Article Review: The Tragedy of the Commons

Article entitled The Tragedy of the Commonswritten by Garret Hardin broadly talks about the phenomenon of the human population which is increasing day by day, however, it is not directly proportional to the resources that exist in the world to meet the needs of this population. As Thomas Malthus said, Hardin compared population growth to a geometric progression (1,2,4,8…), while resource growth is the same as an arithmetic progression (1,2,3,4,5…). Which means, the number of people living on earth continues to grow amid the growth of limited resources.

Just like the title of the article he wrote, tragedy, according to Hardin all the resources in the world will end in tragedy. Hardin provides an example by asking his readers to imagine an open meadow. These prairies are what Hardin refers to as shared resources or commons. Hardin said a tragedy would occur once the herdsmen found out that their livestock could freely eat grass in the fields. Herders will start arriving with their livestock too. The next day, the herdsmen came again with more livestock. The arrival of herdsmen and livestock will continue to be repeated and the number will continue to increase until finally the grass in the meadow runs out, ending up extinct because it can no longer bear the burden of the livestock population.

Hardin said the reason the herders brought as many livestock as possible to the pasture was because each individual had the freedom and tendency to maximize something that they felt would directly benefit their lives. Then, individuals also tend to think, if the pasture is used up or damaged, all the shepherds will suffer the consequences together--running out of livestock together. It is at this point that the story of tragedy or unhappiness emerges, namely when the addition of activity to resources ends in loss to all.

Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limit. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons.

This illustration of shepherds, livestock, and the destruction of grasslands is an example of how an increase in the human population will destroy the world's resources. According to Hardin, the freedom of a person to reproduce and exploit resources to fulfill individual interests will eventually lead to the destruction felt by many people.

While reading Hardin's writings about population and resource destruction, what came to my mind were films Avengers: Infinity wars. Thanos, one of the antagonist characters in the Marvel film, wants 50 percent of the population in the universe to become extinct. The reason Thanos carried out his evil plan was because the universe had limited resources, while the population continued to grow. Much like Hardin, according to Thanos, this overpopulation problem is doomed. For Thanos, killing half the world's population will make the other half of the population safe and prosperous by maximizing existing resources.

In contrast to Thanos, for Hardin this problem of population and resource destruction falls into categories 'no technical solution' alias can not be solved with technical solutions. “They think that farming the seas, or developing new strains of wheat will solve the problem—technologically. The problem cannot be solved in a technical way, any more than can the problem of winning the game of tick-tack-toe," Hardin said.

According to Hardin, the only possible way to reduce or at least reduce the impact of the crisis is to reduce or eliminate this freedom. Hardin then came up with an idea about the role of the government to regulate this freedom or the transfer of ownership of these resources to become resource ownership (privatization). Then another idea emerged, namely issuing a coercive regulation or tax mechanism for users of these resources. Without these rules, the resource will end up being destroyed.

Unfortunately, Hardin's solution above is not as effective as Thanos' solution. Even though it has been implemented in many places, it is not entirely an effective solution. The crisis of deforestation, fish crisis, and various forms of struggles and conflicts over resources in Indonesia are evidence of the powerlessness of managing resources through the state.

Criticism of tragedy of commons – Hardin also came, one of Hardin's most famous critics is Elnor Ostrom. She is an American economist who received the Nobel Prize in economics in 2009. The first criticism Ostrom made against Hardin was that the grasslands Hardin illustrated did not exist in the real world. According to Ostrom, it would be more appropriate to call Hardin's prairie free access and shared resources (commons),

Ostrom said, in the real world what he called commons it always has a limit. This limit is regulated by a group of people who are the managers of the commons. These limits are determined through various rules and aim to create equality of use by its members. These limitations and rules also ensure the sustainability of these shared resources.

Apart from that, Ostrom also considered that the solution provided by Hardin, namely that the management of resources should be left to the state and the private sector, was wrong. This is because Hardin's theory ignores the existence of various community institutions that function to manage the utilization of these resources. In fact, the commons itself means joint ownership, he recognizes collective ownership, not without ownership or free.

Ostrom and many other researchers have proven the role of the community in structuring these shared resources through decades of research. One of his famous books contains the success of community groups in resource management entitled 'Governing the Commons'. In this book, Ostrom documents various successful examples of community groups in Switzerland, Japan, and the Philippines in managing natural resources collectively.

Ostrom emphasized that in managing community-based shared resources, there are 8 principles that must be applied. These eight principles aim to ensure that shared resources can be managed in a sustainable and fair manner. The first is to clearly define group boundaries. Second, adapting the rules regarding the use of public resources to local needs and conditions. Third, all those affected by the rule must be ensured that they can participate in modifying the rule.

Fourth, outside authorities or the government must respect the rules made by the community. Fifth, managers must create a system that monitors the behavior of each member, and it is carried out by managing members as well. Sixth, there must be gradual sanctions for violators of the rules. Seventh, there must be affordable and inexpensive means to resolve disputes. Eighth or finally, the community must be able to build responsibility for managing shared resources at the lowest level of community ties so that all systems can be interconnected.

In closing, Ostrom concluded that the community was not like the herders like Hardin had suggested. They can be invited to discuss, work together, form rules collectively to protect the resources they have. Communities are not creatures that only think about themselves and have the common sense to consider the sustainability of resources.

References:

Hardins, Garrett. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science, New Series, Vol. 162, No 3589. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Ostrom, Elinor. 2011. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press.
https://geotimes.co.id/kolom/tragedi-hardin-kritik-ostrom-dan-demokrasi-indonesia/
https://www.onthecommons.org/magazine/elinor-ostroms-8-principles-managing-commmons