Elinor Ostrom and resource management / by H. Pike Oliver

As noted in a blog post by Richeng Piao, a Visting Lecturer in Economics at Northeastern University, the work of Elinor Ostrom (1933-2012) has had a profound influence on resource management practices through her innovative approach to the governance of common resources.

Here are some key impacts of Dr. Ostrom’s work as highlighted in Dr. Piao’s post:

Elinor Ostrom’s legacy continues to shape and influence environmental policy, resource management, and the study of collective action. Her work provides a robust framework for understanding and managing shared resources sustainably, underscoring the profound impact of her contributions. 

Dr. Ostrom’s is probably most famous for her alternative perspective on the “tragedy of commons”, which was advanced by ecologist and biologist Garret Hardin in an essay entitled “Tragedy of the Commons” in the journal Science in December 1968. ‘Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest,’ he wrote. ‘Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all.’ His essay, widely read and accepted, would become one of the most-cited scientific papers of all time.

Hardin concluded the tragedy of the commons could be avoided only through total privatization or total government control, Ostrom, on the other hand, had witnessed groundwater users near her native Los Angeles hammer out a system for sharing their coveted resource. As a professor at Indiana University Bloomington, she studied collaborative management systems developed throughout the world—cattle herders in Switzerland, forest dwellers in Japan, and irrigators in the Philippines. These communities had found ways of both preserving a shared resource – pasture, trees, water – and providing their members with a living.

Ostrom concluded that successful resource management systems include:

  • clear boundaries (the ‘community’ doing the managing must be well-defined);

  • reliable monitoring of the shared resource;

  • a reasonable balance of costs and benefits for participants;

  • a predictable process for the fast and fair resolution of conflicts;

  • an escalating series of punishments for cheaters;

  • and good relationships between the community and other layers of authority, from household heads to international institutions.