What are Commons? - Towards Considering Space Commons -

Introduction

As the primary actors in space business shift globally from governments to the private sector, the way we use outer space and space resources, as well as the process of rule-making, have entered an era where dialogue is necessary not only between nations, but also between governments and companies, between companies, and with private organizations. In this context, the concept of "commons"—a shared resource that is neither government-owned nor privately owned, but possesses the characteristics of both—is being utilized in terrestrial society as a concept (thought) to open up the future. In this note space magazine, we will explore the possibilities of space commons while comparing them with terrestrial commons, and share their future vision and challenges. In this article, we will first provide an overview of "commons."

What are Commons?

Recently, the term "commons" has been heard in contexts such as social and individual well-being and sustainability. According to Elinor Ostrom*, "commons" refers to "common-pool resources," which are defined as "resources that are finite, and where the amount available to others decreases when one person uses them" [1].
*Winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for her research on commons

Commons include natural resources and artificial resources. Natural resources include pastures, water resources, fishery resources, and forests, while artificial resources include living spaces, urban spaces, medical services, and landscapes [2].

One of the most famous papers on commons theory is "Tragedy of the Commons," published in the journal "Science" in 1968 by American biologist Garrett Hardin. Hardin pointed out that in a pasture available to everyone, individuals increase the number of livestock to maximize their own profits, leading to the degradation of the pasture as a shared land and causing overall disadvantage [3]. This is often compared to the current situation where not only local communities like pastures, but also nations seeking national interests are causing the global environment to exceed the limits of planetary boundaries, which is also described as a "tragedy of the commons."

In response to this, there were many counterarguments that commons do not necessarily degrade, but can be sustainably preserved by establishing appropriate usage methods and rules. These counterarguments came from various fields such as agronomists, cultural anthropologists, and sociologists, and research on commons theory developed significantly across disciplines. Including such perspectives, Hardin's contribution can be said to be very significant. One of the researchers who countered him was Carol Rose, a professor at Northwestern University (at the time).

Rose published a paper titled "The Comedy of the Commons" in 1986. Rose focused on the fact that while oceans, rivers, air, and water are neither state property nor private property, activities like gathering firewood in forests or fishing in streams have long been practiced customarily and are considered essential to social life. Furthermore, she considered that commons have value not only in the sustainability of forests and oceans, but also in improving well-being through recreation, and that the value of the commons increases as the number of participants grows. She argued, "As the idiom 'the more the merrier' suggests, the commons is not a tragedy, but a comedy" [4]. Indeed, it can be said that the new commons after the advent of the Internet, as Rose says, expand social relationship capital like well-being along with economic capital due to economies of scale as the number of participants increases.

Commons Renaissance

In 1990, four years after the publication of "The Comedy of the Commons," the aforementioned Ostrom published a book on the governance of the commons [5]. Ostrom's greatest contribution to commons theory was demonstrating the possibility of "self-governance," where commons are preserved and managed through voluntary rules, based on field research and theoretical studies. She conducted thousands of field studies worldwide and discovered that many successful commons are managed by "voluntary organizations" that possess the characteristics of both "government" and "private sector," rather than being one or the other. She also incorporated this into game theory, theoretically proving that the preservation and management of "commons" can be established. Furthermore, she listed the eight principles in Table 1 as conditions for successful preservation and management of commons. It is said that when many of these are in place, trust and cooperative relationships are fostered within the community, and things go well.

As an example of failure and success in commons, there is the irrigation system in Bohol, Philippines. In failing regions, there are phenomena such as a sense of unfairness between the amount of water received by individuals and the burden (fees collected, labor provided), the prevalence of free riders due to a lack of sanctions when cleaning of waterways is neglected, and unfairness in the right to speak. On the other hand, in the successful Busao Communal Irrigation System, the irrigation area (26 ha) and members (145 people) are clear, the burden (10% of harvested rice) is perceived as fair, conflicts are easily resolved even if they occur, and it is the only one among 31 neighboring regions with a 100% fee collection rate from members. Because the right to speak and communication regarding rule-making are fair, participants are motivated to contribute, and the commons functions well [6]. Thus, in commons that possess many of Ostrom's eight principles, participants feel a sense of purpose, trust and cooperative relationships are fostered, the commons functions in a way that is sustainable and beneficial to the well-being of society and individuals, and it is operated stably over several generations.

Ostrom's thoughts (thought) on commons caused a surge in global commons research and brought about a "Commons Renaissance" [7]. With the Commons Renaissance, interest in commons has risen significantly, and attention has also been paid to "new commons" other than "traditional commons" related to natural resources such as forests, fishing grounds, farms, land, and water.

As for new commons, by incorporating the concept of commons into culture, transportation, education, medicine, etc., methods of operation and future visions that are sustainable and well-being-oriented for society and individuals have begun to be explored through autonomous methods that have the characteristics of both, rather than the dichotomy of "government" and "private sector."

"New commons" have been mapped into the following seven categories by Charlotte Hess, who was a co-researcher with Ostrom [8].
・Cultural Commons
・Neighborhood Commons
・Infrastructure Commons
・Knowledge Commons
・Medical and Health Commons
・Market Commons
・Global Commons

Figure 1 shows the mapping of the sub-concepts of the seven commons above. "Space" is included in the global commons of this mapping. Charlotte lists space, the deep sea, Antarctica, the human genome, the Internet, and frequency bands as new commons that have become accessible with the evolution of technology.

Furthermore, concepts combined with new technologies have emerged, such as Creative Commons, which shares digital content within the scope of copyright, and the management of commons using blockchain, and new creative activities of humanity and a future society that cooperates on a global scale are being explored.

Now that we have entered the era of space business, rule-making for space commons is becoming necessary, involving not only nations but also companies and private organizations. In addition, with the expansion of diverse space activities, the time has come to discuss space not only as a "global commons" but also as a "knowledge commons," "infrastructure commons," and "cultural commons." In the next issue, we will map space commons and explore the possibilities of space as a commons. Aiming for a renaissance of space commons.

Text: IISE Thought Leadership Promotion Department, Satoshi Sano

References

[1] Elinor Ostrom, Swiss Political Science Review 6(1):29-52 “Reformulating the commons”
[2] Manabu Miho, Journal of Law and Society 2010(73), 148-167 “Significance and Challenges of Expanding the Scope of Commons Theory”
[3] Garett Hardin, Science, 1968, Vol.162, 3859, 1243-1248
[4] Carl Rose, 1986, Univ. Chicago Law Review, Vol.53, 3 “The Comedy of Commons”
[5] Elinor Ostrom, 1990, “Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press”
[6] Uko Tsunoda, 2018, Factors for the Success or Failure of Irrigation Projects, ARDEC No. 59,
[7] Clippinger, John, and David Bollierm, 2005, A Renaissance of the Commons:, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
[8] Hess, Charlotte, 2008, Mapping the new commons, Social Science Research Network