Browsing by Author "De Moor, Tine"

Now showing 1 - 12 of 12

Building the European Commons: Report of the IASCP Europe Regional Meeting
(2006) Bravo, Giangiacomo; De Moor, Tine
"The European Branch meeting of the IASCP in Brescia meeting is behind us, and now its time to sit down and reflect. It may be easier to start with some figures. About 80 people, coming from most of European countries and a number of extra-European ones, joined us in Brescia and, throughout the two days of the meeting opened by Lin Ostrom's keynote speech on Multiple methods for studying collective action over 60 papers were presented. That was much more than initially forecasted on the basis of European participation to the IASCP global meetings over the past few years. The success makes us therefore confident about the healthy status of common-pool resource research in Europe, and that is very good news."
The Commons in Europe: From Past to Future
(2008) Bravo, Giangiacomo; De Moor, Tine
"The changing in the meaning of common resources together with the new consciousness regarding their importance show that, also in Europe (and in other economically highly-developed areas), the research on the commons is not only an issue for historians. It represents one of the key issues towards a better understanding for some of the major challenges underlying the politics of EU countries."
From Common Pastures to Global Commons: An Historical Perspective on Interdisciplinary Approaches to Commons
(2011) De Moor, Tine
"Commons-research has over the past decennia gained considerable maturity, and the various disciplines that work on the subject have moved closer to each other. There is however still one essential and quite fundamental point of disagreement--although this is hardly ever made explicit--and that is about the use of the term 'commons'--which is a term that has been used for literally centuries--for large-scale open access resources such as oceans, the air we are breathing etc., also referred to as 'global commons'. Although it cannot be denied that the air, the seas etc. are in principle collective property to all creatures living on earth, these resources lack two characteristics that are typical for the historical commons, from which the initial use stems: institutionalisation and self-governance. In this article I try to explain the difference between historical commons and global commons and, in the second part, suggestions to overcome this problem and the methodological differences that still exist are suggested. This is done by redesigning the classic economics framework of subdividing goods according to their substractability and excludability. Overcoming these problems would improve the integration of the long-term historical approach into the analysis of present-day cases."
The Historical Evolution of Commons in Flanders: Results from a Microstudy
(2004) De Moor, Tine
"Although the metaphor of the tragedy of the commons refers to a historic situation and although 'sustainability' -- as one of the main interests of social scientists -- is a concept that necessitates a long-term approach, the non-historical social scientists have only since a number of years shown an increasing interest for the historical dynamics and context in which commons develop(ed) and change(ed). In short: historians and other the other social scientists have clearly been following a different track, and have missed several opportunities to enrich each others work and in particular to learn from each others case studies. In this paper, I want to take a first step towards bringing both parties together, hereby concentrating in the first place on a number of definition questions that currently stand in the way of the mutual exchanges of information. The terminology that is used by the different disciplines was also influenced by their different approaches. Thereafter, I will make the differences clearer by analyzing and structuring the debate. Some of the issues dealt with will be considered by social scientists working on commons as common knowledge. The first two parts are especially meant to broaden the debate to clarify the particular difficulties when studying commons in the historical Europe, to explain the differences in approach between social scientists and historians and to introduce the case study that follows in part three. In that last part of the paper, the applicability of the theoretical analysis will be illustrated with a case study situated in Flanders. With this survey, I hope to enhance the mutual exchange of research results and methods between historiography and other social sciences and to give the debate a more interdisciplinary turn."
Participating is More Important than Winning: The Impact of Socio-Economic Change on Commoners’ Participation in Eighteenth and Nineteenth-Century Flanders
(2011) De Moor, Tine
"In literature on the use of common land, commoners are usually considered as a group. In this article the participation profile of commoners of a Flemish case-study is reconstructed in order to identify their individual motivation for using the common, in some cases becoming a manager of that common, and in some cases do no more than simply claim membership. Nominative linkage between the membership lists, book keeping and regulatory documents of the common on the one hand, and censuses and marriage acts on the other allow us to link the behaviour of the commoners to their the social-economic background. It becomes clear why some decision have been taken – e.g. to dissolve a nevertheless well-functioning cattle registration system – and how these affected the common the resource use of the common during the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. It explains how internal shifts in power balances amongst groups of active users and those who do not have the means or willingness to participate can jeopardize the internal cohesion of the commoners as a group."
The Past is Not Another Country: The Long-term Historical Development of Commons as a Source of Inspiration for Research and Policy
(2007) De Moor, Tine
"Many negative effects of human use of resources do not become visible until after lengthy periods of time, often even centuries. One could assume it therefore to be obvious to integrate long-term historical developments into case-studies on common pool resources, in particular when were trying to understand how the regulation of the use of common pool resources worked and what changes of that regulation could bring about."
Penalty and Punishment: Designing Effective Sanctions for Freeriders Behaviour on Early Modern Dutch Commons
(2012) De Moor, Tine; Tukker, Annelies
"In this paper we will explore the use of sanctioning in a number of very-long-lived commons in the Netherlands. European history provides us with examples of institutions for collective action that have managed to survive literally centuries. The longevity of the cases we study varies from 695 to 236 years. The archival sources allow us to retrieve who the commoners were (access rules), how the use of their common resources was regulated (use rules), how access and use were managed (management rules) and how the governance of the institution as a whole was arranged (governance rules). Moreover, we can include in our analyses not only the rules as such, but also analyse the type and level of the sanctions that were used to threaten and punish those who did not follow those rules. The data we have collected allow us to approach the above mentioned issues related to sanctioning in a different way. We consider the total body of rules that each of the commons we use as case-studies as the total effort the commoners spent designing the regulation of their institution. We assume that commoners wanted to keep this effort as small as possible. This approach is used to find out which aspects (access, use, management, governance) the commoners found most important to regulate, and as well, to sanction and we relate this effort to the longevity of the case-studies."
The Silent Revolution of Collective Action. The Emergence of Commons and Other Forms of Institutionalised Collective Action in the Low Countries from the Late Middle Ages Onwards
(2006) De Moor, Tine
"Commons played an important role in European history, in particular from--the year 1000 onwards. Their daily contribution was indispensable for the European agricultural system. It should not surprise then that In many countries their -forced- dissolution had an import impact on the rural (loss of income) and urban (immigration of former commoners) societies. By the early 19th century most commons in Europe--albeit not everywhere at the same speed--had been privatised. It is striking to note how long commons could function autonomously in Europe. This was not only due to their 'design' but also to the general political climate they could function in. Ostrom has in her design principles already indicated that CPRs need to be 'nested enterprises' in order to function well: their existence has to be acknowledged and recognised by the authorities. That this factor mattered can also be derived from the appearance, during the same period of the Late Middle Ages, of other forms of institutionalised collective action such as guilds, fraternities and also cities. The paper does not focus (primarily) on differences or similarities of commons across Europe but looks for those between commons and other forms of collective action. Guilds, commons and other examples can be considered as responses to social dilemmas. However, social dilemmas can be solved in many ways. The question here is why collective action was--for different social dilemmas in different settings (rural, urban)--considered as the most appropriate solution and this in large parts of Europe. Besides the acceptance of these initiatives by the local and regional authorities, other factors like the prevailing household system hereby played an important role. The peculiarity of the spread of collective action across Europe will be shown on the basis of a comparison with other parts of the world, among others China."
The Silent Revolution: The Emergence of Commons, Guilds and Other Forms of Corporate Collective Action in Western Europe from the Late Middle Ages Onwards
(2006) De Moor, Tine
"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."
A Tale of Two Commons: Some Preliminary Hypotheses on the Long-Term Development of the Commons in Western and Eastern Europe, 1000-1900
(2012) Laborda Pemán, Miguel; De Moor, Tine
"In this article we offer a broad explanatory framework for the divergence in the development of institutions for collective action, in particular commons, in Eastern and Western Europe. The latter area was particularly early with the development of collective arrangements of natural resource management. We explain on the one hand the rapid and intensive development of such institutions west of the Elbe and on the other hand the rather slow and less intensive development on the eastern side."
Three Waves of Cooperation: A Millennium of Institutions for Collective Action in European Perspective (Case-study: The Netherlands)
(2014) De Moor, Tine
"Parallel to the downward spiral in which the economy and society have seem to end up over the past few years, a very different evolution seems to be going on: new institutions arise constantly, institutions that we can describe as institutions for collective action, where cooperation and self-regulation form the jumping-off point for daily practice, with citizens taking matters into their own hands to address local problems. These institution emerge from the bottom-up, through the efforts of ordinary citizens filling in needs, throughout Europe. In the Netherlands for example, since 2005, over 300 collectives for energy were founded, aimed both at generating energy and at the collective purchase of energy from companies on the free market. Furthermore, many initiatives were established that provide healthcare - ranging from residential communities for the elderly, elderly care cooperatives, and day care centers, to cooperatives of GPs and physiotherapists. In this paper, it will be demonstrated that this development is in itself not unique but comparable to two 'waves of cooperation' in the past: one to be situation in the early modern period (1200-1600), and one in the period 1880-1920. What is most striking is that all these waves were preceded by periods of intensified market exchange and that today - contrary to what is often claimed - these new institutions should not be considered as 'symptoms' of the current crisis but rather as a reaction to the negative consequences and limitations of the functioning of the market. Notwithstanding the numerous similarities both in institutional design and causes that can be found between the three waves of cooperation, there are also a number of striking differences. The most significant difference is the shorter longevity of institutions of the second wave in comparison to the first. In the paper, the reasons for these and other differences will be explored further, with special attention on institutional design."
The Travesty of a Common: The Management and Use of a Common in Changing Flanders (18th-19th Century)
(2004) De Moor, Tine
"The problems accompanying-–but not necessarily caused by--the common use of goods have been the object of social and scientific debates since Antiquity. Commons have played a central role in the search for the optimal way in dealing with such problems. This is not surprising: until the middle of the nineteenth century the common use–mainly for agriculture- and management of land was a current practice in Europe. Common land was in most Western European countries eliminated during the 19th century 'liberalisation wave' that swept through Europe. Until then, commons had provided an important contribution to the mixed agriculture system as a whole: the cattle on the common provided fertilisation essential for the arable fields, the fuel (peat, cuttings of wood), building materials, heath and so on. With the increased external inputs (fertilisation, seeds) and the increasing specialisation and commercialisation of agriculture the necessity of the commons gradually disappeared. Notwithstanding the assumed importance of commons in history, the number of historical studies on the subject is rather limited, except for the UK-–where the privatisation (enclosures) of the commons is supposed to have had far-reaching social consequences for the users. In their study, historians have mainly focused on two aspects: the disappearance of the commons and the consequences of this for the commoners' social welfare, whereby the commoners were almost always studied as groups, not as individuals with different strategies towards the use of the commons. Researchers from the non-historical social sciences have however concentrated primarily on the effects of individual behaviour on the functioning of the common as a system of resource management and on the optimisation of management and use of common pool resources, a theme that historians have only recently discovered."