Garrett Hardin - Tragedy of the Commons , flaws and summary

Hardin - Tragedy of the Commons  - Hardin's theory was that if there was a common pasture that a group of people used, the land would become degraded because there was no property rights and land ownership. Although each person is aware of the consequences of the abuse, each's selfishness, competitiveness and desire for exploiting the resource will eventually make the land unusable for all.  SHARED RESOURCES WILL ALWAYS BE MISUSED. 

Applying the Tragedy of the Commons to natural resources: It is said that nature is the "global commons" - something shared and needed by all human beings on Earth. The air is an example of a "free" resource that has no ownership - hence people continue to pollute it without thinking about the knock on effects elsewhere; carbon dioxide pumped out from a small factory in rural China can diffuse into Hong Kong, affecting Hong Kong people's healths and lungs, causing detriment to a large number of people. Pollution here affects ice melting elsewhere.

Water is another example - surface water (versus groundwater) are often commodified and valued. Water is "owned" by either the state or private companies, e.g. in South Africa. However, since water is a transport, deposition and erosion agent and can carry within it a lot of organisms, if water is degraded in Himalayas, Bangladesh can be affected because water flows across the Brahmaputra. 

Applying the Tragedy of the Commons to Green Grabbing: The theory has been applied to justify green / land grabs by rich countries and private businesses, because the theory argues that the only way to stop the degradation is by ownership and privatization of resources, which provide incentive for landowners to maintain the land's quality. It's used to justify and legitimize taking land from indigenous people and privatizing many resources that should be evenly distributed (eg water).  

----

Flaws: 

1) How do you define "ownership of the land" ? Many indigenous people own land by customary rights, inheritance or by simply being there first, crafting a livelihood for many generations on the same piece of land. It is equally as valid a form of land ownership as a piece of paper. 

2) Ignores the self-regulation of people - it assumes people are naturally destructive. It ignores the fact that people may want to sustain the land knowing that degrading it will harm everyone. It adopts a cynical, pessimistic view of human nature that isn't always true. 

3) Assumes that the farmers can't adapt to disaster - even if land is degrading, farmers can adapt and mitigate - human beings are changeable beings. 

4) Assumes herders WANT to maximise their herd.

5) Privatisation is always good - is it ? Some private owners can't care for their land well , causing more degradation, soil erosion etc.