In simple words, the tragedy of commons could be described as individuals working for self-interest and ignoring the needs of society. For example, there is a meadow that is utilized by the farmers of the countryside. The meadow can serve 20 cows in any season. If a farmer increases his number of cows from 2 to 10, this will put negative effect on other 18 cows as their resources will be over utilized. The farmer being aware of this situation does not think about the well being of all the farmers or cows, but only protects his personal interest. After some time, even the greedy farmer’s cows will not have enough grass for them, and the combine resources would get depleted. The theory is an effective concept in understanding the economical and environmental behaviors specifically the Sustainable development.
The idea was first published by William Foster Lloyd in 1833, in which he described the concept by giving an example of common land that is used for the purpose of food for shepherd’s animals. In this example he argues that as sheep eats grass more than a cow, every increasing sheep would be feeding at a cost of entire herd’s food. The concept was developed and published by Garret Hardin in 1968 in the journal “Science”.
The tragedy can be seen around us in many ways. One such example is the public roads. The government normally does not charge toll on every road. The commuters can use any road at any time without having to pay any extra fund. The result is congestions at road causing traffic jams and road blockages. The resultant devastating effects has to be faced by all the travelers. Had the roads been privately owned, and the owners would have adopted a charging strategy at peak times, the result would have been different. (Ostrom, 2002)
The dilemma is not only evident in common individuals, but the governments and corporate public firms could also be a victim of it. This could be seen in the Savings and Loan crisis in the United States between the periods of 1986 to 1995. The government created the tragedy by making a policy decision that depositors in S&L account would be paid by taxpayer's money if an S&L institute went broke. The results were devastated because this enable S&L Institutes to go with riskier investments as they we less worried about the deposited funds. The Depositors, on the other hand, were insured by government; hence they did not care about the nature of investments. The decision led to a serious crisis and a large number of S&L institutes failed. The loss was “commonized” by taxpayers’ money with serious threats to the federal budget.
Scientist and researchers have worked on the factors behind the dilemma. According to ideas devised by various groups of researchers, there are a number of factors that become the reason behind such behavior where a selfish stance is maintained at the cost of other’s interests. There are psychological factors involve when an individual or a group indulges in self-interest hurting others needs. The notion of insecurity is dominant here although even the acting person is aware that the benefits cannot be ripped for longer. Lack of knowledge and social norms is another contributing factor. It had been observed that when the individuals and groups had knowledge regarding the dilemma they restrained from increasing or taking part in it. Such can be seen in the recent situation of nuclear disaster in Japan when individuals voluntarily rationed their consumption of utilities without any external force. (Milinski, Semmann & Krambeck, 2002)
Whether the tragedy of commons could be controlled is a topic of heated debate. In the case of environment and preservation of natural resources, the question becomes more important. Nature is a common for all, its components Oceans, rivers, trees, Minerals and natural resources are the commons that are utilized by all the creatures on Planet earth. The dumping of waste into oceans is one of the alarming matters. As no one owns the earth, it is easier to use it as a dumping ground. Companies and even nations are reluctant to use the standard procedure for waste dumps as these procedures are expensive and involve considerable cost. Any individual but nations will not bear the devastating outcomes will collectively pay for the tragedy.
Solution to the dilemma has been one of the most sought after answers in modern political and economical philosophy. (Gersani, O'Brien, Maina, Abramsky & others, 2001). Various steps have been taken by governments and states to safeguard the interest of the commons such as only government permitted institutions or firms can indulge in the utilization of common economic resources like mining, fishing, extraction of wood and hunting. Some more conservative steps have also been taken such as privatizing the common good. This will have the effect of being saved by those who own those common goods. The People’s Republic of China has gone one step further by restricting the reproductive rights to save its residents from the tragedy of commons.
References
Gersani, M., O'Brien, E., Maina, G., Abramsky, Z., & others,. (2001). Tragedy of the commons as a result of root competition. Journal Of Ecology, 89(4), 660--669.
Milinski, M., Semmann, D., & Krambeck, H. (2002). Reputation helps solve the ‘tragedy of the commons’. Nature, 415(6870), 424--426.
Ostrom, E. (2002). The drama of the commons (1st ed.). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
