Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action

Examine the traditional theories of collective action that Ostrom criticizes. Are there any aspects of them that may still apply in the cases of some CPRs? If so, how? If not, why not?

Compare and contrast Ostrom’s work with that of one of the theorists she challenges, such as Garrett Hardin. In what ways are the two theorists different or similar? Could some of their ideas be reconciled? Explain your reasoning.

How does Ostrom marry the approaches of new institutionalism and biological empiricism? How does that combination impact her description and analyses of cases?

Are all seven of Ostrom’s design principles equally important for the successful management of a CPR? Are there any factors that her analysis may have overlooked?

Find a small-scale CPR in your own country and research it. In what ways does the successful or problematic management of the CPR illustrate some of Ostrom’s theories? In what ways, if any, does it challenge them?

Does Ostrom satisfactorily explain how situational variables impact internal ones, such as costs and benefits, in her frameworks? Why or why not? How much room for variability is present in these models?

Ostrom argues that central regulation by an external government or privatization is always going to result in the unsuccessful management of a small-scale CPR. What counterarguments, if any, could you make?

Research how academic theories regarding the commons have changed or developed since Governing the Commons was published. What changes have occurred? In what ways is Ostrom’s research still relevant, and in what ways has it been superseded or adapted by new findings?