COLLECTIVE GOODS FREE

Of us would prefer to have what the other has. That, in the status quo, I have a car and you have $5000 but that both Players is essentially the model of exchange (Hardin 1982b). As represented in Game 1, prisoner’s dilemma for two

COLLECTIVE GOODS FREE

Together, there can be no free rider unless one of the members is deįacto altruistic. Is 2 and the two members are able to coordinate on whether they act The n- prisoner’s dilemma (Hardin 1971, 1982a). The strategic structure of the logic of collective action is that of Social psychology asks: To what extent and in what circumstances are people motivated to free ride? and What sorts of negative incentives are effective in motivating cooperation when free riding is possible? Game theory asks: Under what strategic circumstances does the rational promotion of individual self-interest recommend free riding? Informed by those two areas of enquiry, mainstream economics then asks: What real-world mechanisms are the most efficient ways of producing public goods, given the incentives to free ride? Political science asks: What explains the existence of large-scale political participation, despite the incentives that favor free riding? Moral philosophy asks: Under exactly which circumstances is free riding morally wrong? and What explains why it is wrong (when it is)? And relatedly, normative political philosophy asks: Do the moral reasons against free riding supply a satisfactory grounding for political obligation? The free rider problem gives rise to large explanatory and normative questions in six main disciplines. This is a compelling application of the logic of collective action, an application of such grave import that we pass laws to regulate the behavior of individuals to force them The free rider problem is that the efficient production of important collective goods by free agents is jeopardized by the incentive each agent has not to pay for it: if the supply of the good is inadequate, one’s own action of paying will not make it adequate if the supply is adequate, one can receive it without paying. A free rider, most broadly speaking, is someone who receives a benefit without contributing towards the cost of its production. Rider (or free rider) on the beneficial actions of Therefore, I may not contribute my share toward not fouling the atmosphere. Unfortunately, my polluting less does not matter enough for anyone-especially me-to notice. More than it is worth to us, then its provision is not a collective The provision of cleaner air is a collective good for us. Of us or some subgroup of us prefer the state of affairs in which weĮach pay this bit over the state of affairs in which we do not, then Reduced harm to the ozone layer that protects us against exposure toĬarcinogenic ultraviolet radiation (although those with fair skinīenefit far more from the latter than do those with dark skin). The reduction of harmful gases in the air we breathe and even in the Pollutes less by paying a bit extra for our cars, we all benefit from Retrieved from: tni.org/public-community-collaborations (CC BY 4.In many contexts, all of the individual members of a group canīenefit from the efforts of each member and all can benefit Democratic and collective ownership of public goods and services - Exploring public-community collaborations. Infographics (click for better resolution)Ĭitation: Transnational Institute (2021). All of the stories presented in this report illustrate how local authorities in partnership with local communities have devised mechanisms of democratic public-services delivery. Luckily, plenty of local authorities and communities are taking on the challenge of addressing ecological transition and social cohesion. Public-community collaborations are a useful tool or lens to explore democratic forms of public ownership for public services and goods delivery. Strong and well-funded public institutions are an important starting point for a successful collaboration. Public-community collaborations do not offer to take over public responsibility. Finally, the report shows how we can Imagine ways in which this new approach can be introduced and structurally developed in your city.

This report is presented in three parts: Theory, Practice, and Imagination. The Theory section introduces the co-production approach and the essential characteristics of public-community collaborations. In the Practice section, we present ten inspiring international experiences from the areas of food, care, energy, water, housing and urban development, highlighting the most important lessons learned from each in a practical toolbox.

Collective goods