How to be a critical scholar of the commons? Understanding The Commons In All Their Dimensions

1. HOW TO BE A CRITICAL
SCHOLAR OF THE COMMONS?
UNDERSTANDING THE COMMONS IN ALL THEIR DIMENSIONS
TINE DE MOOR
The International Association
for the Study of the
Commons (IASC)

2. The IASC Council Members welcome all participants of
the 1st IASC thematic meeting on Urban Commons!
Tine De Moor
President
John Powell
President-Elect
Leticia
Merino
Past-
President
Marco Janssen
Council Member
Lapologang Magole
Council Member
Insa Theesfeld
Council Member
Anne Larson
Council Member
Charles
Schweik
Council Member
René van Weeren
Executive Director
Alyne Delaney
Editor
The Commons
Digest
Frank van
Laerhoven
Editor-in-chief
International
Journal of the
Commons
Sergio Villamayor
Managing Editor
International
Journal of the
Commons
Emily Castle
Information
Officer
Vincent and Elinor
Ostrom Workshop
Michael Schoon
Editor-in-chief
International
Journal of the
Commons
The International Association for
the Study of the Commons (IASC)
Council members
Ex-officio
members

3. BOLOGNA: FERTILE GROUND FOR
SUCCESSFUL COOPERATION!
• Hosts the oldest university in the world
• Region of many medieval communes
• Many cooperatives, Emilia-Romagna being one of the
regions where coops are most succesful in Europe
• Region with many old commons in the countryside
• Powerful societies of urban craftsmen (guilds)
• Civic cooperation treaty of Bologna
-> Ideal place to stimulate dialogue between all enthusiasts of
the commons!
! First condition for fertile dialogue: agree on what we are all
talking about.....

4. WHAT ARE COMMONS?
All that we
share?
All the
resources we
own
collectively?
Sharing
economy?Citizens’
initiatives?
Collaborative
consumption
and production?
Common
Pool
Institutions?
Common
Property
Regimes?
Common
Pool
Resources?
Peer-to-
peer-
economy?

5. WHY SHOULD WE CARE ABOUT WHAT
WE MEAN WHEN BY COMMONS?
• Distinguishing the commons from other governance
models -> distinctive role in use and governance
resource with distinctive results
• Realistic perspective on commons
• Recognition that commons as governance model has
its limits and difficulties
• Potential also depends on type of resource
• Future functioning also depends changing
circumstances
-> Avoid “private prop-story”: disappointment and critique
due to too great expectations

6. WHY SUCH A DIFFICULT CONCEPT?
• Very long-term use -> long history of potential “misuse”
• Hardin: application of concept of commons on global resources
with different features than
• Conceptual “overstretch” of term commons: features of open
access resources without controls imposed on access and use
• Local example for problems on global scale
• Linkage of wrong features (e.g. lack of communication means)
• In an era of emerging awareness about environmental
problems
• Negative connotation to collective use not new but can now be
contrasted to “consolidated” private an state solutions
• Ostrom: Return to original features of concept but broadening to
other types of resources (a.o. Irrigation commons)
• Today: applied to many different resources and services AND types
of collectivities

7. WHY DOES THE CURRENT “PARADIGM
SHIFT” SEEM REVOLUTIONARY?
• We have forgotten about the collectivity as a ‘valid’
organisational unit
18th century:
-The “individual” becomes the central unit in society
(Enlightenment)
-rationalisation of agriculture through Physiocratie
19th century: Nation State:
-introduction of code civil as legal basis for individual rights
-organisation of society becomes centralised, including
legal and economic basis
-> 1750s-1850s: implementation of regional and national legislations
across Europe to abolish/split up/sell the commons
e.g. Belgium, 1847: “Loi sur le défrichement” = in fact a privatisation law
-> by middle 19th century: centralised dissolution of common land allover
Western Europe

8. BUT IS IT REALLY REVOLUTIONARY?
ONCE UPON A TIME IN EUROPE…
• « Land that is managed and used in common »
• Different terms:
• Dutch: gemene grond, heirnis, meent, markegenootschap…
• German: Markgenossenschaften, Allemende,…
• In Europe: originated mainly in 12th-13th century, during/after
Great Reclamations (10-12th century)
• Mixed agricultural system demanded balance between arable and
pasture land
• In reaction to pressure on mixed-agricultural system as reaction to
demographic pressure
• Main aim of institutionalisation: achieving balance in exploitation
level
• Often as land conflict settlements between lords and villagers
• Divided rights on same piece of land
• Beforehand: common use of land within family-clan-tribe

9. MARKE RAALTERWOOLD (OVERRIJSEL,
NETHERLANDS), (BEFORE) 1445 – 1859
Markenboek 1615 (incl. copies of earlier regulations) - 1859

10. ESKDALE COMMONS (CUMBRIA, ENGLAND)
MIDDLE AGES - C. 1859
Common rights: pasture, peat
and turves, bracken
See also:
http://www.collective-
action.info/_CAS_COM_ENG_Esk
daleCommonManorCourt
Experts: E. Straughton and A.
Winchester

11. GEMENE AND LOWEIDEN (NEAR BRUGES,
BELGIUM): 14TH CENTURY-TODAY
Common rights: mainly
pastureland
Access for descendants from
specific families only

12. COMMONS IN THE
NETHERLANDS
1
10
100
1000
Markegenootschappen
Totaal
log

13. WHAT WERE THE ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF
COMMONS AS GOVERNANCE MODEL?
• Directed towards production/management of resource that is
rivalrous and of which use can be limited
• Self-governance: self-reguation, self-sanctioning, self-
management
• Participation of stakeholders in decision making processes
• Identifiability of those with rights -> boundaries to the group!
• Strong trust in and dependence on « group norms » (<-> legal
enactments)
• Bottom-up formation
THROUGH:
• Right to vote in meetings (linked to household)
• Obligation to attend meetings
• Election of representatives
• Rotation of responsibilities (incl. the annoying ones)
• Intensive social control and sanctions for malefactors
• Liability of those who shirk responsibility

14. WHICH MOTIVATIONS DID THE
HISTORICAL COMMONERS HAVE IN
COMMON?
• Economies of scale
• Collective bargaining position towards authorities
• Sharing risks and resources
• Lower search and information costs
• internal agreement on the price of the goods
• collective meetings with compulsory attendance
• Reduced transaction costs due to group-based access regulation
BUT WHY ?
Reaction to periods of increased commercialisation,
privatisation and subsequent market failure

15. GUILDS –URBAN VERSION OF
COMMONS
1
10
100
1000
Gilden Totaal
log

16. FIRST WAVE:
COMMONS, GUILDS, WATERBOARDS...:
1000-1600 (EXAMPLE NETHERLANDS)
1
10
100
1000
1000-1024
1025-1049
1050-1074
1100-1124
1125-1149
1175-1199
1200-1224
1225-1249
1250-1274
1275-1299
1300-1324
1325-1349
1350-1374
1375-1399
1400-1424
1425-1449
1450-1474
1475-1499
1500-1524
1525-1549
1550-1574
1575-1599
1600-1624
1625-1649
1650-1674
1675-1699
1700-1724
1725-1749
1750-1774
1775-1800
Begijnhoven
Gilden
Markegenootschappen
Waterschappen
Totaal
Liberalization
Formationofnation-
states
log

17. SECOND WAVE:
COOPERATIVES, ASSOCIATIONS,
LABOUR UNIONS, 1880-1920
1
10
100
1000
10000
Cooperatives
Associations
Labour unions
Total
RURAL!!

18. EVOLUTION OF THE NUMBER OF
NEW COOPERATIVES PER SECTOR
1990-2012 (NETHERLANDS)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180 Banken
In & verkoop food
In & verkoop nonfood
Industrie, Energie & transport
Kunst & Cultuur
Land & Tuinbouw
Onderwijs
Overige
Prof. dienstv.
Scheepvaart
Verzekeraars
Wonen, Recreatie & Vastgoed
Zorg
Totaal

19. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ICAS IN
THE PAST AND TODAY
• Goals have been “split-up”:
• Historical:
• Social and economic benefits/purposes brought together
into one collective
• Consumption and production together
• Now: participating in several different collectivities is
essential to provide for all everyday needs
-> Disadvantage:
• Reduces the opportunities for using reciprocal behaviour as a
complementary incentive
• To provide for all needs, one needs to be a member of several
different collectivities
• Memberships of individual members last considerably shorter
• Life span of modern institutions is remarkably shorter than life
span of institutions that emerged in the first wave
-> less resilient institutions?

20. A THREE-DIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO COMMONS
INSTITUTIONS
RESOURCES
USERS
De Moor, 2009
& 2015

21. A THREE-DIMENSIONAL APPROACH TO COMMONS
INSTITUTIONS
RESOURCES
USERS

22. PRIVATELY GOVERNED?
INSTITUTIONS
RESOURCES
USERS
One
user/firm

23. STATE GOVERNED?
INSTITUTIONS
RESOURCES
USERS
Multiple
anonymous users

24. IDENTIFYING DYNAMICS TO UNDERSTAND MECHANISMS BEHIND
RESILIENT COMMONS
INSTITUTIONS
RESOURCES
USERS
De Moor, 2009
& 2015
RESILIENCE

25. THE CHALLENGE TO COMMONS-
RESEARCHERS IN GENERAL
 Be specific! Not everything is a common!
 Resilience, not stability!
 To avoid vulnerability to crises and system instability
 Evolution and change in respons to changing
external conditions
 Efficiency, utility and equity need to be in balance
-> Identify the circumstances under which commons
can be organisations that offer high resource efficiency,
high user utility and very equitable institutions so that
RESILIENCE becomes possible
-> identify the circumstances and resources for which
commons do not work as governance model

26. CHALLENGES FOR SCHOLARS OF
THE URBAN COMMONS
• Study difficulties and failures of commons, e.g. very
mobile population
• Think ‘out-of-the-city”’: does this work with lower
concentrations in demand?
• Create a “civil market”: tackle inequality not through
redistribution but participation (prosumers) in order to
include all generations and income levels?
• How to connect to local and supra-local powers? What
are the enabling factors of a “Partner State”?

27. CHALLENGES TO FUTURE
ADVOCATES OF COMMONS
• Beclear: commons is a term precious to us all, we need
to keep it that way
• Connect commons and enhancing visibility
• Collaborate with governments and market partners
• Consider how to make sure that the commons as
governance model become a choice out of wealth, out of
positive choice, instead out of need
ULTIMATE GOAL: a society with a high degree of
institutional diversity, including commons

28. IASC –WHAT’S IN IT FOR YOU?

29. FUTURE CONFERENCES
5 conferences from fall 2015 until summer 2017
o 3 thematic
o 1 regional
o 1 biennial
New calls for conference proposals 2016-2019:
o XVIIth Biennial Conference to be held in 2019: call in Fall
2015
o Regional/Thematic Conferences to be held in 2017-2018:
call in Fall 2016
-> next urban commons meeting in 2018?
-> practitioners meetings -> concrete requests to
researchers

30. Regional IASC Meeting (Europe)
‘Commons in a 'glocal' world:
global connections and local responses’
Bern (Switzerland), 2-5 May 2016
Tobias
Haller
Stephan
Rist

31. IASC Thematic Meeting
‘Advancing knowledge commons
through legal & social changes’
Paris (France), 20-21 October 2016
Tom
Dedeurwaerdere
Séverine
Dusollier

32. Regional IASC Meeting (N. America/Arctic)
‘Reality, richness, and responsibility
of an arctic commons’
Anchorage, Alaska (USA), September 2016
Mara
Kimmel

33. XVIth Biennial IASC Meeting
‘Practicing the commons’
Utrecht (The Netherlands), 10 –14 July 2017
Tine
De Moor