Abstract
<div> <span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: medium;">Commons and global public goods have become popular concepts in academic debates on governance. Moreover, these concepts are no longer the exclusive domain of economists. Different disciplines (such as legal and political theory) have appropriated them in their own specific ways. The result of this popularity, however, is that they are often confused or used in ways that muddle their distinct characteristics. In this article we propose some distinctions to clarify the use of these concepts. First, we will show how what were initially social scientific concepts started being used in a more normative way. Second, we will subject the writings of Elinor Ostrom and Inge Kaul and colleagues to a discourse analysis. This means that we will show that some normative assumptions were already present in the concepts of ‘commons’ and ‘global public goods’. We take it that, although Ostrom and Kaul are often read as social scientists, it is both possible and fruitful to read them as proposing two very different visions of power in a globalizing world. In a third section we then demonstrate more concretely what these visions look like. Finally, we conclude by looking at the possible advantages and downsides to both models.</span></span> </div>
Highlights
Both the terms ‘commons’ and ‘global public goods’ (GPGs) are widely used in political discourses on how to tackle challenges such as climate change, food security, and transmission of knowledge
The ground breaking work of Elinor Ostrom has demonstrated the capacity of communities to self-organize and share common-pool resources (CPRs), beyond the much travelled paths of the exclusively public or exclusively private management solutions
The series of three books edited by Inge Kaul and her colleagues of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) exemplify the popularity of expanding Paul Samuelson’s theory of public goods to the global level
Summary
Both the terms ‘commons’ and ‘global public goods’ (GPGs) are widely used in political discourses on how to tackle challenges such as climate change, food security, and transmission of knowledge. The UNDP publications brought to light that, in an increasingly interconnected world, the problems of security, financial stability, health and environmental protection inevitably affect every country, and require collective action at the global level In other words, both notions have become central to normative discourses in current political practice. We identified the sections where these authors discussed the concepts of power, role of the state and the spatial scale of governance We interpreted these sections to show the hidden (normative) implications that the usage of the terms commons and GPGs may have and why it is important to draw a distinction between these two concepts in academic and policy discourses. We draw attention to strong forms of external and coercive power, namely state and market pressures, against which the commons will need to struggle in order to survive
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
