Who Owns the Commons?

Three modes of collective property — and why the hinge between open access and common property is one of the most consequential distinctions in institutional economics.

▶ Play video

Video: Ashley Hodgson / Institutional Economics

The word "commons" has a hidden split.

When people say "the commons," they usually mean one of two very different things — and confusing them is one of the most common errors in policy reasoning. Garrett Hardin's 1968 paper "The Tragedy of the Commons" described fish being depleted, pastures being overgrazed, aquifers being drained. He concluded that shared resources are structurally doomed unless privatized or nationalized. The paper launched a generation of policy. It was also, in a critical way, describing the wrong thing.

Hardin was describing what Ashley Hodgson calls open access property — resources that nobody owns and nobody manages. He called it "the commons," but Eleanor Ostrom, who won the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics in part for correcting this error, showed that what Hardin described is not what historical communities meant by common property. Real commons — what Ostrom called common property — have governance. They have rules about who can use the resource, when, how much, and what happens if those rules are violated. The tragedy that Hardin described happens to open access, not to managed commons.

This five-minute video is a clean map of that distinction — and a useful starting point for thinking about any resource that multiple parties share.

Old models, clarified.

The video's most direct reinforcement is of incentive alignment. Open access property creates a classic misalignment: the individual benefit of using more of the resource accrues fully to the user, while the cost of overuse is distributed across everyone. There is no mechanism to close the loop. Hodgson describes this as the defining feature of open access — nobody owns it, nobody manages it, rights are unspecified. The incentive to defect is structural, not personal. The tragedy follows not from selfishness but from a governance vacuum.

Ostrom's work amplifies emergence: the surprising finding that groups facing shared-resource problems often develop governance institutions without being directed to by a central authority. The medieval villages Ostrom studied did not wait for a government to create property rights in their fisheries and forests. They created them through repeated interaction, graduated sanctions, and collective rule-making. The institutions that emerged look like property rights. They function like property rights. But they arose from the bottom, not from above.

And the video quietly reinforces spectrum thinking over binary classification. Hodgson notes that a community managing common property might elect officials — which starts to look like a government. The difference is the degree of distributed participation in rule-making and enforcement. Common property and public property are not categories; they are regions on a spectrum from fully distributed governance to fully centralized authority. Most real institutions sit somewhere in between.

Models that do not survive intact.

The clearest casualty is Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons" as a universal principle. The video doesn't attack it directly, but its taxonomy makes the limitation unmistakable: the tragedy describes open access, not commons. When people use Hardin to argue for privatization or nationalization of shared resources, they are implicitly arguing that managed commons are impossible. Ostrom's evidence — drawn from centuries of functioning irrigation systems, fisheries, forests, and grazing lands — says they are not only possible but common.

The second casualty is the private/public binary as an exhaustive typology. Most policy debates about resource management assume two poles: private ownership (market-governed) and public ownership (state-governed). Hodgson's taxonomy introduces a third: communal ownership with distributed governance. This third mode has different properties from either. It can be more resilient than markets (when market failure concentrates externalities) and more adaptive than states (when the community has local knowledge the state lacks). Missing it as a category produces systematically bad policy recommendations.

Finally, government as default solution weakens as an assumption. The conventional response to an unmanaged shared resource is regulatory intervention: create a government agency, establish rules, enforce them with state authority. Ostrom's documented cases suggest this is often the second-best solution — superior to open access, but inferior to well-functioning common property governance when the community has the knowledge, scale, and trust to self-organize.

New entries for the latticework.

The most useful addition is Excludability as the Hinge: the insight that the critical variable in shared resource governance is not who owns the resource but whether it can be governed at all — and the governing mechanism is excludability. Can you keep unauthorized users out? If yes, you can define rules and enforce them. If no, you cannot. The policy question "who should own this?" is downstream of the prior question "can this resource be excluded?" Open access properties cannot be effectively managed precisely because they cannot be excluded.

The second new entry is Ostrom's Third Way: the design principle that well-functioning common property institutions require congruence between the rules and local conditions, participation by affected parties in rule modification, and graduated sanctions that start light and escalate. These conditions are not automatic — they require institutional design. But when they exist, they produce resource sustainability that neither markets nor states reliably generate. The third way is not a compromise; it is a distinct governance mode with its own logic.

The third is Governance Spectrum Thinking: the practice of locating any institution on the spectrum from fully distributed (pure common property, all members govern) to fully centralized (pure public property, state governs), rather than classifying it as one or the other. Most real institutions — HOAs, watershed councils, co-operatives, industry self-regulatory bodies — sit in the middle. Understanding where on the spectrum and what dynamics push institutions left or right (toward more or less centralization) is a more precise analytic than the binary.

When to reach for which.

After the taxonomy.

Eleanor Ostrom spent decades documenting governance institutions that mainstream economics said shouldn't work. She found them in Swiss alpine villages managing summer pasture, Japanese fishing villages allocating coastal waters, Maine lobstermen dividing territorial rights. The institutional designs varied enormously. The underlying logic — congruence, participation, graduated sanctions, nested governance — was surprisingly stable.

Collectively as a community they had to figure out: what are the rules for governing this property, who can use it, when can they use it, how do we enforce that. — Ashley Hodgson

The latticework gains from this video a sharper handle on a concept most people think they understand. Open access is not a synonym for shared. Common property is not a synonym for government. And the tragedy Hardin described has a known solution — one that neither requires privatization nor state authority, but does require something harder to mandate: a community capable of governing itself.