Benkler: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(New page: '''Building a definition of the commons.''' ''Rough approach at a definition of a commons: a resource governed by a (more or less) defined population exerting symmetric control over its ...) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{TOCright}} | |||
=Building a definition of the commons= | |||
''Rough approach at a definition of a commons: a resource governed by a (more or less) defined population exerting symmetric control over its use through a series of (more or less) defined rules in order to provide free and predictable access for that population to that resource. '' | ''Rough approach at a definition of a commons: a resource governed by a (more or less) defined population exerting symmetric control over its use through a series of (more or less) defined rules in order to provide free and predictable access for that population to that resource. '' | ||
==Symmetric control== | |||
* each member has symmetric control over how the resource is used | * each member has symmetric control over how the resource is used | ||
* no arbitrary system of permission | * no arbitrary system of permission | ||
* rules, when instituted, are instituted equally among all users | * rules, when instituted, are instituted equally among all users | ||
* no member given privileged access | * no member given privileged access | ||
* no actor can legally act upon another by his or her will | * no actor can legally act upon another by his or her will | ||
==System of rules== | |||
* commons can be distinguished from each other along two axes: closed/open, regulated/unregulated | * commons can be distinguished from each other along two axes: closed/open, regulated/unregulated | ||
* the regulations of the commons can be formal or norm-based | * the regulations of the commons can be formal or norm-based | ||
* calls on the common pool rarely measured very strictly | * calls on the common pool rarely measured very strictly | ||
* constraints on commons resources may be social, legal, or regulatory | * constraints on commons resources may be social, legal, or regulatory | ||
==Free (as in freedom) and predictable access== | |||
* free for all, predictable for all (this comment is later contradicted. Seems he wants to say, rather that commons are priced equally for all members) | * free for all, predictable for all (this comment is later contradicted. Seems he wants to say, rather that commons are priced equally for all members) | ||
* guarantees certain degree of freedom and predictability of access to resources | * guarantees certain degree of freedom and predictability of access to resources | ||
==Open membership== | |||
* only requirement seems to be that you need to want to participate in it | * only requirement seems to be that you need to want to participate in it | ||
* there is a (more or less) well defined population that has a say over how the resource is going to be used | * there is a (more or less) well defined population that has a say over how the resource is going to be used | ||
* motivations for contributions seem irrelevant | * motivations for contributions seem irrelevant | ||
* commons often need common purpose | * commons often need common purpose | ||
==Different in kind from markets== | |||
* resources of commons often rival resources in market. Difference is freedom and predictability of access | * resources of commons often rival resources in market. Difference is freedom and predictability of access | ||
* commons not necessarily the most efficient use of resources | * commons not necessarily the most efficient use of resources | ||
| Line 47: | Line 36: | ||
* possibility of commons regimes is dependent on technology | * possibility of commons regimes is dependent on technology | ||
==Self-organizing, self-sustaining== | |||
* clustering of attention / resource use within a commons provides structure and accreditation | * clustering of attention / resource use within a commons provides structure and accreditation | ||
* within information commons, so long as the information is easily share-able, a navigable order will likely appear | * within information commons, so long as the information is easily share-able, a navigable order will likely appear | ||
| Line 55: | Line 43: | ||
* commons often perceived as less secure than enclosed systems | * commons often perceived as less secure than enclosed systems | ||
==Consequences of the commons== | |||
* within the sphere of public information, more expansive commons almost certainly improve human autonomy rather than undermine it | |||
=Navigation= | |||
[[Defining the Commons]]<br> | Back to [[Defining the Commons]]<br> | ||
[[Main Page]] | Back to [[Industrial Cooperation Project]]<br> | ||
Back to [[Main Page]] | |||
Latest revision as of 18:05, 19 May 2010
Building a definition of the commons
Rough approach at a definition of a commons: a resource governed by a (more or less) defined population exerting symmetric control over its use through a series of (more or less) defined rules in order to provide free and predictable access for that population to that resource.
Symmetric control
- each member has symmetric control over how the resource is used
- no arbitrary system of permission
- rules, when instituted, are instituted equally among all users
- no member given privileged access
- no actor can legally act upon another by his or her will
System of rules
- commons can be distinguished from each other along two axes: closed/open, regulated/unregulated
- the regulations of the commons can be formal or norm-based
- calls on the common pool rarely measured very strictly
- constraints on commons resources may be social, legal, or regulatory
Free (as in freedom) and predictable access
- free for all, predictable for all (this comment is later contradicted. Seems he wants to say, rather that commons are priced equally for all members)
- guarantees certain degree of freedom and predictability of access to resources
Open membership
- only requirement seems to be that you need to want to participate in it
- there is a (more or less) well defined population that has a say over how the resource is going to be used
- motivations for contributions seem irrelevant
- commons often need common purpose
Different in kind from markets
- resources of commons often rival resources in market. Difference is freedom and predictability of access
- commons not necessarily the most efficient use of resources
- however, there are predictable conditions for when commons more efficient than markets
- more likely than other forms of production to identify the person best suited for the job
- better able than markets to allocate small quanta of resources
- possibility of commons regimes is dependent on technology
Self-organizing, self-sustaining
- clustering of attention / resource use within a commons provides structure and accreditation
- within information commons, so long as the information is easily share-able, a navigable order will likely appear
- for information commons to survive and thrive, might need substantial background knowledge
- commons often create a sense of common purpose
- commons often perceived as less secure than enclosed systems
Consequences of the commons
- within the sphere of public information, more expansive commons almost certainly improve human autonomy rather than undermine it
Back to Defining the Commons
Back to Industrial Cooperation Project
Back to Main Page