|WikiProject Economics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Cooperatives||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Wikipedia supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.|
Merge common good here?
Which term is more popular (in economics): common good or common pool resource? I have to say that during my studies I have only encountered the common good one, and common good in economics context is much more popular then common pool resource.-- 01:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- My sense is that they should remain seperate from the moment. CPR is a bit more specific (typically used in resource economics) and so should probably merit an article that can be linked to from other pages. Joel Kincaid 19:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Common Goods and CPR are different in that Common Goods are non-excludable and rivalrous by definition, whereas CPR are non-excludable only at the individual level, but excludable at the community level. This implies that the rivalry/excludability-table in various articles (as for example in the "Common Good" article) should show "Common good" instead of "Common-pool resource".Krol:k 13:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Removal of the section on the Kyoto Protocol and Climate Change
I removed the following section. Reason: the example does not fit the definition of a common-pool resource used in the article (global climate is not excludable and therefore a common good). The Kyoto Protocol could however be seen as an example where inter-governmental regulation and tradeable allowances in fact do not work as expected to prevent excessive pollution (CO2-emissions will eventually decrease because of Peak Oil and not due to the Kyoto Protocol; the Kyoto Protocol could at best be seen as an instrument to manage Peak Oil internationally, but not to curb emissions - or am I being too negative about that?). Krol:k (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
"An example of a global common-pool regime is the Kyoto Protocol, which aims to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. These disrupt the common-pool resource of a moderate global climate and induce significant climate change. However, though global warming is controversial and there is debate over the attribution of recent climate change by a loud minority refuting the role of man-made pollution, there is a scientific opinion on climate change. Debates and controversy over attribution of access and changes to common-pool resources, as well as its causes, form part of the issue over regulation of a common-pool resource."
What is the CPR facility?
The article states, that
A common-pool resource typically consists of a core resource, which defines the stock variable, while providing a limited quantity of extractable fringe units, which defines the flow variable. While the core resource is to be protected or entertained in order to allow for its continuous exploitation, the fringe units can be harvested or consumed.
Whereas Ostrom, Gardner, Walker seem to add a third component to the consistence of CPR's - the CPR "facility".
A CPR "facility" creates the conditions for the existence of a stock of resource units. This stock makes available a flow of resource units over time that are appropriable and subtractable in use. 
How can this be understood?
Is this CPR facility the precondition for the core resource? To use the fish example: The CPR facility is a system (e.g. the ocean) that creates the condition for the existence of fish in general. The core resource (=stock variable) is a swarm of fish that can easily compensate certain losses that are attributable to fishery and the fringe units (=flow variable) is amount of fish that can be fished? Or do I get something completely wrong here? - Torstenphilipp (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ostrom, Gardner, Walker - Rules, Games & Common pool resources (1994) S. 8
when reading i kind of feel that i need a reference in the section before "critique", does ostrom say this? she has studied small systems but has she also studied bigger once? if so, the statement is correct, otherwise I suggest a (ref). How do I connect this section with the ref?
All the best and keep up the good work!
I would like to add a section on adaptive governance to this page. Ostrom advocates the use of adaptive governance in the management of common-pool resources, especially those related to the natural environment. The proposed section will outline briefly what adaptive governance is and the elements required to achieve it. Jrober (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
- Indented line I think that would be an ideal addition to this article, and provide some more balance - I presume you'll be referencing Dietz et al. (2003). Schmalliso (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the suggestion, I will take that source into consideration. Jrober (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., Stern, P. (2003). The Struggle to Govern the Commons, Science, 302(5652). Schmalliso (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking of moving the chart illustrating types of goods. On the other related pages it is under the overview and currently here it at the bottom under the references. Moving it to the overview would keep the pages looking consistent for users.Jrober (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2011 (UTC)