Coping with Asymmetries in the Commons: Self-Governing Irrigation Systems Can Work

dc.contributor.authorOstrom, Elinoren_US
dc.contributor.authorGardner, Royen_US
dc.date.accessioned2009-07-31T14:54:40Z
dc.date.available2009-07-31T14:54:40Z
dc.date.issued1993en_US
dc.date.submitted2007-10-11en_US
dc.date.submitted2007-10-11en_US
dc.description.abstract"Common-pool resources are natural or man-made resources where exclusion is difficult, and yield is subtractable (Gardner, E. Ostrom, and Walker, 1990). They share the first attribute with pure public goods; the second attribute, with pure private goods. Millions of common-pool resources exist in disparate natural settings, ranging in scale from small inshore fisheries, irrigation systems, and pastures to the vast domains of the oceans and the biosphere. "The first attribute - difficulty of exclusion - stems from many factors, including the cost of parceling or fencing the resource and the cost of designing and enforcing property rights to exclude access to the resource. If exclusion is not accomplished by the design of appropriate institutional arrangements, free-riding related to the provision of the common-pool resource can be expected. After all, what rational actor would help to provide the maintenance of a resource system, if noncontributors can gain the benefits just as well as contributors? The extent to which a common-pool resource will be provided is a complicated problem, depending on how preferences are articulated, aggregated, and linked to the mobilization of resources. "The second attribute - subtractability - is the key to understanding the dynamics of how the 'tragedy of the commons' can occur. The resource units (like acre-feet of water, tons of fish, or bundles of fodder) that one person appropriates from a common-pool resource are not available to others. Unless institutions change the incentives facing appropriators, one can expect substantial overappropriation. For example, those who fish from a lake derive all the benefit from catching additional fish. However, the depletion of the fishery is a cost shared with other fishermen. The private gain is thus very likely to overbalance any single fisherman's share of the social loss. Or, to put it another way, no single fisherman can prevent depletion of the fishery by restricting his personal catch. The fishery is thus likely to be pushed to the brink of extinction unless institutions counteract these incentives."en_US
dc.identifier.citationjournalThe Journal of Economic Perspectivesen_US
dc.identifier.citationmonthSeptemberen_US
dc.identifier.citationnumber4en_US
dc.identifier.citationvolume7en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10535/2869
dc.subjectirrigationen_US
dc.subjectcommon pool resourcesen_US
dc.subjectself-governanceen_US
dc.subjectgame theoryen_US
dc.subjectWorkshopen_US
dc.subject.sectorWater Resource & Irrigationen_US
dc.submitter.emailaurasova@indiana.eduen_US
dc.titleCoping with Asymmetries in the Commons: Self-Governing Irrigation Systems Can Worken_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.type.publishedpublisheden_US

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
R93-17_corrected original.pdf
Size:
1.6 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:

Collections