In a time of climate change the Arctic region is undergoing rapid changes, and the decreasing sea ice cover is expected to draw increased commercial interests as The Arctic Ocean gets more accessible for resource exploitation. The central part of the ocean is common area, where, in theory, overfishing may result in a tragedy of the commons and related fish stocks collapse. This study aims to provide insights into how fishing in the central Arctic Ocean relates to successful collective management, and was conducted using Elinor Ostroms design principles and The Logic of Collective Action as a framework for an ideal type inspired analysis. The results show that conditions for collective fisheries management in the central Arctic Ocean are relatively good, and it’s concluded that collective fisheries management is already embraced and enacted upon by several actors. However, to attain the ideal state of collective management further improvements are required, although there are also multiple options as to how such requirements could be met and there was no indication of why collective management would be unsuccessful. / I samband med ett förändrat klimat så genomgår även den arktiska regionen snabba förändringar, där den minskande havsisen i Arktiska oceanen ger ökad tillgång till naturresurser och förväntas dra allt större kommersiella intressen. Den centrala delen av oceanen är en allmänning, vilken enligt teorin kan överfiskas och resultera i en allmänningens tragedi och relaterade kollapser av fiskbestånd. Denna studie ämnar ge en insikt i hur fisket i centrala Arktiska oceanen förhåller sig till lyckad kollektiv förvaltning, och utfördes genom att låta Elinor Ostroms designprinciper och det kollektiva handlandets logik utgöra ett ramverk för en idealtypsinspirerad analys. Resultaten visar att förutsättningarna för kollektiv förvaltning är relativt goda och att fisket i viss utsträckning redan förvaltas kollektivt. För att uppnå en idealtypisk kollektiv fiskeförvaltning framgår det dock att ytterligare insatser behövs men att det även finns flera alternativ för att möta dessa behov, och det fanns heller ingen antydan av att kollektiv förvaltning skulle misslyckas.

This paper is a qualitative text analysis with a purpose of evaluating strengths and weaknesses of the Paris Agreement in the light of the eight design principles of Elinor Ostrom's theory on how to govern the common resources. The eight design principles are; clearly defined boundaries, congruence between appropriation and provision rules and local conditions, collective-choice arrangements, monitoring, graduated sanctions, conflict-resolution mechanisms, minimal recognition of rights to organize, nested enterprises. These principles then lay the ground for the chosen methodological framework. Processes of categorization and coding the Agreement into categories based upon the eight principles then allows for an understanding of strengths and weaknesses shown in the Agreement, in relation to the theory. The result is then also discussed in relation to further considerations that might be important factors to take into account when understanding the Paris Agreement. The paper is based around the document on the Paris Agreement as well as the book by Ostrom named Governing the Commons “The Evolution of Institutions for CollectiveAction”. Further documents and articles are presented throughout the paper, especially in the analysis and discussion to provide for a wider picture on the subject and to avoid an all-biased paper.

Esta tese investiga as relações entre os bens comuns intelectuais e a mercantilização, e os efeitos dessas relações, principalmente para o universo da educação. Seus objetivos centrais são: apresentar as principais teorias sobre bens comuns, e avaliá-las quanto à capacidade de detectar e equacionar essas relações, e quanto à adequação para abordar bens comuns intelectuais; analisar se bens comuns e mercantilização são incompatíveis, e até que ponto podem coexistir; verificando, em casos existentes de novos modelos de negócio que envolvem o compartilhamento de bens intelectuais, se a mercantilização pode surgir a partir de bens comuns intelectuais, e indicando, em caso positivo, se o saldo resultante de compartilhamento e mercantilização nesses diferentes modelos é socialmente positivo ou não. A análise da mercantilização é feita de uma perspectiva conceitual (baseada em Marx e Polanyi) e histórica, abordando a transição do feudalismo ao capitalismo (e sua relação com o cercamento dos bens comuns), a ascensão do neoliberalismo, e o avanço de mecanismos específicos de mercantilização de bens intelectuais (a propriedade intelectual e os sistemas de travas tecnológicas). A análise das teorias de bens comuns centra-se numa leitura crítica da corrente mais consolidada: a neoinstitucionalista, formada em torno dos trabalhos de Elinor Ostrom; avalia-se seus principais méritos (a refutação empírica da noção da tragédia dos comuns; e a identificação dos design principles frequentes em bens comuns longevos), pressupostos (como o individualismo metodológico e a teoria da escolha racional) e limitações (como pontos cegos em relação a poder e desigualdade, e a restrição à escala local). Discute-se ainda autores que apresentam abordagens alternativas, como aqueles mais próximos ao marxismo (e, em particular, Hardt & Negri), e as complementaridades e contrapontos que oferecem à corrente neoinstitucionalista, particularmente quanto às limitações nela identificadas. Em relação à aplicação dessas teorias a bens intelectuais, detecta-se a ampla influência da categorização econômica de bens (utilizada na corrente neoinstitucionalista), e argumenta-se pela necessidade de uma categorização mais dialética; recomenda-se ainda uma nova abordagem para o princípio das fronteiras. Discute-se as relações da educação com a mercantilização e os bens comuns, apontando os efeitos de ambos sobre as possibilidades de acesso e apropriação de bens intelectuais. Por fim, a tese apresenta e analisa cinco casos relacionados a novos modelos de negócio que envolvem compartilhamento de bens intelectuais. Conclui-se que em todos eles há a possibilidade de surgimento de mercantilização, de diversas formas, mas que o saldo resultante de mercantilização e compartilhamento varia; esses casos são, do melhor ao pior saldo: o crowdfunding (em que pode ocorrer mercantilização dos serviços de intermediação); o acesso aberto ouro (em que há mercantilização do espaço de publicação, que assume forma particularmente nociva nos periódicos predatórios); dois casos ligados à participação de empresas no desenvolvimento do software livre (o Android e os patches ck, em que os projetos podem ser direcionados na gestão e pelo custeio de modo a favorecer estrategias comerciais de empresas); e a publicidade comportamental online (em que ocorre uma mercantilização de segunda ordem: a da audiência). / This thesis investigates the relations between intellectual commons and commodification, and the effects of these relations, particularly for the domain of education. Its main objectives are: presenting the main theories about commons, and evaluating them regarding their capacity to detect and account for these relations, and regarding their adequacy to approach intellectual goods; analyzing whether commons and commodification are incompatible and up to which point they can coexist; verifying, in existing cases of new business models around the sharing of intellectual goods, if commodification can spring from within intellectual commons, and if so indicating whether the resulting balance of sharing and commodification in those different models is socially positive. The analysis of commodification is made from a conceptual perspective (based on Marx and Polanyi) and a historical one, by addressing the transition from feudalism to capitalism (and its relationship with the enclosure of the commons), the rise of neoliberalism, and the advances in mechanisms for commodification of intellectual goods (intellectual property and DRMs). The analysis of the theories about commons focuses on a critical reading of the more consolidated theoretical school: the neoinstitutionalist, formed around the work of Elinor Ostrom; its main merits are evaluated (the empirical refutation of the notion of the tragedy of the commons and the identification of design principles that are usual in long enduring commons), as well as its assumptions (such as methodological individualism and rational choice theory) and limitations (such as blind spots regarding power and inequality, and its restriction to the local scale). Authors who present alternative approaches are discussed, such as those related to Marxism (and in particular, Hardt & Negri), and the complementarities and counterpoints they offer to the neo-institutionalist schoolparticularly with regard to the limitations previously identified in itare mentioned. Regarding the application of these theories to intellectual goods, the thesis acknowledges the pervasive influence of the economic categorization of goods (used in the neo-institutionalist school), and argues for the need of a more dialectical categorization; it further recommends a new approach to the first design principle (boundaries). The linkages of education with commodification and commons are discussed, and the effects of both on the possibilities of access to and appropriation of intellectual goods are pointed out. Finally, the thesis presents and analyzes five cases related to new business models that involve sharing of intellectual goods. It is concluded that in all of them there is the possibility of the emergence of commodification, in various forms, but that the balance resulting from commodification and sharing varies; these cases are, from best to worst balance: crowdfunding (where commodification of intermediary services may occur); gold open access (where there is commodification of the publishing space, which assumes particularly harmful forms with predatory journals); two cases related to companies participation in free software development (Android and the ck patches, in which the projects can be directedthrough management and fundingto favor companies commercial strategies); and online behavioral advertising (where there occurs a commodification of second order occurs: the commodification of the audience).

Esta tese investiga as relações entre os bens comuns intelectuais e a mercantilização, e os efeitos dessas relações, principalmente para o universo da educação. Seus objetivos centrais são: apresentar as principais teorias sobre bens comuns, e avaliá-las quanto à capacidade de detectar e equacionar essas relações, e quanto à adequação para abordar bens comuns intelectuais; analisar se bens comuns e mercantilização são incompatíveis, e até que ponto podem coexistir; verificando, em casos existentes de novos modelos de negócio que envolvem o compartilhamento de bens intelectuais, se a mercantilização pode surgir a partir de bens comuns intelectuais, e indicando, em caso positivo, se o saldo resultante de compartilhamento e mercantilização nesses diferentes modelos é socialmente positivo ou não. A análise da mercantilização é feita de uma perspectiva conceitual (baseada em Marx e Polanyi) e histórica, abordando a transição do feudalismo ao capitalismo (e sua relação com o cercamento dos bens comuns), a ascensão do neoliberalismo, e o avanço de mecanismos específicos de mercantilização de bens intelectuais (a propriedade intelectual e os sistemas de travas tecnológicas). A análise das teorias de bens comuns centra-se numa leitura crítica da corrente mais consolidada: a neoinstitucionalista, formada em torno dos trabalhos de Elinor Ostrom; avalia-se seus principais méritos (a refutação empírica da noção da tragédia dos comuns; e a identificação dos design principles frequentes em bens comuns longevos), pressupostos (como o individualismo metodológico e a teoria da escolha racional) e limitações (como pontos cegos em relação a poder e desigualdade, e a restrição à escala local). Discute-se ainda autores que apresentam abordagens alternativas, como aqueles mais próximos ao marxismo (e, em particular, Hardt & Negri), e as complementaridades e contrapontos que oferecem à corrente neoinstitucionalista, particularmente quanto às limitações nela identificadas. Em relação à aplicação dessas teorias a bens intelectuais, detecta-se a ampla influência da categorização econômica de bens (utilizada na corrente neoinstitucionalista), e argumenta-se pela necessidade de uma categorização mais dialética; recomenda-se ainda uma nova abordagem para o princípio das fronteiras. Discute-se as relações da educação com a mercantilização e os bens comuns, apontando os efeitos de ambos sobre as possibilidades de acesso e apropriação de bens intelectuais. Por fim, a tese apresenta e analisa cinco casos relacionados a novos modelos de negócio que envolvem compartilhamento de bens intelectuais. Conclui-se que em todos eles há a possibilidade de surgimento de mercantilização, de diversas formas, mas que o saldo resultante de mercantilização e compartilhamento varia; esses casos são, do melhor ao pior saldo: o crowdfunding (em que pode ocorrer mercantilização dos serviços de intermediação); o acesso aberto ouro (em que há mercantilização do espaço de publicação, que assume forma particularmente nociva nos periódicos predatórios); dois casos ligados à participação de empresas no desenvolvimento do software livre (o Android e os patches ck, em que os projetos podem ser direcionados na gestão e pelo custeio de modo a favorecer estrategias comerciais de empresas); e a publicidade comportamental online (em que ocorre uma mercantilização de segunda ordem: a da audiência). / This thesis investigates the relations between intellectual commons and commodification, and the effects of these relations, particularly for the domain of education. Its main objectives are: presenting the main theories about commons, and evaluating them regarding their capacity to detect and account for these relations, and regarding their adequacy to approach intellectual goods; analyzing whether commons and commodification are incompatible and up to which point they can coexist; verifying, in existing cases of new business models around the sharing of intellectual goods, if commodification can spring from within intellectual commons, and if so indicating whether the resulting balance of sharing and commodification in those different models is socially positive. The analysis of commodification is made from a conceptual perspective (based on Marx and Polanyi) and a historical one, by addressing the transition from feudalism to capitalism (and its relationship with the enclosure of the commons), the rise of neoliberalism, and the advances in mechanisms for commodification of intellectual goods (intellectual property and DRMs). The analysis of the theories about commons focuses on a critical reading of the more consolidated theoretical school: the neoinstitutionalist, formed around the work of Elinor Ostrom; its main merits are evaluated (the empirical refutation of the notion of the tragedy of the commons and the identification of design principles that are usual in long enduring commons), as well as its assumptions (such as methodological individualism and rational choice theory) and limitations (such as blind spots regarding power and inequality, and its restriction to the local scale). Authors who present alternative approaches are discussed, such as those related to Marxism (and in particular, Hardt & Negri), and the complementarities and counterpoints they offer to the neo-institutionalist schoolparticularly with regard to the limitations previously identified in itare mentioned. Regarding the application of these theories to intellectual goods, the thesis acknowledges the pervasive influence of the economic categorization of goods (used in the neo-institutionalist school), and argues for the need of a more dialectical categorization; it further recommends a new approach to the first design principle (boundaries). The linkages of education with commodification and commons are discussed, and the effects of both on the possibilities of access to and appropriation of intellectual goods are pointed out. Finally, the thesis presents and analyzes five cases related to new business models that involve sharing of intellectual goods. It is concluded that in all of them there is the possibility of the emergence of commodification, in various forms, but that the balance resulting from commodification and sharing varies; these cases are, from best to worst balance: crowdfunding (where commodification of intermediary services may occur); gold open access (where there is commodification of the publishing space, which assumes particularly harmful forms with predatory journals); two cases related to companies participation in free software development (Android and the ck patches, in which the projects can be directedthrough management and fundingto favor companies commercial strategies); and online behavioral advertising (where there occurs a commodification of second order occurs: the commodification of the audience).

No description available.

This study took place in northern Tanzania in Babati district. Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) are establishments that endorse conservation of the wildlife and the environment, development and sustainable land-use in the rural areas. The aim of the organization is to provide local communities with economic benefits and including them in the projects of wildlife and habitat conservation (Kicheleri et al., 2018). However, it is unclear if the aim of the organizations has worked that well in the field. The aim of this study is to analyze some of the local attitudes, of the villages Minjingu, Vilima Vitatu and Kakoi, towards Burunge Wildlife Management Area. This study will also analyze how the membership with WMA has changed the living conditions for the inhabitants in the three villages, by conducting semi-structured interviews on villagers, a WMA secretary and the district council officer. Results indicate that the most common perception villagers have about WMA is that the household income has decreased, and the destruction on land and crops by wildlife has increased. The villagers are unhappy about how WMA handles different situations. Due to this, the majority of the respondents from all three studied villages stated they would like to end the membership with WMA.

The challenges of sustainability and its complexities born out of overexploitation of resources, leading to climate change issues, food wastage, and scarcity, economic and health-related dilemmas, has yet to find their solution in top-down models, taking the form of hierarchical control (rulers), as such, researchers have considered other alternatives to how communities can tackle these issues, and one of such approach is the bottom-up model. Recent research and literature on collective action have focused on sequencing events like regime changes, riots, revolutions, protests, and the founding of social movement organizations. This study ethnographically investigated the relevant factors for collective action and factors influencing individual cooperation in the local community initiative, Food Rescue Gotland, through a four-week participant observation with eight in-depth interviews. The relevant factors identified in this context were a sense of community, passion for sustainability, good atmosphere for work, committed volunteers and trust, availability of resources and goodwill ambassadors, ease of participation, small size, effective communication, and good structure. Significant factors influencing individual cooperation include knowledge about sustainability, a sense of belonging, and a shared sense of community. This study contributes to the broader literature on successful collective action for sustainability in the context of local community initiatives. It contributes further to the replicability of this kind of local community initiative in other communities and awareness of its impact on Gotland Island, Sweden.

La gouvernance doit être considérée comme le principal enjeu du développement durable. En effet, un rapport du Programme des Nations Unies pour l’Environnement conclut : « une révision complète de la manière dont la planète est gérée est urgente si nous voulons répondre aux défis que pose le développement durable ». Partant du postulat selon lequel les problèmes environnementaux ont des racines dans la manière dont les humains s’organisent, quiconque cherche à solutionner ces problèmes devrait s’intéresser à la gouvernance. Toutefois, la gouvernance est un concept qui se décline en plusieurs variantes et il importe de préciser de quoi on parle. Dans ce contexte, la gestion en commun et la décentralisation semblent être des concepts incontournables permettant d’aborder adéquatement la gouvernance des ressources naturelles. La gestion d’une ressource naturelle par les usagers au niveau local – la gestion en commun – n’est pas un phénomène nouveau. Les différentes communautés forestières à travers le monde ont depuis plusieurs siècles développées leurs propres systèmes de règles pour encadrer l’accès aux ressources forestières desquelles dépendent directement leurs communautés. Dans plusieurs d’entre elles, l’accès aux différentes ressources forestières demeure à bien des égards encadré par des institutions traditionnelles. À un autre niveau, depuis l’époque coloniale, la quasi-totalité des pays à travers le monde ont, à des degrés divers, dans différents domaines, mis en place une gouvernance centralisée. Le domaine forestier notamment était alors intégré au domaine public, placé sous la tutelle de l’État à qui revenait l’ensemble des décisions le concernant : planification, gestion, exploitation, etc. Depuis quelques décennies toutefois, plusieurs observateurs soulignent le fait que les États semblent avoir échoué, que ce soit par manque de ressources, de capacité ou d’intérêt, à assurer une gestion durable des forêts. On se questionne alors à savoir si les problèmes de développement durable entourant les forêts (déforestation, dégradation des habitats, déclin de la biodiversité, pertes de services écologiques, pauvreté, inégalités, etc.) pourraient être attribuables une prise de décision centralisée. Dans ce contexte, plusieurs postulent qu’une partie de la solution à ces problèmes pourrait passer par une des modes de gouvernance alternatifs, plus précisément par une prise de décision moins centralisée. On défend de plus en plus l’idée selon laquelle il y une réelle plus-value à une implication active des populations locales dans la prise de décision sur les ressources forestières desquelles elles dépendent. À ce titre, l’idée qu’on ne peut plus exploiter les forêts au détriment ou sans considération pour les populations qui y vivent semble faire consensus depuis le Sommet de la Terre de Rio en 1992. Cette idée, loin de se limiter aux cercles académiques, se manifeste un peu partout à travers le monde par des politiques publiques qui reconnaissent des droits, des pouvoirs et des responsabilités aux communautés locales en matière de gestion des ressources forestières. Les observations montrent que le passage d’une gouvernance centralisée à une gouvernance « décentralisée » implique plus qu’une nouvelle législation, qu’il ne faut pas confondre changements législatifs et changements dans les modes de gouvernance. En effet, plusieurs décennies de centralisation ont altéré de manière significative et durable les institutions traditionnelles qui régulaient jusque-là l’accès aux ressources forestières dans les communautés. Dans ce contexte, il ne suffit pas de reconnaître des droits, des pouvoirs et des responsabilités aux communautés locales pour que les communautés reprennent la gestion des forêts là où elles l’avaient laissée. L’intégration d’un registre institutionnel traditionnel à un registre proprement moderne est un processus complexe. La décentralisation peut induire des effets pervers sur les rapports de force qui existent entre les acteurs au niveau local. La décentralisation peut être synonyme d’une prise de décision sur le long terme, respectueuse de l’environnement et des spécificités locales, mais pour ce faire elle doit s’intégrer au paysage institutionnel local et non tenter de s’y substituer. Ultimement, la décentralisation repose sur la capacité des acteurs impliqués à inventer de nouveaux communs, à capitaliser sur le capital social existant, à mettre en place de nouvelles institutions et à s’adapter aux capacités locales. Le Cameroun a entrepris en 1994 la réforme de son secteur forestier sous le thème de la décentralisation. Le pays a notamment offert la possibilité aux communautés de mettre en place des forêts communautaires. Ainsi, les communautés mises à l’écart d’une partie importante des décisions sur l’exploitation des forêts depuis plus d’un siècle se sont vues offrir la possibilité d’obtenir des droits, des pouvoirs et des responsabilités formelles sur le territoire sur lequel elles exercent des droits traditionnels informels. Après 20 ans de mise en œuvre, les observations montrent que l’articulation entre les registres institutionnels moderne et traditionnel cause de nombreuses problématiques de gouvernance dans les forêts communautaires camerounaises. Les institutions mises en place dans le cadre de cette gouvernance décentralisée ne semblent pas être adaptées aux contextes locaux. Le capital social et les institutions locales sur lesquels repose la gestion en commun ne sont pas valorisés. Au final, même si les communautés locales possèdent de réelles capacités en matière de gestion des ressources forestières, le bon fonctionnement des nouvelles institutions implique pour les communautés de mobiliser d’importantes ressources financières, de maîtriser un langage technique proprement moderne et ultimement, elles ne parviennent pas à s’approprier le processus et se retrouvent dépendantes d’acteurs externes. Au final, parce qu’elles ne s’y retrouvent plus dans ces nouvelles manières de fonctionner, elles se désintéressent de la forêt communautaire et c’est tout le processus qui manque sa cible.

In the end of 2015 the Swedish government made a complete turnaround regarding its former generous migration policy. Through examination of previous and recent decisions made by the swedish government, this study aims to contribute to a better understanding of this unique situation. It does so by applying Elinor Ostrom’s theory of sustainable management of common resources onto the swedish universal welfare modell. By classifying whether the policies can be considered as steps in a sustainable direction or not, the essey seeks to find whether Ostrom’s theory, former soleley applied on natural resource pools, is compatible with sheer welfare policies, in this case migration, thus offering a better understanding of the phenomenon. The study finds that even though the theory very well could be applied to the said policy area, it would be done with no regard of the ever so important moral and ideological values which characterizes the universal welfare model.

This thesis examines whether two sharing economy organisations, Uber and Bilpoolarna, can be characterized by Elinor Ostrom’s principles for cooperation of common goods or not. The idea for the research question came from the global difficulties with the decision-making regarding the climate issue and Elinor Ostroms studies about the possibility to create sustainable cooperations regarding the distribution of common goods. If cooperation is possible, we might be able to together develop the climate actions in the right direction and make sustainable distributions of resources we have despite missing actions on a global level. The current growth of the sharing economy could be a sign of that possibility. The final result is that the association Bilpoolarna fulfills all principles more or less while Uber fails to fulfill principle 3, 5 and 6, and only to a small extent fulfills the remaining principles. The result indicates that Ostrom’s principles of cooperation not only characterizes common, non-excludable goods such as water and land, but also can extend its principles to the distribution of modern resources, such as the cars of Bilpoolarna – as long as the cooperation is voluntary and on a local level.