Johannes Euler, M.Sc.

“Fortschrittskolleg NRW: Future Water”Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities

Commons-Institut e.V.

1st Thematic Conference on Urban Commons International Association for the Study of the Commons

Bologna, Italy

Nov. 6, 2015

Commoning:

Core Determinant for Commons

2 / 22

Outline

• Introduction

• Goods Classification– Description, Critique, Alternative

• Good or Resource?

• Commons

• Commoning• Commons-Projects• Conclusion

3 / 22

Commons = CPR ?

E. Ostrom (2002: 215ff.)

4 / 22

Conventional Classification

High Subtractability of Use Low Subtractability of Use

High Excludability Private Good Toll / Club Good

Low Excludability CPR / Common Good Public / Collective Good

Adams & McCormick (1987: 192); E. Ostrom (2010: 645)

“the costliness of exclusion is not a function of the nature of the good,

but rather depends on how the good is supplied and at what level it is produced”

(Cowen 1985: 61)

5 / 22

Classification of Goods: Critique I

Cowen (1985: 53ff.)

Excludability and/or Subtactability depend on:

(a) what technology is used to produce that good,

(b) how much of the good is produced,

(c) the distribution mechanism for the good,

(d) how intense the demand is for the good,

(e) how we define the marginal unit of the good,

(f) what sort of activities we are willing to define as 'consumption', and

(g) the different meanings we are willing to attach to the notion of exclusion.

6 / 22

Classification of Goods: Critique II

It's not inside the goods,

not a natural characteristic.

What matters is how we relate to these things.

Euler (2015)

7 / 22

Classification of Goods: Critique III

In principle, everything could be private, commercial or state-run!

High Subtractability of Use Low Subtractability of Use

High Excludability Private Gardening Propretarian Software

Low Excludability Commercial Irrigation System

State-run Radio

Euler (2015)

8 / 22

Classification of Goods: Critique IV

And everything could be a commons!

The social practice is what matters!

High Subtractability of Use Low Subtractability of Use

High Excludability Urban Gardening Free Software

Low Excludability Community-run Irrigation System

Free Radio

Euler (2015)

9 / 22

Alternative Classification I

What benefit such a classification can be remains to be seen.

Highly subtractive Use Neutral or Additive Use

Highly Exclusive Private Good Toll / Club Good

Highly Inclusive Common Good Open-Access Good

10 / 22

Are Commons Goods ?

Things become goods when somebody finds something good.

This is purely subjective and not observable.

There is no direct link to objective properties.

Inclusion of intersubjectively defined propertiesBrodbeck (2009: 760ff.)

11 / 22

Are Commons Resources ?

Formerly: re-source = continuously rising spring

Now: “any material or conditions existing in nature which may be capable of economic exploitation” (Meeker 1987, as cited in Shiva 1992: 206)

Manifestation of the exploitative and dominating relation of humans towards nature

Shiva (1992: 206ff.)

12 / 22

Alternative Classification II

What benefit such a classification can be remains to be seen.

Highly subtractive Use Neutral or Additive Use

Highly Exclusive Private Matter Toll / Club Matter

Highly Inclusive Common Matter Open-Access Matter

13 / 22

Commons = Social Form ...

14 / 22

… of Matter ...

… not merely Goods

… not merely Resources

… not merely Products

… but of Matter (tangible and intangible)

15 / 22

… Determined by Social Practices

“There is no commons without commoning” (Linebaugh, as referred to in Bollier 2011)

Which Logic of Action?

Cen

tral A

utho

rity? C

omm

ercial?

16 / 22

Commoning I

… commonly engaging in an activity, doing together, taking into consideration others' needs

… Production, Reproduction, Produsage (co-production), Use in Common

… Self-organization

cf. Acksel et al. (2015)

17 / 22

Commoning II

… relating to each other as Peers

… Needs-satisfaction as aim

… Mediation

cf. Acksel et al. (2015)

18 / 22

Commoning III

Self-organized

ReProdusage

and Mediation

of Peers

who aim at satisfying their Needs

19 / 22

Commons-Projects

Autonomous Organizations of Commoning

20 / 22

Conclusion

• Everything could be a commons

• What matters is the social interaction!

• Commons = Social Form of Matter determined by Commoning

• Commoning = Self-organized ReProdusage and Mediation of Peers who aim at satisfying their Needs

21 / 22

Questions?

Thank you very much for your attention!

Johannes Euler – Commoning: Core Determinant for Commons

22 / 22

ReferencesAcksel, B., & Euler, J., & Gauditz, L., & Helfrich, S., Kratzwald, B., & Meretz, S., & Stein, F., & Tuschen, S. (2015). Commoning: Zur

Kon-struktion einer konvivialen Gesellschaft. In: Adloff, F., & Heins, V. (eds.) Konvivalismus: Eine Debatte. Transcript: Bielefeld,

Germany.

Adams, R., & McCormick, K. (1987). Private Goods, Club Goods, And Public Goods As A Continuum. Review of Social Economy, 45(2),

192-199.

Bollier, D. (2011). The Commons, Political Transformation and Cities. Retrieved on April 7, 2015 from

http://bollier.org/commons-political-transformation-and-cities

Brodbeck, K.-H. (2009). Die Herrschaft des Geldes: Geschichte und Systematik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: Darmstadt,

Germany.

Cowen, T. (1985). Public goods definitions and their institutional context: a critique of public goods theory. Review of Social Economy,

43(1), 53-63.

Euler, J. (2015). Commons-creating society: On the radical German discourse. Review of Radical Political Economics 48(1).

Ostrom, E. (2002). Commons. In: Cuff, D., & Goudie, A. (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Global Change. Oxford University Press, Oxford,

England, 215-218.

Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. American Economic Review,

100:3, 641-672.

Shiva, V. (1992). Resources. In: Sachs, W. (ed.). The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge and Power. Zed Books: London,

England, 206-218.

Johannes Euler – Commoning: Core Determinant for Commons