Glenn Fleishman"The Tragedy of the Commons" was written by a eugenicist and was effectively debunked as ahistorical fantasy decades ago. More propaganda in the service of privatizing public space and resources. Pass it on. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/the-tragedy-of-the-tragedy-of-the-commons/
Daniel Hakimi@glennf Well, more like, it is relevant economic theory, but only when viewed on a grid of the theoretical extremes of rivalrousness and excludability, which also expounds on the cases where many goods should or can be public goods. And then you have to realize that rivalry is a more complex concept in reality, and that excludability is better thought of in terms of exclusion *costs* rather than *possibility*, and then think of externalities and social cost, to really make sense of the concept.
Kathy E. Gill 🇺🇦Rivalry and excludability are not theoretical extremes. Modern example in the US: most Interstate highways. The challenge of not managing that commons is obvious during rush hour.
I don’t see how externalities play into a public good unless you mean that no one personally bears the cost of degradation.
@kegill @glennf I'm confused. A highway is a great example of something that's somewhat rival (two people van use it just as easily as one, but as traffic increases beyond a certain point, each new car starts to reduce others' enjoyment of the highway) and excludable given an excludability cost (setting up toll booths and slowing traffic) and social cost (externality) (as more cars drive longer distances faster, they damage the environment). Are you *trying* to make my point for me?
Your post framed the commons as a “extreme” theoretical concept.
Public goods (aka “a commons”) are rival and NON-excludable.
Interstates without tolls are public goods. So are public parks; national forests. The oceans. The air.
I5 in Seattle from about 3:30-6:30, M-F, of a commons w/a tiny bit of theoretical management. The risk of a ticket when violating the car pool lane is only a mild deterrent More people want to use the commons than its capacity.
@kegill @glennf Interstates are excludable. Didn't we just talk about how interstates are excludable? Didn't *you* just acknowledge how interstates are excludable, by taking the time to specify that we weren't excluding people from this one.
I also pointed out that framing interstates as non-rivalrous is a dramatic oversimplification. They have limited capacity, and as more people drive on them, not only does a safe speed decrease, but accident rates increase and wear and tear increases.
No.
Interstates that have no tolls are NOT excludable.
They are, however, rival.
As is any public good for which there are no barriers to use.
@kegill @glennf I think you're confusing "excludable" with "exclusive." Excludable doesn't mean that there are barriers, it means that we are cabable of building barriers. Hence the -able. The classic example is national defense. I can't stop a bomb from landing on my house but let the bomb land on my neighbor's house because he didn't pay. We can't stop an invasion for me but not for him. The military can serve us all or serve none of us. We have no clear mechanism for exclusion.