Revisiting Commons – Are Common Property Regimes Irrational?
This paper revisits the debate about communal management of natural resources and brings together various issues confronting it. Much of the criticism against common property regimes stems from an incorrect modeling of a common property situation, and misunderstandings about the terms and their wrong usage. Models of collective action (Hardin’s tragedy of the Commons, Olson’s Logic of Collective Action, and the Prisoner’s Dilemma) that are used as critique against common property regimes are not based on an accurate depiction of reality, and many of their assumptions are untrue. The purpose is to drive home the point that common property regimes are not inherently inferior types of regimes, and causes of success, and of failures, of these regimes lie elsewhere. Secondly, both public [and also private] management of natural resources has not had universal success. It is time to think out of the usual ‘either public or private’ dichotomy. Combining elements of both public and communal management in a pragmatic way is necessary. It is time to give co-management a serious thought!
|Date of creation:||Jan 2002|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Jodha, N.S., 1992. "Common Property Resources; A Missing Dimension of development Strategies," World Bank - Discussion Papers 168, World Bank.
- Soofia Mumtaz & Durr-E-Nayab, 1991. "Management Arrangements of the Chaprote Forest and their Implications for Sustainable Development," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 30(4), pages 1075-1086.
- Hasan, Lubna, 2001.
"Analysing Institutional Set-up of Forest Management in Pakistan,"
7343, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Lubna Hasan, 2001. "Analysing Institutional Set-up of Forest Management in Pakistan," PIDE-Working Papers 2001:182, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics.
- Soofia Mumtaz & Durr-e-Nayab, 1992. "The Rationale of Common Property in the Development Context," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 31(3), pages 259-286.
- Paul Seabright, 1993. "Managing Local Commons: Theoretical Issues in Incentive Design," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 113-134, Fall.
- Nabli, Mustapha K. & Nugent, Jeffrey B., 1989. "The New Institutional Economics and its applicability to development," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 17(9), pages 1333-1347, September.
- John Quiggin, 2012.
"The Economics of New Media,"
Australian Public Policy Program Working Papers
WPP12_1, Risk and Sustainable Management Group, University of Queensland.
- Quiggin, John, 2012. "The Economics of New Media," Risk and Sustainable Management Group Working Papers 151528, University of Queensland, School of Economics.
- Bromley, Daniel W., 1989. "Property relations and economic development: The other land reform," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 867-877, June.
- Elinor Ostrom & Roy Gardner, 1993. "Coping with Asymmetries in the Commons: Self-Governing Irrigation Systems Can Work," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(4), pages 93-112, Fall.
- Furubotn, Eirik G & Pejovich, Svetozar, 1972. "Property Rights and Economic Theory: A Survey of Recent Literature," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 1137-62, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:8316. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.