[p2p-research] Key essay on the political interpretations of the Commons

[Michel Bauwens]

Dear friends,

I discovered this very important essay which I think is a must read on the
theme of the Commons and its political significance:

Article: *A Tale of Two Conferences: Globalization, the Crisis of
Neoliberalism and Question of the Commons.* By George Caffentzis

URL = http://www.globaljusticecenter.org/papers/caffentzis.htm

A history of the political usage of the concept of the
Commons<http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Commons>which distinguishes
reformist and radical usage.

Summary and excerpts in our entry: Antagonistic Usage of the Commons
Concept<http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Antagonistic_Usage_of_the_Commons_Concept>,
http://p2pfoundation.net/Antagonistic_Usage_of_the_Commons_Concept


Please note that our best of selections are still here at
http://www.p2pfoundation.net/Essays


Here's an excerpt on some crucial distinctions when considering the general
concept of the Commons:


Scholars in the neo-Hardinian tendency have carried on many important
empirical studies of common property systems across the planet as well as
have made a number of important distinctions in the study of common
property. This is not the place to assess their empirical studies (cf. the
extensive bibliography on Private and Common Property Rights in (Ostrom
2000: 352-379) and the Digital Library on the Commons mentioned above), but
their most important theoretical distinctions are worth reviewing, since
some can be useful to the anti-capitalist commonist movement.

Of course, the primary one is between common property and open access
regimes, since the confusion between them is the basis of Hardin's deduction
of the tragedy of the common. Common property regimes are "where the members
of a clearly demarcated group have a legal right to exclude nonmembers of
that group from using a resource. Open access regimes (res
nullius)-including the classic cases of the open seas and the
atmosphere-have long been considered in legal doctrine as involving no
limits on who is authorized to use a resource" (Ostrom 2000: 335-336). On
the basis of this distinction, common property and open access regimes are
mutually exclusive and anyone who had as their political ideal the creation
of an open access regime would not be a supporter of the commons.

The second important distinction is between a common-pool resource (which is
a thing or stuff) and a common property regime (which is a set of social
relations). A common-pool resource is such that (a) "it is costly to exclude
individuals from using the good either through physical barriers or legal
instruments and (b) the benefits consumed by one individual subtract from
the benefits available to others" (Ostrom 2000: 337). Because of its two
defining characteristics, a common-pool resource is subject to problems of
congestion, overuse and potential destruction. Access to, withdrawal from,
management and ownership of such a resource can be in the form of a common
property regime, but it need not be. "Examples exist of both successful and
unsuccessful efforts to govern and manage common-pool resources by
governments, communal groups, cooperatives, voluntary associations, and
private individuals or firms" (Ostrom 2000: 338). Much of the work of the
neo-Hardinians has been to study what attributes of common-pool resources
that "are conducive to the use of communal proprietorship or ownership" and
what attributes of common-pool resources that "are conducive to individual
rights to withdrawal, management, exclusion and alienation" (Ostrom 2000:
332).

The neo-Hardinians, however, seem to be less interested in the fact that not
all common property regimes involve common-pool resources. On the contrary,
when we examine the history of common property regimes, we must conclude
that many have been based on non-common-pool resources. For example, money
income, personal belongings, literary texts, and even children have been
communalized. Thus the 15th century Taborites' first act of forming their
community was to dump all their personal belongings in large open chests and
begin their communal relations on an even footing (Federici 2004: 54). On
the basis of the history of common property regimes it is difficult to
decide what types of goods are "conducive" to private property and what
kinds of goods are "conducive" to common property.

The third important distinction is between common-pool resources (e.g., a
fishery, a river) and public goods (e.g., knowledge of a physical law,
living in a just and peaceful society). They share one characteristic, i.e.,
it is difficult to exclude people living within the scope of these resources
or goods from their enjoyment. But they also differ in another
characteristic, for a common-pool resource like a fishery is reduced when
something of value like a particular fish is withdrawn from it while a
public good like knowledge of the Second Law of Thermodynamics is not
diminished when still another person uses it to construct a new engine.



-- 
Working at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University -
http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html -
http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI

Volunteering at the P2P Foundation:
http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net -
http://p2pfoundation.ning.com

Monitor updates at http://del.icio.us/mbauwens

The work of the P2P Foundation is supported by SHIFTN,
http://www.shiftn.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090226/bf94a690/attachment-0001.html>