Commoning
Promoting collective management of resources to create new economic, ecological, and cultural values
Communal organisation and collective use of resources have long been part of the economic life of rural communities around the world. In recent years, these practices have been increasingly associated with the notions of “commons” and “commoning”, which are inspired by the research work of political scientist Elinor Ostrom. She argued that common resources can be well-managed by communities that benefit the most from them and that their regulation should be addressed at the local level, through collaborations with community associations, local authorities, and other Non-Profit Organisations (NPO). 1
''Commoning'' is...
An alternative cooperative governing approach
The involvement of community is a key factor to the success of the commoning approach and therefore contrasts against the state-led and market-led systems in managing resources.
Ostrom listed eight pre-conditions for a successful commons:
A social process and practice
While many have applied the concept of Ostrom’s commons in rural revitalisation, sociologist Jeong supplements Ostrom’s theory with new approaches that address the social changes of the 21st century. These concepts can help us gain a better understanding on how commons evolve over time and how commoning initiatives can be more effective in our contemporary society. 2
Jeong proposes the following terms to refer to how commons were modernised and restructured economically around the world in the late 19th to mid-20th centuries:
The process of a resource being converted into a jointly-used resource under a communal management by a community.
The process of a jointly used resource losing its essential characteristics as commons. Due to the influence of capitalism, and the privatisation and enclosure of commons over the 20th century, this process is quite commonplace all over the world.
The process through which the relationship between humans and resources is reconstructed in modern capitalist society. While the characteristics of this type of commons may have changed, they share the same cooperative principles.
Commonisation and decommonisation processes are less relevant in contemporary commoning initiatives. Recommonisation however has proven to be vital as they are the results of emergent social processes that call for the construction of new commons, are based on past practices, represent a renewed understanding of and aspiration in resource management and shared values.
Types of commons
Scholars Emil Sandström, Ann-Kristin Ekman and Karl-Johan Lindholm defined three main types of commons that represent most forms of collectiveness3 but their divisions are not mutually exclusive:
Before the industrial revolution, production commons was essential for places that relied on natural resources for making a living, as it helped solve issues such as resource scarcity, over-extraction, and sustaining rural livelihood. While most villagers no longer make their living primarily from these commons, some of them still retain important meanings to local communities It is sometimes recommonised into new commons.
EXAMPLES: forests, pastures, fish ponds
Most of these were developed under the new economic conditions of the 20th century aiming at modernising rural life. It is established to address shared social and economic interests of villagers. Its organisation is formal, addressing official matters and formulating plans of action. Associations meet regularly to manage common concerns and may occasionally draw in outside partners.
EXAMPLES: village associations, local committees
It refers to commons that is related to lineage, kinship, and ownership of place, and carry important symbolic meaning and value for villagers. It comes in many forms and is often connected with historical and cultural narratives that are important in shaping village identities and internal social relations.
EXAMPLES: historical monuments, community gathering spaces
Roles of governments and external organisations
Based on Ostrom’s theory, Anthony and Campbell explored different ways in which governments and other institutional partners may help to facilitate the commons.4 Instead of assuming positions of leadership and control, governments can play important supportive roles in facilitating interactions between community stakeholders to encourage trust-building and community leadership.
Examples of positive government involvements:
- Provide legitimacy to the management of commons, ensuring that they fit local conditions and customs
- Monitor resource use and provide platforms for conflict resolutions
- Provide consensus-oriented forums for discussions (research shows that this could help participants develop shared views and common interests, and regulation is less controversial and more effective)
With the concept of Commoning, we believe our community-led village revitalisation model can reshape resource systems in a way that will create new economic, ecological, and cultural values. Treating Commoning as a social process and emphasising villagers’ needs and aspirations are essential to the success of the model.
Reference
1 Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763.
2 Jeong, Young Sin. (2018). From Decommonisation to Re-commonisation. Development and Society, 47(2), pp 169-194.
3 Sandström, E., Ekman, A.-K., & Lindholm, K.-J. (2017). Commoning in the periphery – The role of the commons for understanding rural continuities and change. International Journal of the Commons, 11(1), pp508–531. doi: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.729
4 Anthony, D. L., & Campbell, J. L. (2011). States, social capital and cooperation: looking back on ‘Governing the Commons’. International Journal of the Commons, 5(2), pp 284–302. doi: http://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.250.
