I’ve just been reviewing a paper that mentions the “tragedy of the commons”1 and whenever I read or hear the phrase I feel the hackles on the back of my neck rise.
Of course the real tragedy of the commons was not free-riding and depletion by common use, but the rape of the land under mass eviction or enclosure movements when they ceased to be commons. The real tragedy of “the tragedy of the commons” as a catch phrase is that it is often used to promote the very same practices of centralisation. Where common land has survived today, just as in the time before enclosures and clearances, it is still managed in a collaborative way both for the people now and the for the sake of future generations. Indeed on Tiree, where I live, there are large tracts of common grazing land managed in just such a way.
The paper I was reading was not alone in uncritically using the phrase. Indeed in “A Framework for Web Science”3 we read:
In a decentralised and growing Web, where there are no “owners” as such, can we be sure that decisions that make sense for an individual do not damage the interests of users as a whole? Such a situation, known as the ‘tragedy of the commons’, happens in many social systems that eschew property rights and centralised institutions once the number of users becomes too large to coordinate using peer pressure and moral principles.
In fact I do have some sympathy with this as the web involves a vast number of physically dispersed users who are perhaps “too large to coordinate using peer pressure and moral principles”. However, what is strange is that the web has raised so many modern counter examples to the tragedy of the commons, not least Wikipedia itself. In many open source projects people work as effectively a form of gift economy, where, if there is any reward, it is in the form of community or individual respect.
Clearly, there are examples in the world today where many individual decisions (often for short term gain) lead to larger scale collective loss. This is most clearly evident in the environment, but also the recent banking crisis, which was fuelled by the desire for large mortgages and general debt-led lives. However, these are exactly the opposite of the values surrounding traditional common goods.
It may be that the problem is not so much that large numbers of people dilute social and moral pressure, but that the impact of our actions becomes too diffuse to be able to appreciate when we make our individual life choices. The counter-culture of many parts of the web may reflect, in part, the way in which aspects of the web can make the impact of small individual actions more clear to the individual and more accountable to others.
- Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (December 13, 1968), pp. 1243-1248. … and here is the danger of citation counting as a quality metric, I am citing it because I disagree with it![back]
- Ian Angus. The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons. Socialist Voice, August 24, 2008[back]
- Berners-Lee, T., Hall, W., Hendler, J. A., O’Hara, K., Shadbolt, N. and Weitzner, D. J. (2006) A Framework for Web Science. Foundations and Trends in Web Science, 1 (1). pp. 1-130. http://eprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/13347/[back]