0
$\begingroup$

All this time I was thinking that common-pool resources are common goods, until I read this excerpt from a book. It is an Excerpt from a book by Elinor Ostrom

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Do "common goods", "collective goods" and "public goods" to refer to the same thing? $\endgroup$
    – Herr K.
    Sep 1 '19 at 17:19
  • $\begingroup$ The term used in your quote is "collective goods", not "common goods". $\endgroup$
    – user18
    Dec 15 '20 at 1:04
3
$\begingroup$

Common pool resources can be depleted by overuse.

For example, an area of communal grazing land would be a common pool resource because grazing too many animals decreases the amount of grass available to each animal.

Wikipedia is a common good but are not a common pool resource - reading a lot of articles on Wikipedia does not reduce the number of articles available for everyone else to read.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Can Wikipedia be considered as a Common Good? According to theory I have come across, for something to be a public good it has to be non-excludable and non-rival. For example, sunshine. Can you exclude people from enjoying sunshine? Nope. No one can be excluded. Does sunshine have any rival, that if I am using it, someone else cannot use it? Nope. Anyone can use it. So, sunshine is non-rival and non-excludable. So, it is a public good. Same goes for Wikipedia as well, that no one can be excluded from using it, and if I use Wikipedia does not mean other person cannot use it. $\endgroup$ Sep 2 '19 at 8:20
2
$\begingroup$

A useful reference is the matrix proposed by Elinor Ostrom:

enter image description here
Source: Hess & Ostrom (2007)

Common-pool resources (= Common goods, Wikipedia):
using them impacts others + exclusion is difficult (e.g. the climate)

Public goods (= Collective goods, Source):
using them does not impact others + exclusion is difficult (e.g. knowledge)

i.e. what Taylor says is that privatising the atmosphere would not resolve the collective action problem; although it would make sense given that its use is subtractable (= rivalrous) it cannot be done because exclusion is difficult.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.