Editing Tragedy of the commons (section)

===Governmental solutions===
Governmental solutions are used when the above conditions are not met (such as a community being larger than the cohesion of its social network).<ref>{{Citation|date=2011|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/9780471723172.ch18|work=It Sounded Good When We Started|publisher=IEEE|doi=10.1109/9780471723172.ch18|isbn=978-0-471-72317-2|access-date=2021-05-25 |title=Being Too Big for Your Britches: So Much Confidence with So Little Talent (Experience) }}</ref> Examples of government regulation include population control, privatization, regulation, and internalizing the externalities.<ref>{{Citation|last=Moosa|first=Imad A.|title=Bad Regulation: Too Big to Fail, Bail-Out and Bail-In|date=2015|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/9781137447104_10|work=Good Regulation, Bad Regulation|pages=192–211|place=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|doi=10.1057/9781137447104_10|isbn=978-1-349-68593-6|access-date=2021-05-25}}</ref>

====Population control====

In Hardin's essay, he proposed that the solution to the problem of overpopulation must be based on "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" and result in "relinquishing the freedom to breed". Hardin discussed this topic further in a 1979 book, ''Managing the Commons,'' co-written with [[John A. Baden]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Chaddha|first=Shane|date=2011|title=Hardin Goes to Outer Space{{snd}} 'Mutual Coercion, Mutually Agreed Upon By The Majority of People Affected'|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1763740|journal=SSRN Electronic Journal|doi=10.2139/ssrn.1763740|s2cid=154257809|issn=1556-5068}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ecobooks.com/books/commons.htm |title=Managing the Commons by Garrett Hardin and John Baden |publisher=Ecobooks.com |access-date=22 October 2013}}</ref> He framed this prescription in terms of needing to restrict the "[[reproductive rights|reproductive right]]", to safeguard all other [[rights]]. Several countries have a variety of [[Antinatalistic politics|population control laws]] in place.<ref>{{Citation|title=Reproductive Rights as an International Norm|date=2017-07-05|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781315254180-5|work=Global Population Policy|pages=135–166|publisher=Routledge|doi=10.4324/9781315254180-5|isbn=978-1-315-25418-0|access-date=2021-05-25}}</ref>

In the context of United States policy debates, Hardin advocated restrictions on migration, particularly of non-whites. In a 1991 article, he stated

{{blockquote |text =  Popular anthropology came along with its dogma that all cultures are equally good, equally valuable. To say otherwise was to be narrow-minded and prejudiced, to be guilty of the sin of ethnocentrism. In time, a sort of Marxist-Hegelian dialectic took charge of our thinking: ethnocentrism was replaced by what we can only call ethnofugalism—a romantic flight away from our own culture. That which was foreign and strange, particularly if persecuted, became the ideal. Black became beautiful, and prolonged bilingual education replaced naturalization. Immigration lawyers grew rich serving their clients by finding ways around the law of the land to which they (the lawyers) owe their allegiance. Idealistic religious groups, claiming loyalty to a higher power than the nation, openly shielded and transported illegal immigrants.
<ref>{{cite web |last1=Hardin |first1=Garrett |title=Conspicuous Benevolence and the Population Bomb |url=https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/conspicuous-benevolence-and-the-population-bomb/ |website=Chronicles |date=October 1991 |access-date=30 August 2024}}</ref>}}

====Privatization====
One solution for some resources is to convert common good into private property (Coase 1960), giving the new owner an incentive to enforce its sustainability.<ref>{{Cite thesis|title=Owner Incorporation : a trick or a solution to private residential property management|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b3196942|publisher=The University of Hong Kong Libraries|first=Hiu-yeung, Tony|last=Li|year=2003 |doi=10.5353/th_b3196942}}</ref> [[libertarianism|Libertarians]] and [[classical liberalism|classical liberals]] cite the tragedy of the commons as an example of what happens when [[John Locke|Lockean]] property rights to homestead resources are prohibited by a government.<ref>{{Citation |first=Robert J. |last=Smith |title=Resolving the Tragedy of the Commons by Creating Private Property Rights in Wildlife |url=http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1981/11/cj1n2-7.pdf |publisher=[[Cato Institute]] |series=[[Cato Journal]] |volume=1 |issue=2 |date=Fall 1981 |pages=439–468}}</ref> They argue that the solution to the tragedy of the commons is to allow individuals to take over the property rights of a resource, that is, to privatize it.<ref>[[John Locke]], "Sect. 27" and following sections in [https://web.archive.org/web/20070304114414/http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html#Sect.%2025.#Sect.%2027. ''Second Treatise of Government''] (1690). Also available [https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7370 here.]</ref>

In England, this solution was attempted in the [[inclosure act]]s. According to [[Karl Marx]] in {{lang|de|[[Das Kapital]]}}, this solution leads to increasing numbers of people being pushed into smaller and smaller pockets of common land which has yet to be privatised, thereby merely displacing and exacerbating the problem while putting an increasing number of people in precarious situations.<ref>{{Citation|first=Karl| last=Marx| date=1867 |title=[[Das Kapital|Capital]] |volume= 1|publisher=Penguin UK|chapter=Twenty-Seven: Expropriation of the Agricultural Population from the Land}}</ref> Economic historian [[Bob Allen (economic historian)|Bob Allen]] coined the term "[[Engels' pause]]" to describe the period from 1790 to 1840, when British working-class wages stagnated and per-capita [[gross domestic product]] expanded rapidly during a technological upheaval.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1016/j.eeh.2009.04.004 |title = Engels' pause: Technical change, capital accumulation, and inequality in the british industrial revolution |journal = Explorations in Economic History|volume = 46|issue = 4|pages = 418–435|year = 2009|last1 = Allen|first1 = Robert C.}}</ref>

====Regulation====
In a typical example, governmental regulations can limit the amount of a common good that is available for use by any individual.<ref>{{Citation|last=Wray|first=HA|title=Chapter 11: U.S. Governmental Regulatory Agencies{{snd}}Governmental Regulations|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1520/mnl10538m|work=Manual on Flash Point Standards and Their Use: Methods and Regulations|year=1992|pages=102–123|location=West Conshohocken, PA|publisher=ASTM International|doi=10.1520/mnl10538m|isbn=978-0-8031-1410-4|access-date=2021-05-25}}</ref> Permit systems for extractive economic activities including mining, fishing, hunting, livestock raising, and timber extraction are examples of this approach.<ref>{{Citation|date=2013-10-28|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203039915-11|work=Aegean Civilization|pages=181–191|publisher=Routledge|doi=10.4324/9780203039915-11|isbn=978-0-203-03991-5|access-date=2021-05-25|title=Agriculture, Cattle-Raising, Hunting, and Fishing}}</ref> Similarly, limits to pollution are examples of governmental intervention on behalf of the commons.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Pieraccini|first=Margherita|date=2015-09-18|title=Democratic legitimacy and new commons: examples from English protected areas|journal=International Journal of the Commons|volume=9|issue=2|pages=552|doi=10.18352/ijc.509|issn=1875-0281|doi-access=free}}</ref> This idea is used by the [[United Nations]] [[Moon Treaty]], [[Outer Space Treaty]] and [[Law of the Sea Treaty]] as well as the [[UNESCO]] [[World Heritage Convention]] (treaty) which involves the international law principle that designates some areas or resources the [[Common Heritage of Mankind]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Frakes |first=Jennifer |date=2003 |title=The Common Heritage of Mankind Principle and Deep Seabed, Outer Space, and Antarctica: Will Developed and Developing Nations Reach a Compromise |journal=Wisconsin International Law Journal |volume=21 |issue=2|pages=409–434|id=[[HeinOnline|HOL]] [https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/wisint21&div=18 wisint21_18]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Bin|first=Cheng|date=1997-12-18|title=Part III United Nations Treaties on Outer Space, 9 The 1967 Space Treaty|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198257301.003.0010|journal=Studies in International Space Law|doi=10.1093/law/9780198257301.003.0010}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=N.|first=Scheiber, Harry|title=Law of the sea : the common heritage and emerging challenges|date=2000|publisher=Martinus Nijhoff Publishers|isbn=90-411-1401-7|oclc=44019679}}</ref>

German historian [[Joachim Radkau]] thought Hardin advocates strict management of common goods via increased government involvement or international regulation bodies.<ref name="Rad">{{Cite book | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mvQYxDG6QkoC | title=Nature and Power: A Global History of the Environment| isbn=978-0-521-85129-9| last1=Radkau| first1=Joachim| year=2008|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref> An asserted impending "tragedy of the commons" is frequently warned of as a consequence of the adoption of policies which restrict [[Property#Theories|private property]] and espouse expansion of public property.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Socialism and the Tragedy of the Commons: Reflections on Environmental Practice in the Soviet Union and Russia |date=January 1995 |journal= The Journal of Environment & Development|doi=10.1177/107049659500400105 |last1=Mirovitskaya |first1=N. |last2=Soroos |first2=M. S. |volume=4 |number=1 |pages=77–110|s2cid=155028630 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |author-link=Mark J. Perry |first=Mark |last=Perry |title=Why Socialism Failed |date=June 1995 |journal=[[The Freeman]] |url=http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-socialism-failed/ |volume=45 |number=6 |access-date=2011-06-08 |archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090629100228/http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/why-socialism-failed/ |archive-date=2009-06-29 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

Giving legal rights of personhood to objects in nature is another proposed solution. The idea of giving land a legal personality is intended to enable the democratic system of the rule of law to allow for prosecution, sanction, and reparation for damage to the earth.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Hermitte |first=Marie-Angèle |date=2011 |title=La nature, sujet de droit ? |url=https://www.cairn.info/revue-annales-2011-1-page-173.htm?contenu=article |journal=Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales |volume=66 |issue=1 |pages=173–212 |doi=10.1017/S0395264900005503 |s2cid=162165853 |via=CAIRN}}</ref> For example, this has been put into practice in Ecuador in the form of a constitutional principle known as "Pacha Mama" (Mother Earth).<ref>{{Cite journal |date=2015-06-10 |title=The Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador: Pachamama Has Rights |url=https://doi.org/10.5282/rcc/7131 |journal=Environment & Society Portal |language=en |doi=10.5282/rcc/7131|last1=Berros |first1=María Valeria }}</ref>

====Internalizing externalities====
Privatization works when the person who owns the property (or rights of access to that property) pays the full price of its exploitation.<ref>{{Cite book|date=2004-03-22|title=Who owns the intellectual property rights when an invention, copyright work or design is outsourced?|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.18356/f2dc0688-en|access-date=2021-05-25|doi=10.18356/f2dc0688-en}}</ref> As discussed above negative externalities (negative results, such as air or water pollution, that do not proportionately affect the user of the resource) is often a feature driving the tragedy of the commons.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=1987-08-01|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/31.3.285|journal=The Annals of Occupational Hygiene|doi=10.1093/annhyg/31.3.285|issn=1475-3162|title=Do Negative Air Ions Affect Human Mood and Performance?|pmid=3426028|last1=Hedge|first1=A.|last2=Collis|first2=M. D.|volume=31|issue=3|pages=285–290}}</ref> ''Internalizing the externalities'', in other words ensuring that the users of resource pay for all of the consequences of its use, can provide an alternate solution between privatization and regulation.<ref>{{cite web|url= https://heliocene.org/knowledge-bank/what-is-a-sustainable-business/externalities-and-internalisation/|title= Externalities and Internalisation|work= Heliocene|date= 5 March 2021|accessdate=2 Aug 2022}}</ref> One example is gasoline taxes which are intended to include both the cost of road maintenance and of air pollution.<ref>{{Citation|last1=Austin|first1=David|title=Clearing the air: The costs and consequences of higher CAFE standards and increased gasoline taxes|date=2018-12-20|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351161084-23|work=Controlling Automobile Air Pollution|pages=449–469|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-351-16108-4|access-date=2021-05-25|last2=Dinan|first2=Terry|doi=10.4324/9781351161084-23}}</ref> This solution can provide the flexibility of privatization while minimizing the amount of government oversight and overhead that is needed.<ref>{{Citation|last1=Fullerton|first1=Don|title=Can Taxes on Cars and on Gasoline Mimic an Unavailable Tax on Emissions? 1|date=2018-12-20|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9781351161084-13|work=Controlling Automobile Air Pollution|pages=243–266|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-351-16108-4|access-date=2021-05-25|last2=West|first2=Sarah E.|doi=10.4324/9781351161084-13|s2cid=239069281}}</ref>