‘Customs in common’: The epistemic world of the commons scholars

Abstract

Despite the fact that the famous model of natural-resource use espoused by biologist Garrett Hardin, the "tragedy of the commons," has been thoroughly debunked by social scientists of most stripes, the model's assumptions e.g., that selfish individuals using a common pool resource will overconsume to the detriment of all have not only survived but fruitfully multiplied, as if driven by higher laws of natural selection.1 Its seeds have sprouted, for example, in works of natural scientists who apply biology's behavioral laws to complex social realities. It thrives deep in the soul of most commons theorists, even those fervently opposed to Hardin's model, who ply their trade by identifying, protecting, managing, saving, developing, and making efficient commons throughout the world.2 This commons-tragedy discourse has also shaped the thinking on the new "global commons," led by academicians and policymakers striving to direct supranational decisionmaking on the gray areas of global real estate: the earth's ozone, deep seas, "biodiverse" reserves (e.g., the Amazon), the North and South poles, the air waves, and so on. In other words, an old, dubious framework once applied to questions of the local commons (i.e., how to stop self-interested shepherds from destroying community pastures), is now being applied to saving our global commons.