Tragedy of the Commons = Rorschach Test? (Joe)

I was just reading about water law pertaining to the use of underground water.  Making some point or another, the author invoked the tragedy of the commons, which got me to thinking -- is it an inkblot?

An initial disclaimer: I'm not smart enough to understand the game theory aspects of this, i.e., that the tragedy of the commons is a multiple-player prisoner's dilemma.  So maybe to economists it's more than just an inkblot on a Rorschach test.

For the rest of us, this is still probably one of the more well-known thought experiments out there.  Basically, of a group of farmers neighboring a common plot of grazing land, each individual prefers to allow his goats to graze on the commons, rather than keeping them on his own inadequate land, but the commons will be depleted and rendered unsuitable for grazing after we reach some sort of threshold amount of grazing.

I know I have heard conservatives use the tragedy of the commons to make the point that we need private property.  Private property is the only way the tragedy of the commons can be averted, they say.  Otherwise all the grass will be depleted and then the goats will starve, and while there might initially be a mutton-based feast, soon thereafter there will be no goat's milk, and this is no good for anyone.  Then the conservatives get together, read Ayn Rand, and sing Kumbaya.

But as someone with pretty clear liberal tendencies, my instinctive reaction is to disagree.  Ayn Rand lacks literary merit and is even less meritorious philosophically, I would say, were I actually having this conversation.  What we need is government control of the commons, with science-based regulations and monitoring, and a strict permitting system operated for the benefit of everybody.

And that's all well enough, as far as it goes.  But there's at least a third option, which my first-year torts book is trying to get me to hear; unfortunately for it, I didn't pay attention that day when we skimmed over Coase, whose theorem posits that in the absence of transaction costs, the efficient outcome will be reached irrespective of initial distribution of legal rights.  I'm not sure what a transaction cost is, so I look at my case book inquiringly.  The goats do not starve to death for lack of grass, stupid, it snaps.  Oh.  Unless of course someone wants to build a golf course, or maybe a strip mall.  But then all the goat farmers can just work at the Gap instead.

So we have, quite plausibly it seems to me, three options.  One, we need to give individuals absolute private property rights.  Two, we need some form of communism.  Or three, it doesn't matter what we do, because the market will find a way to avert tragedy.  That is, anyone can (and does) use the tragedy-of-the-commons argument to score cheap rhetorical points in order to make some sort of political claim, but at bottom, it's about as meaningful as a blot of ink, which by the way looks suspiciously like a cat climbing out of a sink.

Does that make sense, or am I missing something?  Why is it prevalant, if it's so meaningless?

Comments

[Ruchira]

That's funny, Joe. But didn't you know that economic and moral theories are Rorschach Tests?

As a person born in a Third World country, I have sometimes suspected that the Tragedy of the Commons is latter day finger wagging to keep the less prosperous of the world from sharing in the global goodies. I mean, after all the looting and pillaging of the world's resources through aggression and colonialism in the past couple of centuries by a powerful few, to suddenly start worrying about overgrazing the commons sounds like the pang of conscience brought about by the newly emerging rapaciousness of those who were deprived earlier. But that's the cynic in me. If I think soberly, I would go with the "some form of communism" bit. The market has never rescued anyone except the well heeled. Left to the market alone, the goats will certainly die and we will all be working in the Gap or the golf course, except those whose invisible hands are in our pockets.

And yes, ink blots always look like cats climbing out of a sink to me.

[Dean C. Rowan]

Coase rues the day legal scholars ever caught wind of his wispy theory. "In the absence of transaction costs" is economics talk for "in a perfect world of rainbows and daisies."

But I'm with you when it comes to the so-called commons. Three years ago I reviewed a book about "collaborative ownership" and the digital commons. Toward the end of the review (p.3 on the PDF, second column), I mused, "The concept of a commons, it appears, has something of the quality of an allegory, motivating those who study and deploy it to discern in it a heightened significance worthy of interpretation and elaboration, but ultimately failing to disclose the key by which such an interpretation would be unpacked and elucidated."

So, motion seconded, Joe. All in favor? Motion passed. The commons is a sham.

[Joe]

Wow, Dean got that motion passed in no time at all. I wish I could have imported you to some of my law review meetings, which just go on and on and everyone states and restates their positions over and over for eight million hours.