This is an article I came across I thought some of you may be interested in. It is an anthropological view on Communal ownership. Figured I'd post it since I haven't posted much in a while.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Communal Ownership Lead to Economic Disaster?
A common idea in Western thought is that when land or other resources are held in common, serious damage results because individuals do not see it in their own interest to protect those resources. In a paper called "The Tragedy of the Commons," Garrett Hardin suggested that if animals are grazed on common land, it is economically rational for individual animal owners to graze as many animals as possible, since they do not incur the pasture costs. According to Hardin, tragedy results because pasture is degraded by overgrazing, and productivity falls. Similarly, why shouldn't a fisher take as much fish as possible from the ocean, a kind of commons, and not worry about the consequences? On the other hand, if the resource is privately owned, individuals might try to conserve their resources because degrading those resources will cost them in the long run by decreasing their yields. The theory, then, is that in order to minimize costs and maximize yields, private owners will find it rational to conserve their resources.
Is it really true that communal ownership tends to result in overexploitation of resources with lower yields, and private ownership tends to result in conservation of resources and higher yields? We do not have enough studies yet to generalize, but we do know about instances where communal grazing lands have been more productive than private grazing lands in comparable climates. For example, the Borana of Ethiopia, who have communal grazing, produce more animal protein per acre at lower costthan Australian cattle ranches, although climates are similar. And there are instances such as the overgrazing in the Great American Desert, where private ownership did lead to degradation of the environment.
We have to remember that communal ownership does not mean that anyone can graze animals or fish at any time. Communities and kin groups often govern rights to pasturage or fishing, and only members of the group have rights of access and use. Pastoralists such as the Basseri have well-defined, socially arranged travel routes, moving their herds when conditions demand. For traditional pastoralists, mobility is often the key to prevent overgrazing. Similarly, many groups that fish have strict rules regulating access to fishing grounds, and some have conservation rules as well. For example, the Palauns of Micronesia usually allow only members of a cluster of villages to fish in the adjacent lagoon waters inside the fringing reef. Traditionally, people took only what they could eat, and there were "laws" governing the times that people could fish for certain species.
Restricted access to communal property may be the main way that pastoralists and fishers prevent degradation of their environment. Some groups, such as the Palauns, clearly have conservation rules. But we do not know how many pastoralists and fishers have such rules. For example, the Ponam of New Guinea do not appear to conserve fish resources, even though they restrict access to their communal fishing territories. they do value the prestige associated with generosity, and consequently they try to collect more fish than they need in order to give some away.
Development and commercialization may be more important than private versus communal ownership in leading to overgrazing or overfishing, at least initially. In Palau, which had traditional conservation practices, serious overfishing became a problem apparently only when people started to sell fish to Japanese colonists for imported trade goods. Some of those goods (nets and motors) helped to make fishing easier. Eventually, overfishing resulted in reduced catches and increased costs of fishing, and the Palauans had to buy much of their fish in imported cans. In arid areas of the Sahel in Africa, development may have led to pastoral overgrazing. Boreholes were built by development agencies to increase the water supply, but this practice often made people reluctant to move to new grazing land, so local land was overgrazed. In addition, the development of irrigation agriculture nearby decreased the amount of land available for pasturage.
So which is more likely in general to lead to conservation, communal ownership or private ownership? We cannot say yet. We need more systematic comparisons of many cases of the two types of systems to tell us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Does Communal Ownership Lead to Economic Disaster?
A common idea in Western thought is that when land or other resources are held in common, serious damage results because individuals do not see it in their own interest to protect those resources. In a paper called "The Tragedy of the Commons," Garrett Hardin suggested that if animals are grazed on common land, it is economically rational for individual animal owners to graze as many animals as possible, since they do not incur the pasture costs. According to Hardin, tragedy results because pasture is degraded by overgrazing, and productivity falls. Similarly, why shouldn't a fisher take as much fish as possible from the ocean, a kind of commons, and not worry about the consequences? On the other hand, if the resource is privately owned, individuals might try to conserve their resources because degrading those resources will cost them in the long run by decreasing their yields. The theory, then, is that in order to minimize costs and maximize yields, private owners will find it rational to conserve their resources.
Is it really true that communal ownership tends to result in overexploitation of resources with lower yields, and private ownership tends to result in conservation of resources and higher yields? We do not have enough studies yet to generalize, but we do know about instances where communal grazing lands have been more productive than private grazing lands in comparable climates. For example, the Borana of Ethiopia, who have communal grazing, produce more animal protein per acre at lower costthan Australian cattle ranches, although climates are similar. And there are instances such as the overgrazing in the Great American Desert, where private ownership did lead to degradation of the environment.
We have to remember that communal ownership does not mean that anyone can graze animals or fish at any time. Communities and kin groups often govern rights to pasturage or fishing, and only members of the group have rights of access and use. Pastoralists such as the Basseri have well-defined, socially arranged travel routes, moving their herds when conditions demand. For traditional pastoralists, mobility is often the key to prevent overgrazing. Similarly, many groups that fish have strict rules regulating access to fishing grounds, and some have conservation rules as well. For example, the Palauns of Micronesia usually allow only members of a cluster of villages to fish in the adjacent lagoon waters inside the fringing reef. Traditionally, people took only what they could eat, and there were "laws" governing the times that people could fish for certain species.
Restricted access to communal property may be the main way that pastoralists and fishers prevent degradation of their environment. Some groups, such as the Palauns, clearly have conservation rules. But we do not know how many pastoralists and fishers have such rules. For example, the Ponam of New Guinea do not appear to conserve fish resources, even though they restrict access to their communal fishing territories. they do value the prestige associated with generosity, and consequently they try to collect more fish than they need in order to give some away.
Development and commercialization may be more important than private versus communal ownership in leading to overgrazing or overfishing, at least initially. In Palau, which had traditional conservation practices, serious overfishing became a problem apparently only when people started to sell fish to Japanese colonists for imported trade goods. Some of those goods (nets and motors) helped to make fishing easier. Eventually, overfishing resulted in reduced catches and increased costs of fishing, and the Palauans had to buy much of their fish in imported cans. In arid areas of the Sahel in Africa, development may have led to pastoral overgrazing. Boreholes were built by development agencies to increase the water supply, but this practice often made people reluctant to move to new grazing land, so local land was overgrazed. In addition, the development of irrigation agriculture nearby decreased the amount of land available for pasturage.
So which is more likely in general to lead to conservation, communal ownership or private ownership? We cannot say yet. We need more systematic comparisons of many cases of the two types of systems to tell us.
