Abstract
Social science studies of the commons are characterized by two relatively clear-cut theoretical traditions, here labelled 'the tragedy of the commons' and 'co-operative action theory'. These differ substantially both in their basic assumptions and epistemological prescriptions; or 'hard cores' and 'protective belts', to use Lakatos's (1974) tools for evaluating scientific research programmes. It is suggested that 'the tragedy of the commons' tradition scores higher on Lakatos's criterion of coherence, whereas 'co-operative action theory' has been more successful in the production of novel empirical findings. Furthermore, the contrasting effect between the two traditions is believed to have contributed to an overall growth of knowledge within the field of study.
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.
