Talk:Common good (economics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Cooperatives (Rated Stub-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Cooperatives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cooperatives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Economics (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

First comment[edit]

I have modified the article to refer to "goods" in preference to "good" since the Wiktionary definition for goods states that it is "plural only; not used in singular form".

I would also suggest that the article is moved to "Common goods". This would help to alleviate any confusion with the philosophical meaning of "the common good".

See also a discussion on the Veblen goods discussion page.

RichBerry 13:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


The article states "The goods referred to as common pool resources are also known as common goods". So as I understand these are synonymous? Why is this article then not merged with the Common-pool_resource article? A partial explanation can be found here [1], but this should also be stated in the article if these two articles are not merged Skaakt 08:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO it would be a good idea to merge these two articles into one to avoid irritations. One section in the present article explaining CPRs and in which way they differ from ordinary common goods should be sufficient for the moment. - Perhaps it would be better to merge common pool resource into this to maintain the important link with various other types of good (inferior, normal, etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The CPRs will be removed from the table by me since I share the opinion of Krol:k on the discussion page mentioned above. Is it Common good or Common goods? I would have expected to find this article under Commmon goods (unless I had searched for the philosophical term ;-)). However, I'm no native speaker. 19:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the article on common goods, defining CPR clearly as a sub-type of common goods. Consequently, the typology table now shows CPR in brackets. There is no reason to merge the two articles, as the CPR article is important enough to be standalone. Maybe someone could extend the article on common goods by adding some relevant references. Krol:k (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed (& different) merge: "The Commons" into this article[edit]

Regardless of the current discussions, I propose a different merging. There are multiple articles concerning the common goods:

  1. The Commons: just a compilation of links
  2. Common good: with a marginal focus
  3. Common good (economics): this one, general but short
  4. Common-pool resource: deep enough, a specific type of (3)

This mess should be solved. Regardless of how to merge or clarify the last three, I believe the first one should be definitely merged into this article (the third). And that's what I've proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samer.hc (talkcontribs) 16:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, No; The only thing these articles have in common is the word common in their title.
(2)CG is on the political and philosophical concept; (3)CG(E) is the economic one. (4)CPR is on a specific aspect of CG(E) and the merge proposal (above) was resolved with a re-write.
As far as (1)TC is concerned, it is, as you say, a bit of a mess; but I don’t see how merging it here will help ( unless you're using “merge” as a euphemism for "delete"). It’s only the opening sentence that overlaps here; the rest of it is more about modern and historical conflict over common land. It would make more sense to improve TC (maybe by batting it back to the original editors). Moonraker12 (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Mmm... ok, I agree with you. I found this confuding mess when I searched for Commons in Wikipedia and I thought of that solution. Now I realise it may not be appropriate. However, there are multiple issues: (1) should be greatly improved in order to be useful: I support the idea to return it to the original editors; (2) is very biased towards Christian concepts, ignoring the Greek basis, the Roman redefinition, and modern political studies such as Elinor Ostrom's or Yochai Benkler's (that's why I categorised it as "marginal focus"); (3) and (4) overlap, even with the "re-write solution" specifying (4) as a special case of (3). That is the case especially when referring to research studies on the issue.
In any case, I guess the merge proposal could be deleted, although not this discussion thread.--Samer.hc (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your points on the problems on these pages, and I think it's worth raising them on the individual pages, to aim for improvement. I've raised some problems with The commons page over there, and I contacted the original editors for comment. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Common good (economics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 11 August 2017 (UTC)