A most vivid discussion at the Commons session of Brussels Academy on the 22nd of April. Tine De Moor pleaded for terminologic hygiene : the concept ‘commons’ should be strictly reserved for resources that are 1) offered by a collective and 3) used by a collective. Philosopher Lieven De Cauter reacted by saying that however, we also need a word to describe the broad universe that is neither private nor public. For Lieven the concept ‘commons’ is a way out of our capitalist tunnel vision. At the end both agree that the concept can help to protect global goods.
Somewhere in between De Moor tells us a secret about institutions for commons: sanctioning seems to be way less important to their resilience then simple talking.
Somewhere in between De Moor tells us a secret about institutions for commons: sanctioning seems to be way less important to their resilience then simple talking.
De Moor (Utrecht University) makes a strong statement for semantic preciseness: don’t use the word ‘commons’ for no matter what; distinguish between commons and for instance sharing.
Commons, according to Tine De Moor, are not only about exchange; it is about self governance. Therefore Uber is not a common since the drivers are not a groupe but only a bunch of disconnected, unorganised individuals that do not control the system.
The sum ‘technology + economy’ is not enough to give us a common either. Technological innovation sometimes makes it more difficult to govern a common resource then before. Tine recalls an experience in Nepal, where a local community managed an irrigation system as a common pool resource. An NGO came and put concrete in the central canal in order to make it less vulnerable to dirt, more easy to clean. The result of this innovation was not that the community flourished; on the contrary, it fell apart. Since they didn’t have to clean the canal anymore, they didn’t get to together and talk to each other anymore.
Getting together and talking seems to be crucial to make a common institution resilient. People have to feel they have fair acces to resources. This does not necessarily mean equal, let alone unlimited access. Fair means equitable. People will understand that consumption is limited if they feel the distribution is organised in an equitable way. Resilience is a consequence.
De Moors own historical research on 8 very ancient commons in Holland suggests that heavy sanctioning is not at all a condition for resilience or longevity. On the whole, the commons that survived longest had far more rules that were not accompanied by a sanction than those that survived a shorter period of time. The secret of a long-lived institution seems to lie in ensuring that people meet frequently so that they internalise new rules and adjustments easily rather than threatening people with sanctions. More effort is invested in talking, explaining, coming to an agreement, then in controlling and sanctioning. This means internalisation of the rules is more important then external sanctions.
Lieven De Cauter then pleads that the commons become a very small sphere, if you stick to the definition of De Moor. Wikipedia for instance, would perhaps not be a common, because contributors never meet. De Cauter underlines the necessitiy of a concept as ‘commons’ to refer to the domain that is neither public nor private. In his view language, science, knowledge… are all common goods. So is the ecosystem. Perhaps they are not common pool resources – the ecosystem has no community, no rules - but commons just as well, or at least ‘practices of common concern’. The main question is then: how can we protect it? How ‘commoning’ it?
De Moor agrees with a distinction between ‘common’ or ‘common pool resource’ on the one hand and ‘common good’ on the other. A ‘common pool resource’ has to be a tangible resource; for goods such as the air, language or even for seeds, we can use the concept ‘common good’, or ‘open acces good’.
De Cauter emphasis the fact that, although theoretically we cannot privatise these open access goods such as air, in practice we already do. We’ve discovered ways to privatise the use of it. Some companies sell bottles of air. We sell the right to use and pollute the atmosphere (Kyoto). We’ve developped tools to do so. Therefore we should also be able to device tools that allow us to govern it as a common.
Commons as a governance regime can help to protect global goods, De Moor adds. That’s a difference with the sharing economy. Evidence shows that Uber, for instance, doesn’t lead to less cars, as commons regimes should, but to more cars!
Commons, research in progress
After the Self-City Ateliers of last year, showing a panorama of citizen’s initiatives in and around Brussels (community land trusts, repair cafés, potagers urbains, etc.), this spring, the Brussels Academy gives the floor to researchers dealing with the concept of the commons.
www.brusselsacademy.be/commons
Fridays 13/05, 20/05, 27/05*
14:30-17:00 @ Maison des Cultures Molenbeek
13/05 Lab #3 : FOOD
Confronting research approaches on food as a common.
Alessandra Manganelli (VUB-KULeuven) – Olivier De Schutter (UCL)
20/05 Lab #4: MOBILITY
Confronting research approaches on mobility as a common
Cathy Macharis (VUB), Koen Van Raemdonck (VUB)
27/05 Lab #5: SYNTHESIS & CLOSING APERO @Parkfarm (202, Boulevard du Jubilé, 1080 Molenbeek)
Stitching and combining | what common guidelines?
Moderator: Pieter Van den Broeck (KULeuven)
*Closing session and apero on 27/05 at Parkfarm
Commons, according to Tine De Moor, are not only about exchange; it is about self governance. Therefore Uber is not a common since the drivers are not a groupe but only a bunch of disconnected, unorganised individuals that do not control the system.
The sum ‘technology + economy’ is not enough to give us a common either. Technological innovation sometimes makes it more difficult to govern a common resource then before. Tine recalls an experience in Nepal, where a local community managed an irrigation system as a common pool resource. An NGO came and put concrete in the central canal in order to make it less vulnerable to dirt, more easy to clean. The result of this innovation was not that the community flourished; on the contrary, it fell apart. Since they didn’t have to clean the canal anymore, they didn’t get to together and talk to each other anymore.
Getting together and talking seems to be crucial to make a common institution resilient. People have to feel they have fair acces to resources. This does not necessarily mean equal, let alone unlimited access. Fair means equitable. People will understand that consumption is limited if they feel the distribution is organised in an equitable way. Resilience is a consequence.
De Moors own historical research on 8 very ancient commons in Holland suggests that heavy sanctioning is not at all a condition for resilience or longevity. On the whole, the commons that survived longest had far more rules that were not accompanied by a sanction than those that survived a shorter period of time. The secret of a long-lived institution seems to lie in ensuring that people meet frequently so that they internalise new rules and adjustments easily rather than threatening people with sanctions. More effort is invested in talking, explaining, coming to an agreement, then in controlling and sanctioning. This means internalisation of the rules is more important then external sanctions.
Lieven De Cauter then pleads that the commons become a very small sphere, if you stick to the definition of De Moor. Wikipedia for instance, would perhaps not be a common, because contributors never meet. De Cauter underlines the necessitiy of a concept as ‘commons’ to refer to the domain that is neither public nor private. In his view language, science, knowledge… are all common goods. So is the ecosystem. Perhaps they are not common pool resources – the ecosystem has no community, no rules - but commons just as well, or at least ‘practices of common concern’. The main question is then: how can we protect it? How ‘commoning’ it?
De Moor agrees with a distinction between ‘common’ or ‘common pool resource’ on the one hand and ‘common good’ on the other. A ‘common pool resource’ has to be a tangible resource; for goods such as the air, language or even for seeds, we can use the concept ‘common good’, or ‘open acces good’.
De Cauter emphasis the fact that, although theoretically we cannot privatise these open access goods such as air, in practice we already do. We’ve discovered ways to privatise the use of it. Some companies sell bottles of air. We sell the right to use and pollute the atmosphere (Kyoto). We’ve developped tools to do so. Therefore we should also be able to device tools that allow us to govern it as a common.
Commons as a governance regime can help to protect global goods, De Moor adds. That’s a difference with the sharing economy. Evidence shows that Uber, for instance, doesn’t lead to less cars, as commons regimes should, but to more cars!
Commons, research in progress
After the Self-City Ateliers of last year, showing a panorama of citizen’s initiatives in and around Brussels (community land trusts, repair cafés, potagers urbains, etc.), this spring, the Brussels Academy gives the floor to researchers dealing with the concept of the commons.
www.brusselsacademy.be/commons
Fridays 13/05, 20/05, 27/05*
14:30-17:00 @ Maison des Cultures Molenbeek
13/05 Lab #3 : FOOD
Confronting research approaches on food as a common.
Alessandra Manganelli (VUB-KULeuven) – Olivier De Schutter (UCL)
20/05 Lab #4: MOBILITY
Confronting research approaches on mobility as a common
Cathy Macharis (VUB), Koen Van Raemdonck (VUB)
27/05 Lab #5: SYNTHESIS & CLOSING APERO @Parkfarm (202, Boulevard du Jubilé, 1080 Molenbeek)
Stitching and combining | what common guidelines?
Moderator: Pieter Van den Broeck (KULeuven)
*Closing session and apero on 27/05 at Parkfarm
