|
Abstract:
|
"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."
|