No Tragedy in the Commons

In reading that book, and several others about historical collapse, etc, that are on my desk, somehow my mind drifted to the Tragedy of Commons idea. Suddenly, it seemed to me a concocted principle; not necessarily true at all. Even the name, "tragedy," suggests a value judgement and not an objective state of affairs. I don't know why I didn't see this before.

I've forgotten who invented the "Tragedy of the Commons," but I read the theory in a prestigious scientific journal a long time ago. (If anyone is deeply interested, I can do the literature search.) Because of its provenance, I took it as a reasonably sound, scientific idea. It is a natural extension of the notion, that collectivist solutions are doomed to failure. Nonetheless, I didn't like the fact that conservatives used it to pound liberal programs and ideas.

Now, however, I feel gulled. It's obvious: what happens to the commons depends on the intentions of those who use it. If you're a corporate raider, the quintessential "greed is good" market fundamentalist, then, of course, you're going to suck the commons dry. But, if you are like Native Americans or peasants all over the world, for the last several thousand years you took care of the commons. What you did depends on your attitude. It's that simple.

Now, the tragedy of commons (TC) is a "theory" being used to explain lots of things, like why setting aside national parks or soil conservation are useless adventures. But, more often, it is being used to explain animal behavior, and proposes to be an ecological principle. I don't think the idea should have the status of a principle, although I do think it is a rule that can be applied in certain cases.

It seems to me the existence of stable ecological domains outside human intervention denies TC. In fact, the whole idea of a stable ecological domain contradicts TC. If a certain bio-geographical area has a constant, unchanging biota, or a biota that predictably changes for "non-intentional" reasons, there is no TC. In such cases, the stasis or evolution of the domain illustrates the co-operative feedback mechanisms of the organisms living there. The Southern California prairie existed for thousands of years during the last ice age, and only came to end when the climate pattern changed. Darwinian "forces" - the law of the jungle - regulated the populations that once existed there. During all that time, the commons did not disappear; au contraire, the commons were inadvertently maintained by the resident organisms in ecological balance. At length, climate change, and maybe early human settlers, did in those mammoths and saber-toothed cats that used to live around Los Angeles.

There are lots of instances of ecological domains and niches that have persisted for very long periods of time. Even Los Angeles wasn't changed that much by early human settlers. It wasn't until the railroads connected LA to the rest of the country after the Civil War, that LA began to grow and grow and grow. Human intervention, driven by greed, adventure and other human desires, changed Los Angeles irrevocably from what it was to what it is. The tragedy of commons was certainly operative in LA's development, because the newcomers just grabbed whatever they wanted. They gave little thought to how it should develop, and had few ecological concerns. This is illustrated by the ease with which Los Angelinos build yet another freeway. (Northern Californians have a different attitude about that sort of thing.)

So, the commons hasn't suffered any natural tragedy, at least not most of the time. When there is a TC, it is the result of human activities. And, once we identify TC with humans, it is fair to ask about culture, intentions, etc. The Great Plains Indians went to great lengths to prevent the settlement of the White Man, the conversion of open land into farms. They tried to maintain the ecological balance as it was. That was a motive behind Little Big Horn. Those Indians did not have a philosophy of ownership of the land; they held it in common.

The White Man, arriving with superior force and larger numbers, took over the plains. The land was subdivided, and the philosophy of ownership took over. Once you have a concept of ownership, and methods for enforcing it, only then is a tragedy of commons possible. For the commons is not owned, so it is "up for grabs" in an ownership society. That's why agricultural and mining companies insist on their "rights" to use Federal land for private purposes: it is the unowned commons.

In fact, there is no tragedy of commons that is not implicit in the concept of ownership. Natural ecological groups take care of themselves and their common territories because it is a matter of self-interest (survival) to do so. Civic groups clean up highways (common areas), because sanctioned advertising makes it in their interest to do so. In many times and places, people have observed the needs of their commons, and the commons have persisted.

It is no doubt true, if one has an exploitative attitude, that a commons may represent an easy target for quick profits. Some of America's largest mining firms have made "excess" profits by exploiting public lands, and not cleaning up the mess and wastes they created. There are many other examples of extraction of profit from the commons. In every case, this was not the logical or naturally inevitable ( "caused" ) result of natural laws governing the tragedy of the commons. It was the result of deliberate, persistent human activities.

For those reasons, I now believe the "Tragedy of Commons" is not a useful scientific concept even if it is descriptive of certain socio-economic behavior. The further consequence of my view is that the Tragedy of Commons is not an argument against the Welfare State or Socialism. Instead, it is a description of something that can happen as a natural consequence of capitalism.