|
Abstract:
|
"In terms of communal/common property, Western Europe on the one hand and Eastern- Europe and Asia on the other are quite distinctive. Western Europe has gone through a 'liberalisation phase' during the late 18th and 19th centuries, leading to an almost complete extinction of common property.1 In 20th century Western Europe not much 'original' common land was left. Many of the Eastern European and Asian countries went during that period through a phase of communism, with extensive land reforms.
"In this paper the emergence of common in Western Europe from the late Middle Ages is explained by means of looking at the characteristics and internal functioning of commons and by -via a comparison with other forms of corporate collective action that emerged during this period- detecting the necessary conditions for corporate collective action to emerge. This approach, which in the case of this paper entails a comparison between guilds and commons, should make us aware of the other processes in a society that need the same conditions to emerge as commons, such as the guilds, fraternities, ... Rather than asking the question what makes commons work (as has been researched thoroughly by Elinor Ostrom and many others) this paper asks the questions: what makes the commons emerge? What makes it possible to act collectively? Commons are a form of rural guilds, in Europe and elsewhere, and therefore a comparison between these two types of collective action can help us to understand what is necessary to make forms of corporate collective action to emerge and what offers the incentives to choose for a common property arrangement. Or what prevents it from making this choice possible.
"At the basis of this paper lay two questions that will not surface very clearly, or be dealt with explicitly, but are however important to keep in mind to understand the comparisons made in this paper. The first question is why do we see commons and other forms of corporate collective emerging at such speed and intensity in Europe, and why does this not happen (that early) elsewhere, e.g. in China? And secondly: to what extend can this contribute to our understanding of economic growth (as part of the so-called the Great Divergence Debate about the growing differences in economic development after 1500, between Europe and China hence also the choice for China as region of comparison)? The second question will not receive much attention here, it is more important to understand corporate collective action itself first before starting to analyse its impact on economic growth. Eventually the comparison with Asia will become more extensive too. The approach to the emergence of historical commons taken in this paper is quite new and as such, the comparison with Asia is still quite limited."
|