Blanket exclusion sanctions clash with communal settlement values and practical needs.

Evidence

In the communities I studied, participants interpreted CDD sanctions for rule transgressions as requiring complete exclusion from project participation and, thus, project benefits. This meant that any household frequently missing project collective work days, failing to contribute resources, or not following project guidelines would be excluded from any project benefits. This institutional design poorly reflected local values and practical needs. — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 123

Categorization

  • QUESTION: Worth chasing: how did the design flip from a graduated-sanctions model to blunt exclusion in practice?
  • corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 123
  • XREF: connects to: Sanctions for violating communal norms are total exclusion, not tit-for-tat withholding — Russell Hardin, Trust and Trustworthiness, 822; Sanctions designed for worst-case agents alienate the majority who comply voluntarily — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1279; Settlements prioritized social relationships over strict rule enforcement when sanctioning. — Jessica Carrick-Hagenbarth, Institutional Bricolage and Commoning…, 130 (+2 more)

Broader Connections