Contemporary common goods extend beyond natural resources into digitally and urbanly produced domains.

Evidence

In contrast, the economic approach is mainly based on research analyzing (natural) common-pool resources held in common by a community of people, and, therefore, vulnerable to overuse. This results in the conceptualization of a social dilemma, described by Hardin (1968) as the “tragedy of the commons”. Hardin argues that individual self-interest averts collective action and finally results in the overexploitation of common goods. To further explore human cooperation, Ostrom (1990) proposes a novel theory, demonstrating the ability of communities of owners and users to develop institutions for collective action searching the collective benefit. Currently common goods are resources that require collective production, cooperation and mutuality. Examples of new common goods are knowledge commons, renewable energy, food sharing, farming, financial commons and currencies, commons health services, schools, community parks, ecological and genetic resources, internet which are produced, managed, distributed and owned by novel urban or digital communities. — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing, 16

Categorization

• XREF: The expanded list of common goods (knowledge commons, currencies, Internet) connects to both Elinor Ostrom’s framework and to the ‘trees as infrastructure’ essay’s notion of underused, community-governed resources. — connects to: Digital voluntary communities can produce collective goods unmet by states and markets. — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing: Embedding Common…, 188; Commons function as social resources binding communities together, not just property rights. — Emil Sandström and Ann-Kristin Ekman and Karl-Johan Lindholm, Commoning in the periphery – The role…, 10
• QUESTION: Worth tracing how new digital/urban common goods differ in their governance dilemmas from Ostrom’s natural resource pools.
• corroborated: 5 independent passages support this claim — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing: Embedding Common…, 16

Related

• Digital voluntary communities can produce collective goods unmet by states and markets. (similarity 0.87)
• Commons function as social resources binding communities together, not just property rights. (similarity 0.84)
• Digital tools enable new decentralized forms of commons peer production. (similarity 0.83)
• Commons are best understood as dynamic processes of commoning, not static resources. (similarity 0.83)
• Commons organizing fuses ethical common-good production with peer sharing. (similarity 0.82)
• Commons organizing names the process by which communities jointly produce and govern common goods. (similarity 0.81)
• New commons govern shared resources without pre-existing rules or formal institutional arrangements. (similarity 0.81)
• Common-pool resources are governed as bundles of separable property rights. (similarity 0.80)
• Community energy cooperatives across Europe form a decentralized renewable-energy commons challenging utility markets. (similarity 0.79)
• Community-scale commons experiments can scale outward into large networks. (similarity 0.79)
• Communities can act collectively as a single entrepreneur and enterprise. (similarity 0.78)
• In post-industrial rural economies, people, not natural resources, are the scarce resource. (similarity 0.78)
• Commoning joins producing shared goods with cultivating collective skills and character. (similarity 0.78)
• Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison — Commons Organizing Embedding Common Good and Institutions for Collective Action. Insights from Ethics and Economics (similarity 0.78)
• Surviving commons shift from economic to social and symbolic resources over time. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Digital voluntary communities can produce collective goods unmet by states and markets. #expands (0.80) — Laura Albareda and Alejo Jose G. Sison, Commons Organizing, 188
• Commons function as social resources binding communities together, not just property rights. #qualifies (0.72) — Emil Sandström and Ann-Kristin Ekman and Karl-Johan Lindholm, Commoning in the periphery – The role…, 10