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 ...) |
No edit summary |
||
| 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> | [[Defining the Commons]]<br> | ||
[[Main Page]] | [[Main Page]] | ||
Revision as of 18:04, 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