Tragedy of the Commons

Citation

Hardin G. 1968. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-7.

Summary

Garrett Hardin addresses what he dubs “no technical solution problems.” These problems cannot be fixed by mere advances in science and technology. They require a change in people’s philosophy and values.

Specifically, Hardin discusses the issue of the growing world population, which will continue to rise exponentially in the foreseeable future. Hardin believes that the world must take steps to control its population, and that natural resources must be protected from over-exploitation, driven by individualistic, capitalist tendencies. Allowing unbridled, laissez-faire capitalism will result in what Hardin terms, “the tragedy of the commons.” This occurs because, from an individualistic perspective, there is a natural incentive to exploit natural resources. Hardin uses the example of a pasture, a common property resource. Each time a herdsman adds an additional animal to graze, he is the sole recipient of the profit. However, the environmental cost, in terms of habitat degradation or loss, is distributed to all the herdsmen grazing animals the pasture. Thus, each man is encouraged to escalate the use of the natural resource, which in the end is a self-defeating practice. Other pertinent examples of common property resources include national parks, ocean fisheries, and surface water streams and lakes.

Hardin contents that to prevent the tragedy of the commons, a population must agree to mutual coercion. Coercive tools include laws and taxes. For example, taxes force polluters to internalize the cost which they would otherwise distribute to the community by dumping industrial waste in a river. In addition, to avert tragedy, Hardin proposes that access to natural resources must be limited. Finally, and perhaps most controversially, he states that people must not be allowed unrestricted ability to reproduce, because, each person’s child requires additional resources. The costs of these resources are shared by the community. So, in effect, child bearing is another form of negative externality.

Discussion

I was surprised at how much of Hardin’s famous article dealt with population control. Though it is a controversial subject, it was refreshing to hear an academic speak out unabashedly about a subject which he himself identified as “taboo.” I think that we will have to take a hard look at many of Hardin’s ideas. Especially as the world’s population approaches seven billion people, and climate change alters weather patterns, food production, etc.

There were two quotes from the article that I wanted to comment on. First, “the morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed.” I agree with this statement, and it was interesting how Hardin pointed out how it is different from a “moral commandment.” Hardin followed this comment with a discussion on how to legislate “temperance” with respect to natural resources, and how administrative rules are implemented to do just that. I have mixed feelings about the abundance of governmental rules in this country. While I believe some of them serve important functions, I also think that having such a behemoth bureaucracy hinders our government’s efficiency, and drains taxpayer money.

A second interesting statement was, “the most important aspect of necessity that we must now recognize, is the necessity of abandoning the commons in breeding.” Dr Hardin proposed that because society shares the burden of raising a child, that reproduction cannot go on unregulated. My reaction to this is first to think of China’s “One Child” policy, which seems immoral, illegal, and dictatorial. However, it does make sense to try to force parents to “internalize” some of the external costs of child rearing. The question is, how do you accomplish this without unfair detriment to the child?