There is no tragedy of the commons within the family

Let's take a look at the tragedy theory of the commons first:

The Tragedy of the Commons". As a rational person, every shepherd wants to maximize their benefits. In the public meadow, each additional sheep will have two outcomes:

One is to get an income from an additional sheep; The second is to increase the burden on grasslands and may overgraze grasslands. After much consideration, the shepherd decided to increase the number of sheep regardless of the capacity of the meadow. Then he will increase the number of sheep and the increase in his profits.

See profitable. Many shepherds have joined the bandwagon. Since the entry of the flock was unrestricted, the pastures were overused and the condition of the pastures deteriorated rapidly, and this is how tragedy struck.

This theory is valid on the premise that all human beings are rational people (homo economicus), that is, they all pursue their own best interests.

Is this like this in your family? Are all family members economic in the family?

If so, the family is likely to have a "tragedy of the commons". Everyone uses public resources for their own private interests.

I don't think you have to be an economic or rational person at home. The family is maintained by affection and affection, and in order to maintain the stability of the family, we often sacrifice our own interests and put the interests of the family first. Therefore, in most healthy and harmonious families, the tragedy of the commons certainly does not exist.

The principle that the Mao contradictions within the family are easy to solve is to turn big things into small things, and small things to small things, don't bluff.

No, the home is not a public good.

And there are regulations for construction site tragedies.

The tragedy of public resources was first raised by Harding. Garrit Hardin published an article in the journal Science in 1968 entitled The Tragedy of the Commons. Professor Zhang Weiying of Peking University translated it into The Tragedy of the Commons, but Harding is there more than the commonsIt refers to the public land, but also refers to the public water, space, etcWait.

Professor Zhu Zhifang of Wuhan University translated The Tragedy of the Commons into The Tragedy of Big Pot Rice, which has some truth, but it does not fully fit the meaning expressed by Harding. It would seem more accurate to translate the commons as "public resources". The tragedy of the commons described by Harding can be called the Harding tragedy.

Tragedy of the commons.

In The Tragedy of the Commons, Harding sets up a scene in which a group of herders graze together in a public pasture. A herder wants to raise an extra sheep to increase his personal income, although he knows that there are already too many sheep in the pasture, and increasing the number of sheep will reduce the quality of the pasture.

How will pastoralists choose? If everyone starts from their own self-interest, they will definitely choose to raise more sheep to reap the benefits, because the cost of grassland degradation is borne by everyone. When every pastoralist thinks this way, the "tragedy of the commons" unfolds: the pastures continue to degrade until they are unable to raise sheep, and eventually all herders go bankrupt.

The tragedy of the commons is associated with the "enclosure movement" in Britain. In England in the 15th and 16th centuries, meadows, forests, and swamps were all public land, and although the cultivated land had owners, after the crops were harvested, the fences had to be removed and opened up as public pastures. Due to the development of the British foreign market, the sheep industry has developed rapidly, so a large number of sheep have entered the public pasture.

Soon, the land began to degrade, and the "tragedy of the commons" appeared. As a result, some aristocrats illegally acquired land through violent means, and began to fence off public land for themselves, which is the notorious "enclosure movement" that we learn about in history books. The "enclosure movement" deprived large numbers of farmers and herders their subsistence land, and the history books called the bloody "sheep cannibalism" incident.

But it is not mentioned in the book: after the throes of the "enclosure movement", the British were surprised to find that the pastures had improved, and the British as a whole had increased their income. As a result of the establishment of land titles, the land has been changed from public land to private domain, and the owner has managed the land more efficiently, and the landowner will do his best to maintain the quality of the pasture for the long-term benefit.

At the same time, after the land annexation, the production unit of the household unit evolved into large-scale assembly line production, and the labor efficiency was greatly improved. It was from the "enclosure movement" that Britain gradually developed into an empire on which the sun never sets.

I am not here to vindicate the "enclosure movement", because morally and ethically it is a bloody history. But without the "sheep eating people" incident, the final outcome would be destruction. At present, in the world, where land is well protected, land property rights are often established, and those areas where land damage is serious are often areas where land property rights have not yet been established.

Correspondingly, is the recent hot issue of the loss of state-owned assets also a "tragedy of the commons" in another area?

When there are many owners of a resource or property, each of them has the right to use the resource, but no one has the right to prevent others from using it, resulting in the overuse of the resource, which is a "tragedy of the commons". Such as overgrazing in grasslands, overfishing in the ocean, etc.

In 1998, Professor Michael A. Heller proposed the theoretical model of "anti-commons tragedy" in the article "The Tragedy of Anti-Commous". He said that while Professor Harding's "tragedy of the commons" illustrates the consequences of overusing public resources, he ignores the possibility of underusing resources. Within the commons, there are many rights holders.

In order to achieve a certain goal, each party has the right to prevent others from using the resource or to put obstacles to each other's use, and no one has the effective right to use it, resulting in the idle and underused use of the resource, resulting in waste, and thus the "tragedy of the anti-commons" occurs.

In practice, to avoid tragedy, we need to spend a lot of transaction costs, negotiation costs, and the cost of convincing potential competitors. Once the "tragedy of the anti-commons" occurs, it is difficult for us to integrate various property rights into effective property rights. It's like installing a lock on a gate that requires more than a dozen keys to be opened at the same time, and the dozen keys are kept by different people, who often can't get to the same time.

Obviously, the chances of opening the door are very small, and the occupancy of the house is very low. Cumbersome intellectual property protection and the multi-headed management of state-owned enterprises are typical examples of the "tragedy of the anti-commons". It is also called a tragedy because each of the parties knows that the use of resources or property will bring benefits to everyone, but because of mutual obstruction, they see the benefits diminishing or the resources being wasted.

The tragedy of the commons means that people overuse public resources, which leads to the depletion of resources.

The commons as a resource or property has many owners, each of whom has the right to use it, but no right to prevent others from using it. Everyone tends to overuse, leading to a lack of resources.

Overfished forests, overfished fishery resources, and polluted rivers and air are prime examples of the "tragedy of the commons". The reason it is called a tragedy is because each side knows that resources will be depleted by overuse, but everyone feels powerless to stop the situation from continuing to deteriorate.

The tragedy of the commons is that public goods are competitively overused or appropriated because property rights are difficult to define. This concept is often used in academic fields such as regional economics and cross-border resource management.

The tragedy "is because everyone involved knows that resources will be depleted by overuse, but everyone feels powerless to stop the situation from continuing to deteriorate." And they all have the mentality of "catching a handful in time" to exacerbate the deterioration of the situation.

A classic example of the tragedy of the commons:

Over-deforestation, over-fished fisheries, and polluted rivers and air.

When there are many owners of a resource or property, each of them has the right to use the resource, but no one has the right to prevent others from using it, resulting in the overuse of the resource, which is a "tragedy of the commons". Such as overgrazing in grasslands, overfishing in the ocean, etc.