when you have local people that have long-term interest in the well-being of their land and their area and keeping that up, then the economic side of things is not going to go away, But it's going to take a backseat to ensuring that this land that they live in stays as close to as it is as possible. ([Time 0:37:31](https://share.snipd.com/snip/ff140e1f-d28b-4358-8785-cb0e27c8eb97)) - **Commons Governance Principles** - Successful commons governance needs clear boundaries and locally tailored rules. - Group decision-making, monitoring, and graduated sanctions are crucial. Transcript: Chuck Bryan But there's some parameters that have been shown to ensure that it works. And you got to follow these or it's not going to work. And she narrowed it down to eight principles of like a successful, you know, regulation of a commons, which is clearly defined boundaries. So who can use this area? What is this area? Rules that fit local needs. And this is something we've been kind of hammering on. It's got to be the local parties that come up with these rules. The addition of outside people stepping in, it seems to be when all of the problems start because their interests are not the same as local interests. Yeah. Josh Clark History kind of tells us that when outside groups come in and start pushing the people who've been using this thing for a thousand years, pushing them around, it just doesn't go very Well typically because the outside groups don't necessarily understand this. And as we'll see, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be the involvement of any outside groups. What Ostrom was saying that she found from these studies is that you have to begin the base, the people who are really laying the groundwork and setting the rules for this, they have to Be the people who are actually using this resource. Chuck Bryan Yeah, for sure. The third one is group decision making. So it's not just a couple of people or a small board deciding these things. Get as many people in there as possible, local people. Monitoring, you have to have people monitoring. And, you know, she used her forest land example in Japan was one where she was like, hey, they had locals monitoring the stuff and levying fines. So you've got to know that someone is out there doing this. So people, you know, know they're going to be held accountable. And then the next one ties into that. And then when you do that, you've got to start out small with these sanctions. It's got to be like a warning first and then a small fine. You can't just come in there with the billy club and say, you're out. It's got you've got to encourage people to to stick around and like, all right, here's a warning, but you can't keep letting this happen. ([Time 0:41:39](https://share.snipd.com/snip/8495e60f-f0f7-4b8b-b2a9-d619689d9616)) - **Maine Lobstermen** - Maine lobstermen formed harbor gangs to self-police and enforce size limits. - They prioritized long-term sustainability over short-term gains, disproving Hardin. Transcript: Chuck Bryan All right. Well, let's finish up on Tragedy of the Commons because we can use an example of maine lobster fisheries as a pretty good example of how people can start to do the wrong thing but but correct Course on their own yeah uh and that was the case in the 19th century when the state of maine started setting legal minimum sizes for catching lobsters and they couldn't enforce it that Well at first. And people broke the rules and were like, you know, trying to make extra money or keep more lobsters than they should for a while. But eventually they were like, hey, wait a minute. We're not doing ourselves any favors here. And if we're going to all continue this to sustain our living doing this, we got to work together. So they form harbor gangs to start self-policing, basically. Josh Clark So Maine lobstermen harbor gangs. Is there anything scarier than the sound of that? Just seeing them kind of slowly come up on your boat and they're all like they have chains in their hands. Chuck Bryan Don't go over there. That's where the harbor gangs are. Josh Clark Very nice. Boy, you just took me to Cabot Cope. Chuck Bryan So they started self-policing, and everyone bought into this idea that let's not ruin all of our livelihood here. And one thing that gets pointed out is you can do this in a case like that because lobsters are close to shore. It's a small, small community. It's local people. In the case of COD, and at some point we should do one on the COD wars because that's where this factors in. COD travel long distances, and so it's hard to regulate something like that that's widespread and there's different countries involved. ([Time 0:50:50](https://share.snipd.com/snip/2e87daac-f934-4975-8d39-2ce8be08b476))