--THINK AHEAD--
"I was out with my dog-walking friend yesterday, and I was shocked when he allowed his little poodle to 'take a piddle' in the public park and proceeded to wash it away with a squirt of water. He justified it by saying that such a 'teeny-weeny' sprinkle diluted with a bit of water will have no impact, right?!" "What do you think happens when every 'little poodle' owner has the same opinion?"... and "What TWO characteristics of the 'public' park made this possible?"
'COMMON POOL RESOURCES (CPRs)' are...
1) ...NATURAL RESOURCES...
2) ...NOT OWNED BY ANYONE...
3) ...AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE TO USE WITHOUT PAYMENT...
4) ...WHEN USED, LEAVES LESS FOR OTHERS.
RESOURCE: THE OPEN AIR
1) ...NATURAL RESOURCES...☑️
2) ...NOT OWNED BY ANYONE...☑️
3) ...AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE TO USE WITHOUT PAYMENT...☑️
4) ...WHEN USED, LEAVES LESS FOR OTHERS.☑️
EXAMPLE: SINGAPORE HAZE
RESOURCE: WILDLIFE
1) ...NATURAL RESOURCES...☑️
2) ...NOT OWNED BY ANYONE...☑️
3) ...AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE TO USE WITHOUT PAYMENT...☑️
4) ...WHEN USED, LEAVES LESS FOR OTHERS.☑️
EXAMPLE: THE IVORY TRADE
RESOURCE: SEALIFE
1) ...NATURAL RESOURCES...☑️
2) ...NOT OWNED BY ANYONE...☑️
3) ...AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE TO USE WITHOUT PAYMENT...☑️
4) ...WHEN USED, LEAVES LESS FOR OTHERS.☑️
EXAMPLE: SHARK FIN TRADE
RESOURCE: THE OPEN SEAS
1) ...NATURAL RESOURCES...☑️
2) ...NOT OWNED BY ANYONE...☑️
3) ...AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE TO USE WITHOUT PAYMENT...☑️
4) ...WHEN USED, LEAVES LESS FOR OTHERS.☑️
EXAMPLE: LITTERING IN THE SEA
RESOURCE: WILD RAINFOREST
1) ...NATURAL RESOURCES...☑️
2) ...NOT OWNED BY ANYONE...☑️
3) ...AVAILABLE FOR ANYONE TO USE WITHOUT PAYMENT...☑️
4) ...WHEN USED, LEAVES LESS FOR OTHERS.☑️
EXAMPLE: DEFORESTATION IN BRAZIL
Firstly, they are 'RIVALROUS' as WHEN IT IS USED/CONSUMED by one party, it REDUCES THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR OTHER parties.
Secondly, CPRs are 'NON-EXCLUDABLE' as it is NOT POSSIBLE TO EXCLUDE ANYONE FROM USING/CONSUMING them.
Most goods and resources CAN BE MADE EXCLUDABLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PRICE ATTACHED, however, CPRs have no price and hence anyone can use them without payment.
For EXAMPLE, we can't charge people for using the beach....so.....
--THINK AHEAD--
"I wish I had a bit of open sky!"
"Do you think a smoker would smoke as much if their fumes didn't go into the open air?, "What if they had to smoke in a bubble or pay to smoke into the open air?"
"So many customers thanks to nature!"
"Do you think the clear sky, vast beaches, clean, warm water, and sealife are all resources that beach sellers in Phuket, utilise to provide their services?"
"Of course not! There is no market for the 'open seas' or for the 'open air,' so these resources can't be considered 'marketable,' with prices attached, so how can we possibly define them as 'market failures'?"
"Good question!" It's not the market for the resource that has failed; rather, it's the market for goods and services that 'overuse' these resources in the process of conducting their economic activity. For example, in the case of the 'open sea,' it is 'overused' in the market for 'fish'; hence, the term 'overfished' that, when googled, gives you this...
"Overfishing is 'catching fish faster than they can reproduce,' depleting stocks and damaging marine ecosystems by disrupting food webs, reducing biodiversity,..."
"So how do we show overuse on a diagram?"
Well, from the last 'THINK AHEAD' you should have realised that the usage of these 'natural resources' are part of the productive process, and therefore when they are consumed to an extent that creates costs for others (e.g., so much pollution that it creates healthcare costs), then THIS OVERUSE CAN BE GIVEN A MONETARY VALUE' to reflect this 'EXTERNAL COST TO SOCIETY' that has been created as a consequence of this overuse and more crucially a cost that society HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COMPENSATION FOR by the producer.
In other words it is NOT FACTORED into the producers costs of production when they determine their supply curves, implying that in fact there exist TWO supply curves, one reflecting the producers private costs ('Private cost curve'), and one including these private costs plus the additional external cost ('Society's supply curve')
"So what?", Well if you think about it TWO SUPPLY CURVES implies TWO EQUILIBRIUM QUANTITIES.
If this EXTERNAL COST was given a $$$ value and ADDED TO THE FIRM'S PRIVATE COSTS, then their SUPPLY CURVE WOULD SHIFT TO THE LEFT and output would fall accordingly.
Hence we can say that the MARKET HAS FAILED to include ALL COSTS and hence has FAILED to deliver the SOCIALLY OPTIMAL ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES.
--TASK--
"Pick one of the examples above (or one of your own), and do a Google search like this... then share your findings."
The most known explanation for why users left alone with their CPR fail to manage it sustainably comes from Garret Hardin. In his essay “The Tragedy of the Commons (1968).” Below are two cartoon strips from the Garrett Hardin Society illustrating its origins.
"Watch the video below and explain why the chicken farmer is willing to manage his production while the tuna fishermen are not?"
SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION refers to PRODUCTION THAT USES RESOURCES AT A RATE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO REPRODUCE THEMSELVES so that they DO NOT BECOME DEGRADED OR DEPLETED become degraded or depleted. For example, not fishing pregnant or juvenile fish.
--TASK--
"Watch the video below and take notes on the methods used to to conserve the lobster population in Maine", "Do you think they have any incentive to break the rules?"
Next, Google 'maine lobster fishing regulations', and list all the regulations. Possibly make this your RWE for CPR policy-questions.
--THINK AHEAD--
"In school you are moved from classroom to classroom for each subject, so keeping the classroom clean and tidy is not your top priority, as you barely spend time there, leading to gradual deterioration, but do you think you would look after the classroom better if you had your own desk and teachers came to you rather than the other way around?"
According to the tragedy of the commons, environmental destruction is purely a by-product of people’s indifference toward the environment because they are self-interested beings?
Are there situations when people do not display the narrow self-interested behaviour assumed by standard economic theory?
If so, what are the implications, and what would be the appropriate policy responses?
These are the kinds of questions posed by Elinor Ostrom, an American political scientist who became the first woman to receive the Nobel Prize in Economics (2009) for her work on the management of common access resources. In one of her major works, Ostrom writes that her central question
She concluded that people often behave co-operatively rather than competitively, and this has very important policy implications. Sometimes, the best method of preserving common access resources is by allowing the resource users themselves to manage them, rather than through centralised government interference.