The University as Constructed Cultural Commons [forthcoming, Wash. U. J.L. & Policy] Michael J. Madison, University of Pittsburgh Brett M. Frischmann,

The University as

Constructed Cultural Commons

[forthcoming, Wash. U. J.L. & Policy]

Michael J. Madison, University of

Pittsburgh Brett M. Frischmann, Loyola University

Chicago Katherine J. Strandburg, New York

University

Law and NIE Workshop, Boulder, CO June 4-5, 2009

Ideas Behind the Constructed Commons FrameworkThe Constructed Commons Framework Applied: Buckets of Questions and the University CaseWhere Feedback Will Help Most

[1] Understanding the mechanics of common pool institutions as solutions to public goods problems for cultural / knowledge / information goods

[2] A foundation to be applied and refined via case studies

[3] Alternatives to private rights solutions and government provision solutions

[4] Inspired by Elinor Ostrom on natural resources commons

[5] Notable differences between natural resources and knowledge or cultural goods

[6] Integrating questions based on economics and analysis with questions based on historical inquiry and narrative


[1] History [2] Resources and entitlements

definitions [3] Institutional structures [4] Enabling and disabling law [5] Governance [6] Interfaces between

inside/outside [7] The benefits of commons [8] The costs of commons Nb. [a] Nested institutions and/or [b] Macro and micro questions



[1] What makes the commons framework more or less fruitful?

[2] What are important omissions and ambiguities in the commons framework?

[3] What are important omissions and ambiguities in the style of analysis represented in the university case?

[4] Do we want to achieve flexibility that accommodates non-Western models, and if so, how?

Documents

The University as Constructed Cultural Commons [forthcoming, Wash. U. J.L. & Policy] Michael J. Madison, University of Pittsburgh Brett M. Frischmann,