What belongs to all belongs to no one: The problem of the commons

As part of our commemoration of International Women’s Day, we present the Women in Science series—an effort to recognize and honor the academic contributions of exceptional women who have forged paths in fields long dominated by white men. This initiative not only highlights their scholarly achievements, but also reflects on the importance of female representation across all areas of knowledge.

It is striking that while thirteen women have been awarded the Nobel Prize in scientific disciplines such as medicine or physiology since 1901, in economics only three women have been recognized by the Swedish Academy of Sciences—and all of these distinctions came in the 21st century. This reality inspires us to celebrate the exceptional work of women in a field as socially relevant as economics.

This installment marks the beginning of a three-part series exploring the lives and contributions of women who overcame immense challenges to leave a lasting legacy for humanity.

Elinor Ostrom explored a wide range of themes during her career, and it is notable that her scholarship developed not in an economics department, but within political science. While she contributed to debates on institutions and governance, economic development, public policy design, and public choice theory, her most influential work centered on the study of the commons. This research culminated in her 1990 book Governing the Commons, which played a decisive role in earning her the Nobel Prize in Economics “for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons.”

Contrary to the dominant view in economics—that common resources are destined for overuse and eventual collapse Ostrom demonstrated that communities can, and often do, manage these resources effectively without relying solely on privatization or top-down government control. Her work directly challenged Garrett Hardin’s pessimistic “tragedy of the commons” thesis, which had become a widely accepted orthodoxy in economic thought.

Ostrom’s research provided both a theoretical and empirical foundation for understanding how communities collaborate to govern shared resources. She showed that decentralized, community-based solutions can be as effective, if not more so, than centralized state policies or purely market-driven mechanisms. In doing so, she reshaped conventional assumptions about economics, governance, and human cooperation.

The impact of Ostrom’s work has extended far beyond economics. Her insights continue to influence disciplines such as political science, sociology, and ecology, while inspiring practical initiatives worldwide from the management of irrigation systems in India to the conservation of forests in Africa.

She was the first person in her family to earn a college degree. At that time, Ostrom points out, a woman did not have high career aspirations: "In those days, it was assumed that the appropriate job for a woman was a secretary or a teacher.

Ostrom's Work: A Paradigm Shift in the Market/State Dilemma

A closer look: Reflection and critique

Elinor Ostrom: The Life of an Economic Pioneer

Governance of common resources

The problem of the commons, as we understand it today, was addressed relatively late by economists. While classics such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill touched on related issues like private property, land use, and competition, it was not until well into the 20th century that the concept of the “commons” was fully developed. Earlier, philosophers such as Aristotle, Locke, and Hume had examined similar questions, often in the context of morality, the state, and law—naturally finding the governance of shared resources a pressing philosophical concern.

William Forster Lloyd (1794–1852) was the first to introduce the concept of the “tragedy of the commons” in his 1833 work Two Lectures on the Checks to Population. More than a century later, biologist Garrett Hardin developed and popularized the term in his influential 1968 essay The Tragedy of the Commons. The principle holds that individuals, acting rationally in pursuit of their own interests, tend to overexploit shared resources without regard for long-term consequences.

Lloyd illustrated how the absence of private ownership or effective regulation in managing the commons would inevitably lead to undesirable outcomes such as environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, and declining quality of life for those who depend on these resources.

Today, we can identify many commons still vulnerable to these challenges—rangelands, forests, irrigation systems, fisheries, and even the atmosphere. Mismanagement of the commons can trigger severe economic, social, and environmental consequences, both in the short and long term. For instance, overfishing can collapse fish stocks, threatening food security and the livelihoods of coastal communities. Uncontrolled deforestation destroys habitats, accelerates soil erosion, and fuels climate change. Air and water pollution expose populations to respiratory illnesses and chronic health conditions.

Studying the commons is therefore essential to designing effective governance and conservation strategies—ones that balance human needs with long-term sustainability. This means identifying principles and practices that foster collaboration, shared responsibility, and adaptability in the face of environmental and social change.

Elinor Ostrom (1933–2012), a trailblazer in the study of economics and resource management, left behind a legacy that continues to inspire scholars and policymakers worldwide. Her groundbreaking research on the governance of the commons earned her the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2009—making her the first woman ever to receive this prestigious award in the discipline.

Born on August 7, 1933, in Los Angeles, California, Ostrom showed an early curiosity about social systems and the ways resources are allocated and managed. She earned both her bachelor’s degree and her doctorate in political science from the University of California, Los Angeles, completing her Ph.D. in 1965.

Over the course of her career, Ostrom consistently challenged traditional economic thinking, which had long been framed around the binary of markets versus government intervention. Her interdisciplinary approach, combined with a strong commitment to fieldwork, enabled her to uncover how local communities around the world successfully manage and preserve their natural and social resources.

During her graduate studies, Elinor joined a seminar on collective action groups, led by Vincent Ostrom, an associate professor of political science who would become both her intellectual partner and husband. The two married in 1963, and Vincent—fourteen years her senior—proved to be a profound influence on Elinor’s academic trajectory. Together, they founded the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University, which has since grown into a renowned research hub attracting scholars from around the world in fields ranging from political science, economics, and law to anthropology, ecology, and sociology.

Ostrom fundamentally challenged the idea that the absence of private property would inevitably lead to the overuse and collapse of common resources. More than that, she offered a conceptual framework for rethinking the political and economic realities around us, inviting a broader and more nuanced approach to public challenges.

Through extensive research and fieldwork, Ostrom showed that communities are often capable of managing shared resources effectively without relying exclusively on outside intervention. In her studies, she identified a set of principles that underpin successful commons governance:

• Clear boundaries and rules of use: Effective communities establish well-defined rules about who can access resources, as well as how and when they can be used.

• User participation in decision-making: Decentralized, participatory processes—in which resource users have both a voice and a vote are essential for legitimate and effective governance.

• Accountability: Communities thrive when users are responsible for following the rules and when mechanisms exist to sanction non-compliance, reinforcing both individual and collective responsibility.

• Adaptability: The most resilient systems are those that can adjust flexibly to social, economic, and environmental changes.

Drawing on detailed case studies from around the globe, Ostrom demonstrated that these principles consistently shape successful models of common-pool resource management. Her work directly challenged the narrow view that only privatization or government regulation can prevent resource depletion. Instead, she highlighted the central role of community participation, collaboration, and adaptability in building systems that sustain the commons over the long term.

Elinor Ostrom and other researchers documented numerous cases that illustrate how communities around the world can effectively govern shared resources. These examples show that with the right rules, cooperation, and accountability, sustainable management is possible:

• Irrigation in Nepal: In her early fieldwork, Ostrom studied irrigation systems managed by local communities in Nepal. Over centuries, farmers developed highly efficient and sustainable water-sharing practices. These systems typically involve equitable water distribution among users and collective responsibility for building and maintaining canals and other infrastructure.

• Fisheries in Japan: Ostrom also examined Japanese fisheries, where cooperatives of fishermen have created systems to ensure long-term conservation. These cooperatives set fishing quotas, establish minimum size rules for catches, and enforce them collectively—preventing overexploitation and sustaining fish stocks for future generations.

• Grazing in Switzerland: In the Swiss Alps, mountain communities maintain communal grazing systems that carefully regulate herders’ access to pastures. Agreements cover grazing rotation, the number of animals allowed, and protection of sensitive areas. These practices have preserved alpine pastures for centuries—a sharp contrast to the degradation described by William Forster Lloyd in 19th-century England.

• Forest management in Maine, USA: In Maine, forestry cooperatives have brought landowners together to sustainably manage forest resources. These cooperatives develop standards that balance timber harvesting with biodiversity conservation, ensuring that economic use of the forests does not undermine their ecological health.
  

These are just a few examples that demonstrate how communities can successfully manage shared resources when principles of collaboration, participation, and collective responsibility are applied.

That said, while Elinor Ostrom’s work has been widely acclaimed and celebrated, it has also faced important criticisms:

1. Generalization of results: Some scholars argue that Ostrom’s case studies are highly specific sometimes even exceptional which makes it difficult to generalize her findings across different contexts. Although she identified a set of common principles for managing the commons, these principles may not apply universally, since the ability of communities to cooperate effectively often depends on unique sociological or cultural conditions.

2. Emphasis on success stories: Ostrom primarily examined successful cases where communities managed to govern shared resources effectively. Critics point out that this emphasis may create a selection bias, overlooking instances of failure or cases where external intervention whether by the state or the market—proved more effective in preventing overexploitation.

3. Methodological limitations: Ostrom relied heavily on qualitative methods in her research, such as field observations and interviews. While these are valuable tools, they are also subject to subjectivity and researcher bias. Some argue that complementing these methods with more quantitative approaches would provide greater rigor and strengthen the validity of her conclusions.

4. Limited focus: Ostrom’s analysis concentrated on the effectiveness of commons management in preventing resource depletion. However, her work did not fully address broader issues such as equity and fairness in how benefits and costs are distributed among different groups within a community. This omission has led some to argue that the “commons problem,” originally framed as a philosophical issue, deserves a deeper exploration of justice and inclusion.

These criticisms do not diminish the enormous value of Ostrom’s contributions or the transformative impact of her research on the study of the commons. Rather, they reflect the healthy debates her work continues to inspire within the academic community—debates that push the boundaries of methodology, theory, and application.

Ultimately, Ostrom’s life and work remain a source of inspiration, encouraging future generations to question the rigid market–state dichotomy and to explore alternative models of governance for shared resources.