Donate to Links


Click on Links masthead to clear previous query from search box

Read Green Left Weekly, our sister publication



Recent comments



Syndicate

Syndicate content

Debunking the `Tragedy of the Commons'

By Ian Angus

August 24, 2008 -- Will shared resources always be misused and overused? Is community ownership of land, forests and fisheries a guaranteed road to ecological disaster? Is privatisation the only way to protect the environment and end Third World poverty? Most economists and development planners will answer “yes” — and for proof they will point to the most influential article ever written on those important questions.

Since its publication in Science in December 1968, “The Tragedy of the Commons” has been anthologised in at least 111 books, making it one of the most-reprinted articles ever to appear in any scientific journal. It is also one of the most quoted: a recent Google search found “about 302,000” results for the phrase “tragedy of the commons”.

For 40 years it has been, in the words of a World Bank discussion paper, “the dominant paradigm within which social scientists assess natural resource issues” (Bromley and Cernea 1989: 6). It has been used time and again to justify stealing indigenous peoples’ lands, privatising health care and other social services, giving corporations ``tradable permits'' to pollute the air and water, and much more.

Noted anthropologist Dr G.N. Appell (1995) writes that the article “has been embraced as a sacred text by scholars and professionals in the practice of designing futures for others and imposing their own economic and environmental rationality on other social systems of which they have incomplete understanding and knowledge”.

Like most sacred texts, “The Tragedy of the Commons” is more often cited than read. As we will see, although its title sounds authoritative and scientific, it fell far short of science.

Garrett Hardin hatches a myth

The author of “The Tragedy of the Commons” was Garrett Hardin, a University of California professor who until then was best known as the author of a biology textbook that argued for “control of breeding” of “genetically defective” people (Hardin 1966: 707). In his 1968 essay he argued that communities that share resources inevitably pave the way for their own destruction; instead of wealth for all, there is wealth for none.

He based his argument on a story about the commons in rural England.

(The term “commons” was used in England to refer to the shared pastures, fields, forests, irrigation systems and other resources that were found in many rural areas until well into the 1800s. Similar communal farming arrangements existed in most of Europe, and they still exist today in various forms around the world, particularly in indigenous communities.)

“Picture a pasture open to all”, Hardin wrote. Herders who want to expand their personal herd will calculate that the cost of additional grazing (reduced food for all animals, rapid soil depletion) will be divided among all, but they alone will get the benefit of having more cattle to sell.

Inevitably, “the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd”. But every “rational herdsman” will do the same thing, so the commons is soon overstocked and overgrazed to the point where it supports no animals at all.

Hardin used the word “tragedy” as Aristotle did, to refer to a dramatic outcome that is the inevitable but unplanned result of a character’s actions. He called the destruction of the commons through overuse a tragedy not because it is sad, but because it is the inevitable result of shared use of the pasture. “Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.”

Where’s the evidence?

Given the subsequent influence of Hardin’s essay, it’s shocking to realise that he provided no evidence at all to support his sweeping conclusions. He claimed that the “tragedy” was inevitable — but he didn’t show that it had happened even once.

Hardin simply ignored what actually happens in a real commons: self-regulation by the communities involved. One such process was described years earlier in Friedrich Engels’ account of the “mark”, the form taken by commons-based communities in parts of pre-capitalist Germany:

“[T]he use of arable and meadowlands was under the supervision and direction of the community …

“Just as the share of each member in so much of the mark as was distributed was of equal size, so was his share also in the use of the ‘common mark’. The nature of this use was determined by the members of the community as a whole. …

“At fixed times and, if necessary, more frequently, they met in the open air to discuss the affairs of the mark and to sit in judgment upon breaches of regulations and disputes concerning the mark.” (Engels 1892)

Historians and other scholars have broadly confirmed Engels’ description of communal management of shared resources. A summary of recent research concludes:

“[W]hat existed in fact was not a ‘tragedy of the commons’ but rather a triumph: that for hundreds of years — and perhaps thousands, although written records do not exist to prove the longer era — land was managed successfully by communities.” (Cox 1985: 60)

Part of that self-regulation process was known in England as “stinting” — establishing limits for the number of cows, pigs, sheep and other livestock that each commoner could graze on the common pasture. Such “stints” protected the land from overuse (a concept that experienced farmers understood long before Hardin arrived) and allowed the community to allocate resources according to its own concepts of fairness.

The only significant cases of overstocking found by the leading modern expert on the English commons involved wealthy landowners who deliberately put too many animals onto the pasture in order to weaken their much poorer neighbours’ position in disputes over the enclosure (privatisation) of common lands (Neeson 1993: 156).

Hardin assumed that peasant farmers are unable to change their behaviour in the face of certain disaster. But in the real world, small farmers, fishers and others have created their own institutions and rules for preserving resources and ensuring that the commons community survived through good years and bad.

Why does the herder want more?

Hardin’s argument started with the unproven assertion that herders always want to expand their herds: “It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons… As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain.”

In short, Hardin’s conclusion was predetermined by his assumptions. “It is to be expected” that each herder will try to maximise the size of their herd — and each one does exactly that. It’s a circular argument that proves nothing.

Hardin assumed that human nature is selfish and unchanging, and that society is just an assemblage of self-interested individuals who don’t care about the impact of their actions on the community. The same idea, explicitly or implicitly, is a fundamental component of mainstream (i.e. pro-capitalist) economic theory.

All the evidence (not to mention commonsense) shows that this is absurd: people are social beings, and society is much more than the arithmetic sum of its members. Even capitalist society, which rewards the most anti-social behaviour, has not crushed human cooperation and solidarity. The very fact that for centuries “rational herdsmen” did not overgraze the commons disproves Hardin’s most fundamental assumptions — but that hasn’t stopped him or his disciples from erecting policy castles on foundations of sand.

Even if the herder wanted to behave as Hardin described, they couldn’t do so unless certain conditions existed.

There would have to be a market for the cattle, and herders would have to be focused on producing for that market, not for local consumption. The herder would have to have enough capital to buy the additional cattle and the fodder they would need in winter. The herder would have to be able to hire workers to care for the larger herd, build bigger barns, etc. And the herder's desire for profit would have to outweigh their interest in the long-term survival of their community.

In short, Hardin didn’t describe the behaviour of herders in pre-capitalist farming communities — he described the behaviour of capitalists operating in a capitalist economy. The universal human nature that he claimed would always destroy common resources is actually the profit-driven “grow or die” behaviour of corporations.

Will private ownership do better?

That leads us to another fatal flaw in Hardin’s argument: in addition to providing no evidence that maintaining the commons will inevitably destroy the environment, he offered no justification for his opinion that privatisation would save it. Once again he simply presented his own prejudices as fact:

“We must admit that our legal system of private property plus inheritance is unjust — but we put up with it because we are not convinced, at the moment, that anyone has invented a better system. The alternative of the commons is too horrifying to contemplate. Injustice is preferable to total ruin.”

The implication is that private owners will do a better job of caring for the environment because they want to preserve the value of their assets. In reality, scholars and activists have documented scores of cases in which the division and privatisation of communally managed lands had disastrous results. Privatising the commons has repeatedly led to deforestation, soil erosion and depletion, overuse of fertilisers and pesticides, and the ruin of ecosystems.

As Karl Marx wrote, nature requires long cycles of birth, development and regeneration, but capitalism requires short-term returns.

“[T]he entire spirit of capitalist production, which is oriented towards the most immediate monetary profits, stands in contradiction to agriculture, which has to concern itself with the whole gamut of permanent conditions of life required by the chain of human generations. A striking illustration of this is furnished by the forests, which are only rarely managed in a way more or less corresponding to the interests of society as a whole …” (Marx 1998: 611n)

Contrary to Hardin’s claims, a community that shares fields and forests has a strong incentive to protect them to the best of its ability, even if that means not maximising current production, because those resources will be essential to the community’s survival for centuries to come. Capitalist owners have the opposite incentive, because they will not survive in business if they don’t maximise short-term profit. If ethanol promises bigger and faster profits than centuries-old rain forests, the trees will fall.

This focus on short-term gain has reached a point of appalling absurdity in recent best-selling books by Bjorn Lomborg, William Nordhaus and others, who argue that it is irrational to spend money to stop greenhouse gas emissions today, because the payoff is too far in the future. Other investments, they say, will produce much better returns, more quickly.

Community management isn’t an infallible way of protecting shared resources: some communities have mismanaged common resources, and some commons may have been overused to extinction. But no commons-based community has capitalism’s built-in drive to put current profits ahead of the wellbeing of future generations.

A politically useful myth

The truly appalling thing about “The Tragedy of the Commons” is not its lack of evidence or logic — badly researched and argued articles are not unknown in academic journals. What’s shocking is the fact that this piece of reactionary nonsense has been hailed as a brilliant analysis of the causes of human suffering and environmental destruction, and adopted as a basis for social policy by supposed experts ranging from economists and environmentalists to governments and United Nations agencies.

Despite being refuted again and again, it is still used today to support private ownership and uncontrolled markets as sure-fire roads to economic growth.

The success of Hardin’s argument reflects its usefulness as a pseudo-scientific explanation of global poverty and inequality, an explanation that doesn’t question the dominant social and political order. It confirms the prejudices of those in power: logical and factual errors are nothing compared to the very attractive (to the rich) claim that the poor are responsible for their own poverty. The fact that Hardin’s argument also blames the poor for ecological destruction is a bonus.

Hardin’s essay has been widely used as an ideological response to anti-imperialist movements in the Third World and discontent among indigenous and other oppressed peoples everywhere in the world.

“Hardin’s fable was taken up by the gathering forces of neo-liberal reaction in the 1970s, and his essay became the ‘scientific’ foundation of World Bank and IMF policies, viz. enclosure of commons and privatisation of public property. … The message is clear: we must never treat the earth as a ‘common treasury.’ We must be ruthless and greedy or else we will perish.” (Boal 2007)

In Canada, conservative lobbyists use arguments derived from Hardin’s political tract to explain away poverty on First Nations’ [Indigenous Canadians'] reserves, and to argue for further dismantling of Indigenous communities. A study published by the influential Fraser Institute urges privatisation of reserve land:

“[T]hese large amounts of land, with their attendant natural resources, will never yield their maximum benefit to Canada’s native people as long as they are held as collective property subject to political management. … collective property is the path of poverty, and private property is the path of prosperity.” (Fraser 2002: 16-17)

This isn’t just right-wing posturing. Canada’s federal government, which has refused to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, announced in 2007 that it will “develop approaches to support the development of individual property ownership on reserves”, and created a C$300 million fund to do just that.

In Hardin’s world, poverty has nothing to do with centuries of racism, colonialism and exploitation: poverty is inevitable and natural in all times and places, the product of immutable human nature. The poor bring it on themselves by having too many babies and clinging to self-destructive collectivism.

The tragedy of the commons is a useful political myth — a scientific-sounding way of saying that there is no alternative to the dominant world order.

Stripped of excess verbiage, Hardin’s essay asserted, without proof, that human beings are helpless prisoners of biology and the market. Unless restrained, we will inevitably destroy our communities and environment for a few extra pennies of profit. There is nothing we can do to make the world better or more just.

In 1844 Friedrich Engels described a similar argument as a “repulsive blasphemy against man and nature”. Those words apply with full force to the myth of the tragedy of the commons.

[Ian Angus is editor of Climate and Capitalism and an associate editor of Socialist Voice, where this article first appeared.]

Works cited in this article

Appell, G. N. 1993. Hardin’s Myth of the Commons: The Tragedy of Conceptual Confusions, http://tinyurl.com/5knwou

Boal, Iain. 2007. “Interview: Specters of Malthus: Scarcity, Poverty, Apocalypse”. Counterpunch, September 11, 2007, http://tinyurl.com/5vepm5

Bromley, Daniel W. and Cernea Michael M. 1989. The Management of Common Property Natural Resources: Some Conceptual and Operational Fallacies. World Bank Discussion Paper, http://tinyurl.com/5853qn

Cox, Susan Jane Buck. 1985, “No Tragedy on the Commons”. Environmental Ethics 7, http://tinyurl.com/5bys8h

Engels, Friedrich. 1892. “The Mark”, http://tinyurl.com/6e58e7

Engels, Friedrich. 1844. Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy, http://tinyurl.com/5p24t5

Fraser Institute. 2002. Individual Property Rights on Canadian Indian Reserves, http://tinyurl.com/5pjfjj

Hardin, Garrett. 1966. Biology: Its Principles and Implications. Second edition. San Francisco. W.H. Freeman & Co.

Hardin, Garrett. 1968. “The Tragedy of the Commons”, http://tinyurl.com/o827

Marx, Karl. [1867] 1998. Marx Engels Collected Works Vol. 37 (Capital, Vol. 3). New York: International Publishers.

Neeson, J.M. 1993. Commoners: Common Right, Enclosure and Social Change in England, 1700-1820. Cambridge University Press.

Comments

The Commons and human nature

Ah yes, here we are. Look, I don't agree with this article but I agree with some of the approach it takes: economics is the stepdaughter of philosophy. You need a bit of a philosophical reflection on human nature etc. in order to build a economic theory. Therefore I consider this Ian Angus a more worthier opponent than most other Leftists/Liberals/Socialists.

He writes:

"Hardin assumed that human nature is selfish and unchanging"

"Hardin didn’t describe the behaviour of herders in pre-capitalist farming communities — he described the behaviour of capitalists operating in a capitalist economy."

Basically, this the usual Progressive view of human nature that's shared by a wide range of schools of thought from Marxists to not only New Liberals but even some Old Liberals (say, J.S. Mill): human nature is malleable, it's formed by circumstances, by society, there is no real free will or inherent, autonomous consciousness or mind or soul, and in a rationally arranged society people can learn to be rational and good. Their view of human nature is unconstrained: Man can be formed into any shape you want.

On the other side there is the Conservative/Traditional view of human nature: humans are capable of both good and evil. Usually they are selfish but not too evil. The general human nature is unchanging, though it behaves differently according to the challenges it faces. Sometimes we are good, sometimes we are evil. Sometimes we are rational, sometimes we aren't, both are a part of human nature. Society does not form consciousness, instead, consciousness forms society: culture, ideas, habits etc. which arise from conscious decisions form society. Human beings create society, not the other way around. The evil in the world does not come from bad societal arrangements, it's part of human nature. Therefore evil cannot be eradicated. One cannot create neither a rational nor an unselfish society, because you would have to create rational and unselfish people first and that's impossible. What one can do instead is to give incentives: reward good, punish evil, tolerate selfishness that which is not evil. Usually one needs a direct feedback system: businessmen must be tested by markets, criminals by judges and so on. Democracy isn't a good feedback as it's aggregate and indirect, customer feedback is better. The result can never be perfect but sometimes it can be tolerably bad. This view of human nature is constrained: the _conditio_ _humana_ is a given fact, the way the human mind works is a given fact, you can only change so much. Suggested reading: John Kekes: The Roots of Evil and pretty much all of his books.

(Libertarians tend to be in the middle, they should decide where they want to stand in this.)

twaddle

Your reply's a bunch of wooly twaddle. Much like Hardin's essay in fact.

You won't believe how much I enjoyed reading Angus' article

You won't believe how much I enjoyed reading Angus' article. The "tragedy of the commons" has been part of the conventional wisdom for all of my adult life, yet it always seemed "off" to me; I'm not an idealist, but the idea that a community cannot properly manage its communal property was hard to believe. I always assumed that the theory was venerable and that there was documentary evidence for it -- I never knew until now that it dates all the way back to 1968! Of course, this debunking will mean nothing outside of leftist academia. But I fell a hell of a lot better.

You also missed the point of Hardin's article

It's been a long time since I've read such a poorly argued response. Hardin's article may have flaws, but you don't do an effective job of articulating them or calling them out.

Let's see... Where to begin...

First off, the main point of Hardin's article was to point out that some problems don't have solutions rooted in technology. He uses population growth as an example and emissions as well. Hardin didn't argue that "that communities that share resources inevitably pave the way for their own destruction" as you state. His point was that a lack of regulation or total freedom would lead to such a state. This is obvious--as anyone who lived in LA in the 70's can tell you; it took clean air laws to make the city livable again. Hardin's thought experiment on herding was only that. The societies you describe did have some regulating system that kept the community property from being destroyed. And there you go! You've just provided more evidence for Hardin's thesis. His thesis was that technology will not solve some problems. Only people working together to regulate the problem will.

As to your point about people not reading the article--How true! And you can number yourself among them.

re You also missed the point of Hardin's article

I'm always vaguely amused when people tend to cover up for their own lack of argument by adopting a posture of offended outrage at the stupidity of another person's ideas. Aaron's comment is a case in point.

Displaying his capacity for arrogance aside, his main point is Ian Angus is plain wrong to say Garret Hardin's tragedy of the commons argued "that communities that share resources inevitably pave the way for their own destruction".

Well Angus quoted from Hardin to prove that point exactly. Again, Hardin said: “We must admit that our legal system of private property plus inheritance is unjust — but we put up with it because we are not convinced, at the moment, that anyone has invented a better system. The alternative of the commons is too horrifying to contemplate. Injustice is preferable to total ruin..”

So who is guilty of not reading articles?

Powered by Drupal - Design by Artinet