Editing Tragedy of the commons (section)

==Criticism==
===Commons in historical reality===
[[File:Joseph Mallord William Turner - Dartmoor- The Source of the Tamar and the Torridge - Google Art Project.jpg|thumb|Common land in Dartmoor, England {{circa|1813}} (watercolor, [[J. M. W. Turner]])]]

The status of common land in England as mentioned in Lloyd's pamphlet has been widely misunderstood.

Millions of acres were "common land", but this did not mean public land open to everybody, a popular fallacy.  There was no such thing as ownerless land.  Every parcel of "common" land had a legal owner, who was a private person or corporation.  The owner was called the ''lord of the manor''<ref name="Hoskins 1963 4">{{harvnb|Hoskins|1963|p=4}}</ref> (which, like ''landlord'', was a legal term denoting ownership, not aristocratic status).

It was true that there were local people, called ''commoners'', defined as those who had a legal right to use his land for some purpose of their own, typically grazing their animals.  Certainly their rights were strong, because the lord was not entitled to build on his own land, or fence off any part of it,<ref>{{harvnb|Hoskins|1963|pp=5–6}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Scrutton|1887|p=60}}</ref> unless he could prove he had left enough pasture for the commoners.<ref>{{harvnb|Halsbury's Laws of England|1903|pp=505–506}}</ref>  But these individuals were not the general public at large: not everyone in the vicinity was a commoner.<ref name="Hoskins 1963 4"/>

Furthermore the commoners' right to graze the lord's land with their animals was restricted by law – precisely in order to prevent overgrazing.<ref>{{cite book|last=Hoskins|first= W. G.|year=2015|chapter=Common land and its origin|title=The Common Lands of England and Wales|editor1-last=Hoskins|editor2-last=Stamp|editor1-first=W. G.|editor2-first=L. Dudley|publisher=HarperCollins|isbn=9780007342228}}</ref> If overgrazing did nevertheless occur, which it sometimes did, it was because of incompetent or weak land management,<ref>{{harvnb|Scrutton|1887|pp=121–123}}</ref> and not because of the pressure of an unlimited right to graze, which did not exist.

Hence Christopher Rodgers said that "Hardin's influential thesis on the 'tragedy of the commons' ... has no application to common land in England and Wales. It is based on a false premise". Rodgers, professor of law at [[Newcastle University]], added:

{{blockquote|Far from suffering a tragedy of the commons in Hardin's sense, common land&nbsp;... was subject to common law principles of customary origin that promoted 'sustainable management'. These were expressed through property rights, in the form of qualifications on the resource use conferred by property entitlements, and were administered by local manor courts&nbsp;... Moreover, the administration of customary rules by the manor courts represented a wholly different means for organising the management of common resources than the model posited by Hardin, which stresses the need for exclusive ownership by either individuals or government in order to promote the effective management of the resource.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Rodgers|first=Christopher|year=2010|title=Reversing the 'Tragedy' of the Commons? Sustainable Management and the Commons Act 2006|journal=The Modern Law Review|volume=73|issue=3|doi=10.1111/j.1468-2230.2010.00802.x |jstor=40660736|doi-access=free |pages=462, 463}}</ref> }}

Every productive unit ("manor") had a manorial court; without it, the manor ceased to exist.<ref>{{harvnb|Scrutton|1887|p=18}}</ref> Manorial courts could fine commoners, and the lord of the manor for that matter,<ref>{{harvnb|Scrutton|1887|p=21}}</ref> for breaches of customary law, e.g. grazing too many cattle on the land. Customary law varied locally. It could not be altered without the consent of the whole body of the commoners,<ref name="Hoskins 1963 4"/> except by getting an Act of Parliament.<ref>For the disputed origins of manorial and commons law, and whether it came from ancient folk customs or from grants by early landowners, see {{harvnb|Scrutton|1887|pp=1–41}}; {{harvnb|Hoskins|1963|pp=5–8, 27–34}}.</ref>

By the time of Lloyd's pamphlet (1833) the majority of land in England had been [[enclosure|enclosed]] and had ceased to be common land.<ref>{{harvnb|Scrutton|1887|pp=113–114}}</ref> That which remained may not have been good agricultural land anyway,<ref>{{harvnb|Hoskins|1963|p=xv}}.</ref> or the best managed. Lloyd takes for granted that common lands were inferior<ref>"Why are the cattle on a common so puny and stunted? Why is the common itself so bare-worn, and cropped so differently from the adjoining inclosures?": {{harvnb|Lloyd|1833|loc=[30]–[31]}}</ref> and argues his over-grazing theory to explain it. He does not examine other possible causes e.g. common land was difficult to drain, to keep disease-free, and to use for improved cattle breeding.<ref>{{harvnb|Scrutton|1887|pp=115–121}}</ref>

Likewise, Susan Jane Buck Cox argues that the common land example used to argue this economic concept is on very weak historical ground, and misrepresents what she terms was actually the "triumph of the commons":<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cox|first=Susan Jane Buck|date=1985|title=No Tragedy of the Commons|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/enviroethics1985716|journal=Environmental Ethics|volume=7|issue=1|pages=49–61|doi=10.5840/enviroethics1985716|bibcode=1985EnEth...7...49C |issn=0163-4275}}</ref> the successful common usage of land for many centuries. She argues that social changes and agricultural innovation, and not the behaviour of the commoners, led to the demise of the commons.<ref name="dlc.dlib.indiana.edu2">{{Cite journal |last1=Cox |first1=Susan Jane Buck |year=1985 |title=No Tragedy on the Commons |url=http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/3113/buck_NoTragedy.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y |journal=Environmental Ethics |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=49–61 |doi=10.5840/enviroethics1985716 |bibcode=1985EnEth...7...49C |hdl-access=free |hdl=10535/3113}}</ref> In a similar vein, Carl Dahlman argues that commons were effectively managed to prevent overgrazing.<ref name="urlSpringerLink">{{cite journal |title= The tragedy of the commons that wasn't: On technical solutions to the institutions game| doi=10.1007/BF01357919 |volume=12 |issue= 3|year=1991 |journal=Population and Environment |pages=285–296 | last1 = Dahlman | first1 = Carl J.| bibcode=1991PopEn..12..285D | s2cid=154166211 }}</ref>

===Others===
Hardin's work is criticised as historically inaccurate in failing to account for the [[demographic transition]],<ref name=Dasgupta>{{cite book |author-link=Partha Dasgupta |first=Partha |last=Dasgupta |title=Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-19-924788-2}}</ref> and for failing to distinguish between [[Common-pool resource|common property]] and [[Open access (infrastructure)|open access]] resources.<ref name=Ciriacy>{{Cite journal |last1=Ciriacy-Wantrup |first1=S. |last2=Bishop |first2=Richard |date=1975 |title=Common Property as a Concept in Natural Resources Policy |url=https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol15/iss4/7 |journal=Natural Resources Journal |volume=15 |issue=4 |pages=713–727 |issn=0028-0739}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Rowe |first1=Jonathan |title=The parallel Economy of the Commons |journal=State of the World 2008: Innovation for a Sustainable Development |date=2008 |page=142 |publisher=Earthscan |location=London}}</ref> Radical environmentalist [[Derrick Jensen (activist)|Derrick Jensen]] claims the tragedy of the commons is used as [[propaganda]] for [[private ownership]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Puzon|first1=Klarizze|last2=Willinger|first2=Marc|date=2019|title=Can Common Ownership Prevent the Tragedy of the Commons? An Experimental Investigation|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3410383|journal=SSRN Electronic Journal|doi=10.2139/ssrn.3410383|s2cid=201461194|issn=1556-5068}}</ref><ref>Jensen, Derrick (2007), ''Endgame Vol 1: The Problem of Civilization'' and ''Endgame Vol II: Resistance'' (Seven Stories Press)</ref> He says it has been used by the political [[right wing]] to hasten the final enclosure of the "common resources" of [[third world]] and indigenous people worldwide, as a part of the [[Washington Consensus]].<ref>{{Citation|last=Looney|first=Robert E.|title=Has Indigenous Third-World Arms Production been Effective in Reducing Third-World Arms Imports?|date=1988|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-09658-9_6|work=Third-World Military Expenditure and Arms Production|pages=99–113|place=London|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK|doi=10.1007/978-1-349-09658-9_6|isbn=978-1-349-09660-2|access-date=2021-05-25}}</ref> He argues that in true situations, those who abuse the commons would have been warned to desist and if they failed would have punitive sanctions against them. He says that rather than being called "The Tragedy of the Commons", it should be called "the Tragedy of the Failure of the Commons".<ref>{{Citation|last=Brennan|first=Jason|title=The Tragedy of the Commons|date=2012-04-29|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691154442.003.0011|work=The Ethics of Voting|publisher=Princeton University Press|doi=10.23943/princeton/9780691154442.003.0011|isbn=978-0-691-15444-2|access-date=2021-05-25}}</ref>

Marxist geographer [[David Harvey]] has a similar criticism: "The dispossession of indigenous populations in North America by 'productive' colonists, for instance, was justified because indigenous populations did not produce value",<ref>{{Cite web|last=Young|first=Kue|date=2012-08-29|title=Indigenous Populations of North America, Australasia, and Circumpolar North|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780199756797-0039|access-date=2021-05-25|website=Oxford Bibliographies Online Datasets|doi=10.1093/obo/9780199756797-0039}}</ref> asking: "Why, for instance, do we not focus in Hardin's metaphor on the [[Private property#Economics|individual ownership]] of the cattle rather than on the pasture as a common?"<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Harvey |first1=David |year=2011 |title=The future of the commons |doi=10.1215/01636545-2010-017 |journal=Radical History Review |volume= 2011|issue=109 |pages=101–107|url=https://davidharvey.org/media/Harvey_on_the_Commons.pdf}}</ref>

Some authors, like [[Yochai Benkler]], say that with the rise of the Internet and digitalisation, an economics system based on commons becomes possible again.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Benkler|first=Yochai|title=Peer production and cooperation|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9780857939852.00012|journal=Handbook on the Economics of the Internet|year=2016|pages=91–119|doi=10.4337/9780857939852.00012|isbn=978-0-85793-985-2}}</ref> He wrote in his book ''[[The Wealth of Networks]]'' in 2006 that cheap computing power plus networks enable people to produce valuable products through non-commercial processes of interaction: "as human beings and as social beings, rather than as market actors through the price system".<ref>{{Citation|title=Chapter 4. Trafficking of Human Beings as a Human Rights Abuse: Obligations and Accountability of Non-State Actors|date=2006-01-01|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004154056.i-247.30|work=Trafficking of Human Beings from a Human Rights Perspective|pages=121–145|publisher=Brill Nijhoff|doi=10.1163/ej.9789004154056.i-247.30|isbn=978-90-474-1106-2|access-date=2021-05-25|last1=Obokata |first1=Tom }}</ref> He uses the term ''networked [[information economy]]'' to refer to a "system of production, distribution, and consumption of information goods characterized by decentralized individual action carried out through widely distributed, nonmarket means that do not depend on market strategies".<ref>{{cite book |last=Benkler |first=Yochai |title=The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom |publisher=Yale University Press |location=New Haven, Connecticut |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-300-11056-2 |page=[https://archive.org/details/wealthofnetworks00benk/page/3 3]|url=https://archive.org/details/wealthofnetworks00benk |url-access=registration }}</ref> He also coined the term ''[[commons-based peer production]]'' for collaborative efforts based on sharing information.<ref>{{cite news |first=Steven |last=Johnson |title=The Internet? We Built That |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/magazine/the-internet-we-built-that.html?src=dayp |quote=The Harvard legal scholar Yochai Benkler has called this phenomenon 'commons-based peer production'. |newspaper=[[New York Times]] |date=September 21, 2012 |access-date=2012-09-24|author-link= Steven Johnson (author)}}</ref> Examples of commons-based peer production are Wikipedia, [[free and open source software]] and [[open-source hardware]].<ref>{{cite book|chapter=Introduction: Open Source Software and the Digital Commons|date=2020-02-26|title=Incorporating the Digital Commons: Corporate Involvement in Free and Open Source Software|pages=1–32|publisher=University of Westminster Press|doi=10.16997/book39.a|isbn=978-1-912656-42-4|s2cid=242428235|doi-access=free}}</ref>

The tragedy of the commons has served as a pretext for powerful [[private companies]] and/or governments to introduce regulatory agents or [[outsourcing]] on less powerful entities or governments, for the exploitation of their natural resources.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Karnani |first=Aneel G. |date=2013 |title=Corporate Social Responsibility Does Not Avert the Tragedy of the Commons – Case Study: Coca-Cola India |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2354022 |journal=SSRN Electronic Journal |doi=10.2139/ssrn.2354022 |hdl=2027.42/100359 |s2cid=155003836 |issn=1556-5068|hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sinden |first=Amy |date=2006 |title=The Tragedy of the Commons and the Myth of a Private Property Solution |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.895724 |journal=SSRN Electronic Journal |doi=10.2139/ssrn.895724 |hdl=20.500.12613/7454 |s2cid=154084058 |issn=1556-5068|hdl-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rowland |first=Wade |date=2009-09-01 |title=Corporate Social Responsibility and Garrett Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons as Myth and Reality |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.9774/gleaf.4700.2009.au.00010 |journal=Journal of Corporate Citizenship |volume=2009 |issue=35 |pages=109–118 |doi=10.9774/gleaf.4700.2009.au.00010 |doi-broken-date=2024-11-11 |issn=1470-5001}}</ref> Powerful companies and governments can easily corrupt and bribe less powerful institutions or governments, to allow them exploit or privatize their resources, which causes more concentration of power and wealth in powerful entities.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Rajan |first=Sudhir Chella |date=September 2011 |title=Poor little rich countries: another look at the 'resource curse' |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2011.608530 |journal=Environmental Politics |volume=20 |issue=5 |pages=617–632 |doi=10.1080/09644016.2011.608530 |bibcode=2011EnvPo..20..617R |s2cid=17155966 |issn=0964-4016}}</ref> This phenomenon is known as the [[resource curse]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Shaxson  |first=Nicholas |date=2007-10-22 |title=Oil, corruption and the resource curse |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2007.00677.x |journal=International Affairs |volume=83 |issue=6 |pages=1123–1140 |doi=10.1111/j.1468-2346.2007.00677.x |s2cid=41888272 |issn=0020-5850}}</ref>

Other criticisms have focused on Hardin's [[Garrett Hardin#Controversies|racist and eugenicist views]], claiming that his arguments are directed towards forcible [[population control]], particularly for [[people of color]].<ref>{{cite magazine |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/ |title=The Tragedy of the Tragedy of the Commons|magazine=Scientific American |date=2019 |access-date=19 May 2024|last1=Mildenberger |first1=Matto }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/garrett-hardin|title=Garrett Hardin|publisher=Southern Povery Law Center  |access-date=19 May 2024 }}</ref>