The Tragedy of the Commons and Government Regulation
Bill Falzett
December 11, 2006
Experience shows us that in any group there are some who push the limits. You could call them competitive, energetic, creative, cheaters, or idealists. This phenomenon is a regular topic with social research. Garrett Hardin described the “tragedy of the commons” in 1968. The prototype is a village of fewer than 150 people that has common pastureland for their animals. As long as the group uses the pasture wisely, the animals and the village prosper. However, as soon as someone decides to push the limits or there is a competition for who is to be the most prosperous, the animal load on the pasture increases. The pasture becomes insufficient to support the villagers. They suffer in the absence of reasonable oversight – hence, the “tragedy of the commons”.
Villages all over our planet have encountered this dilemma throughout history. Two factors help villagers manage the commons – openness and consequences for those who misuse. In the small village these factors would suffice to protect. When villages united to become states or nations, we used governments to deal with the commons. In a democracy, the people decided to give over some of their power to elected officials to help with this management through laws and regulations.
Some economists have proposed a theory that says if everyone would pursue their self interest in a way that does not intrude on others; we would have an ideal economy. This is the basis for the so-called free-market economy. The government should let business self-regulate. The irony of the position is that most of the folks proposing it call others idealistic for expecting the government to “take care of us”. They believe that business will regulate itself. Their free-market theory, I suggest, is the utopian one. It can’t really happen because some of the businesses and the people who run them will bend the rules to profit when they can.
There are too many of us who will step over the line – whatever or wherever the line is. – We will do so for a whole spectrum of reasons and justifications – some warranted, some creative, some based on self interest alone. We will do so if there is not regulation by a body that has the power to sanction and punish wrongdoing. Even if there were only a few of us who transgressed, we would still need regulation to protect the common wealth for all of us subject to our review and discussion. Simply speaking, most of us are too busy making a living to pay attention to all the details required to regulate. We need trusted specialists to do those jobs.
A simple example will demonstrate the form of the problem. How many of us really know that the dangerous form of E-Coli originates most often in the intestines of grain-fed cattle? If you read recent stories in the news, you probably think that E-Coli comes from green onions or lettuce. Should you check further, you will probably find a cattle operation as the culprit. Now, who is supposed to know that? Who is supposed to regulate and protect us from E-Coli outbreaks? Who should be telling us about the problem and what’s being done about it? The answers are the government and the media. These two institutions are supposed to protect and inform. If the first doesn’t do its job, the second is supposed to expose that.
That protection and reporting doesn’t seem to be happening. Why? We the people should be asking pointed questions of the administration, our representatives, the FDA, and the press even if they are trusted. I suspect that the reasons for the fogginess in this and in many other areas rest with big business and government-of/by/for-the-lobbyists. They believe that we the people won’t pursue these issues; we’ll forget. Are they right? Democracy needs regulatory bodies who do their jobs and people who demand that they do so. We should also demand openness and discussion with reasonable consequences for wrongdoing. Governmental regulation for the common good and the safety of the people is a good thing. It should be supported and expected by all of us.
Villages all over our planet have encountered this dilemma throughout history. Two factors help villagers manage the commons – openness and consequences for those who misuse. In the small village these factors would suffice to protect. When villages united to become states or nations, we used governments to deal with the commons. In a democracy, the people decided to give over some of their power to elected officials to help with this management through laws and regulations.
Some economists have proposed a theory that says if everyone would pursue their self interest in a way that does not intrude on others; we would have an ideal economy. This is the basis for the so-called free-market economy. The government should let business self-regulate. The irony of the position is that most of the folks proposing it call others idealistic for expecting the government to “take care of us”. They believe that business will regulate itself. Their free-market theory, I suggest, is the utopian one. It can’t really happen because some of the businesses and the people who run them will bend the rules to profit when they can.
There are too many of us who will step over the line – whatever or wherever the line is. – We will do so for a whole spectrum of reasons and justifications – some warranted, some creative, some based on self interest alone. We will do so if there is not regulation by a body that has the power to sanction and punish wrongdoing. Even if there were only a few of us who transgressed, we would still need regulation to protect the common wealth for all of us subject to our review and discussion. Simply speaking, most of us are too busy making a living to pay attention to all the details required to regulate. We need trusted specialists to do those jobs.
A simple example will demonstrate the form of the problem. How many of us really know that the dangerous form of E-Coli originates most often in the intestines of grain-fed cattle? If you read recent stories in the news, you probably think that E-Coli comes from green onions or lettuce. Should you check further, you will probably find a cattle operation as the culprit. Now, who is supposed to know that? Who is supposed to regulate and protect us from E-Coli outbreaks? Who should be telling us about the problem and what’s being done about it? The answers are the government and the media. These two institutions are supposed to protect and inform. If the first doesn’t do its job, the second is supposed to expose that.
That protection and reporting doesn’t seem to be happening. Why? We the people should be asking pointed questions of the administration, our representatives, the FDA, and the press even if they are trusted. I suspect that the reasons for the fogginess in this and in many other areas rest with big business and government-of/by/for-the-lobbyists. They believe that we the people won’t pursue these issues; we’ll forget. Are they right? Democracy needs regulatory bodies who do their jobs and people who demand that they do so. We should also demand openness and discussion with reasonable consequences for wrongdoing. Governmental regulation for the common good and the safety of the people is a good thing. It should be supported and expected by all of us.
Print
Email
