# data[].attributes.body
This paper seems to criticize structuralist explanations (and associated policies) for the 'tragedy of the commons' .

The paper looks @ the specific question of institutional shape and its impact on land tenure and conservation.  More than lack of understanding of pre-existing institutional arrangements per se,  the specific  question is whether one single monocentric system of governance would be inferior to diffuse bottom up, representing directly the interests of the various stakeholders.

In fact, the authors raise the question of whether the tragedy of the commons actually originates from private property that seems to create the incentives to plunder / Emanuela

# data[].attributes.body
I found the concept of food cooperatives really interesting. I thought the balance between creating a bounded group in order to foster a community and the wish not to be exclusionary was a difficult one. Both food coops appeared to have created exclusionary niches for themselves but I am unsure of how they would have created a distinct identity without doing so.

Georgia 686396

# data[].attributes.body
So interesting! I am used to talk about the employee and the employer as eternal rivals. It is very refreshing to find models in which they actually converge. In this sense, co-ops are the proof that traditional capitalism can be reformulated without falling in traditional anti-capitalist alternatives. People can look for private profit while still eliciting common wealth, eg. helping a community to overcome the ‘food desert’ with your business. Even if there are a lot of features to analyze and improve (such as the exclusion of certain groups of people), I think this text leaves the door open for a lot of hopeful possibilities. Are community-led business the solution to the economic polarization of society, starting by the reconciliation between workers and owners? How can we bring this model to other productive sectors, such as electric power? - Laura Torres

Response to Laura by Brigid
I agree with your point that co-ops show ways of doing consumer capitalism differently. Zitcer says co-ops 'even thrive in a capitalist framework' (p2). When we look at localised vs centralised governance I think this is a model which balances the two, in the sense that it is co-operative action at a local level but still sitting within the neoliberal system. This doesn't bother me as much as I expected it would. I think this is because as much as a radical, local, collective model (in this case for food consumption) would be the 'ideal', in practice it doesn't always achieve its goals. And as you say with your example of the business to feed the food desert, there are potentially alternatives that aren't too radically anti-capitalist. Ultimately I think any model depends on what you are governing/controlling and the scale.

# data[].attributes.body
Reading this, I was reminded of the readings on indigenous communities and how they are best placed to achieve a balance with their ecosystem - whether it is the local knowledge, the systems of governance, or the relationships between the various institutions that they inhabit. The government's interventions are a clear case of their inability to understand how these systems work, instead privileging privatization / neoliberal models which incentivize the wrong behaviors. I still haven't fully understood the tragedy of commons concept, so perhaps Im also missing something here.
-Anuradha

i too got this sense when reading this article. what strikes me is the blind universalist approach and the sense of superiority that seems to pervade when colonists and capitalists enter a space. the Maasai clearly had a very sophisticated way of organising resource use so that both community and individual needs where met in a sustainable way and this idea of modernisation had no regard for local understandings.
Ali

This made me think of a parable by James Scott: "The State and Scientific Forestry" which highlights the need to acknowledge local knowledge in contrast to the dangers of 'dismembering an exceptionally complex and poorly understood set of relations and processes in order to isolate a single element of instrumental value." (Anna, 675638)

# data[].attributes.headline
Conflict in trying to cater to all, while focusing on artisanal products?

# data[].attributes.subject
Conflict in trying to cater to all, while focusing on artisanal products?

# data[].attributes.body
It is mentioned that both co-ops focus on ethically produced and fairtrade goods, as well as products from local artisanal producers. Considering the fact that most of the members of the Weavers Way co-op are white, educated and wealthy, I wonder whether the focus on ethical (and hence probably more expensive) products discourages working-class involvement? As exemplified by the failure of the co-op to expand into a black, working-class neighborhood, it seems that both the homogenous membership and presumably higher prices create an air of exclusivity. There hence seems to be a problematic divide between ‘natural foods’/ artisanal and ethical products, and the ability to cater to working-class neighborhoods. This suggests that the issue is not just membership and activism, but also the pricing of the products.

I can’t really think of a solution for this conflict. Of course, smaller producers and fairtrade products should be supported, and healthy, natural food should be available for all, regardless of economic standing. But since these goods are bound to be more expensive, it seems to homogenize membership and make the co-ops more exclusive.

Edda (667994)

Response to Edda

I agree that there appears to be a tradeoff between providing ethical and healthy products on the one hand, and exclusionary prices on the other hand. Again, I also agree that this chasm appears hard to bridge. In a for profit business, there is only so much one can do with regards to pricing internally. The cooperatives might be able to ask for subsidies from wealthier clients and members. Moreover, I recall that there as also the issue that it was mainly white people applying for the jobs. This again makes it difficult to address the employee homogeneity. Although, this could indeed be a consequence of the client base being disproportionately white and upmarket too. From personal experience, many of these health stores can be quite chique and thus unnecessarily overpriced. Perhaps changing the image and spending less money on appearance could make the produce more accessible too.

Marten 686321

# data[].attributes.body
Mosse and Nagappan explain three examples of Dalit socio-political agency in Tamil Nadu which show  the strengths and weaknesses of self-managed collective action and discourse through utilising the caste status. At the movement’s most successful self-governed period, multiple groups covering local, regional and state political access, gender, heath and education issues formed a network to create a strong Dalit political voice in Tamil Nadu backed by NGOs. Small issues which would have been lost became part of the scaling affect – “power contagion” –with top levels relying on grassroots for votes and local political mobilising and grassroots movements gaining status and authority in return.  The structure had no centralised head but flexible and issue led “nodes” proactively managing issues, similar to the pre-colonial period of the Maasai. The discursive and practical approach worked until the tsunami when the flexible system without designated central management was not able to cope with the huge shift in requirement to a more formal structure and Dalits lost out land and resources. As one NGO employee comments “We started to build the four walls and the roof collapsed.” Subsequent successful village land claims were done in an approach which did not mention caste and took a strong political and legal approach using the tools of the state legislation and bureaucracy to highlight inefficiencies and put pressure from a grassroots level. The claim against the state and Michelin taking land for industry shows the approach is not always successful with state, government, and international business overruling. I do wonder if the flexible, informal system would have lasted long term had the tsunami not happened or would it have changed over time from self-management to central management with INGOs setting development and sustainability goals as Mosse suggests has happened.

Susie

Response:

I agree, it is very important to consider how systems may hold up against external forces - this is as important as questioning the internal coherency of the governance system.
Maria 687047

# data[].attributes.body
This article calls for a critical rethinking of the tragedy of the commons theory because it contradicts the notion that in a commons people will overconsume and overexploit resources to the detriment of all. This represents a somewhat deterministic and paternalistic view of communities as prone to maximise their own self-interest and unable to collectively manage resources for wider societal benefit. It also raises the issue of the hierarchies of knowledge where externally imposed science-based solutions are seen to be superior to local experiences and knowledge. In fact around the world there are numerous examples of community-led institutions and governance mechanisms protecting natural and cultural resources. Although the authors rightly point out that formal land ownership and titling may be opposed to the philosophies and practices of some communities, is there a more effective and culturally appropriate way to provide security of tenure to these groups in a world where resources and lands are under constant threat from neoliberalist corporate and state interests?
-Sheu Jeen

# data[].attributes.body
I found this an interesting read in its comparison of acts, attitudes and activism of a ‘liberal’ cooperative and a ‘radical’ one. Zitcer tells us that across all cooperatives homogeneity of members remains a challenge initially as a response to industrial capitalism relied on by immigrant groups changing to an audience of more affluent foodies. Often sites of exclusion (around race, class) -facing a paradox - maintaining a sense of togetherness/community and yet not discriminating against outsiders. Could working together overcome the shortcomings of exclusivity? This paper suggests that ‘coops in federation are much stronger than one individual organisation’ (15), such as the PACA self-confessed as the ‘co-ops of all co-ops’ by focusing on spreading knowledge, nourishing smaller coops and including a diversity of voices and experiences.
Rebecca Luff

# data[].attributes.headline
The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality. 

# data[].attributes.body
The tragedy of the commons “is not unhappiness”. ‘It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things”.

The technicalities of the commons:

“Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit-in a world that is limited. “

“Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of commons.”

“Freedom in a common brings ruin to all.”

=> The above quotes describe the tragedy of an economic model that is based on competition, surplus and self-interest. The capitalist model is based on growth which will inevitably lead to exponential growth.

=> With that in mind, I think it is important to consider the following technicalities: self-interest, denial, diversity and time.

“Natural selection favours the forces of denial.”

=> Denial is counterproductive, but ultimately, it is a survival instinct within the animal kingdom based on fear and self-protection. This is also intrinsic to humans.

=> self-interest is a survival instinct as well.

diversity:

=> diversity is the principle of life. Competing for survival is therefore inevitable.

time:

“the morality of an act is a function of the state of the system at the time it is performed”.

=> Morality is a reflection of a certain time and therefore renders morality a technicality itself. What was accepted centuries ago, might be unthinkable in the present.  (Humans do not anticipate the future enough).

___________

To me, the problem lies not so much in “the commons” principle and by that acknowledging technicalities that are inevitable.

Rather, the problem lies  in a collective cognitive challenge acknowledging responsibility and shifting assemblages that require constant review (for example: a law that applies to all contradicts the principle of diversity).

=> A challenge that identifies the variables as to how much we have to limit ourselves to grow sustainably, that is morally just across a diverse population, not only at a moment in time, but also anticipating the future.

Humans do have the agency to limit growth. Unlimited growth is therefore not inevitable. It is a conscious decision that overcomes the individual in a balanced way, that allows space to discuss what is “good” and within reason and that involves long-term thinking for the greater good considering the total system. “Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected.”

“Education [awareness] can counteract the natural tendency to do the wrong thing.”

“Freedom is the recognition of necessity”. (Anna, 675638)

In Response to Anna

I found your perspective incredibly interesting. Especially where you highlight "Rather, the problem lies  in a collective cognitive challenge acknowledging responsibility". Each time I have discussed the Tragedy of Commons what comes to mind is the "Bystander Effect"-diffusion of responsibility leading to inaction when things go sour.  Then is the lack of motivation to act as one convinces another will figure it out the reason for demise? A different kind of inaction in self-interest. All is well till things turn downside. In which case then leadership and hierarchy based responsibilities are generated? Then can we as a species operate on principles of equality and commons?
-Priyanka (683580)

# data[].attributes.body
I really like the way you have summarised Hardin's article and the narrative your points create.
What I stumble on is the following:
“Freedom is the recognition of necessity” ->
"the most important aspect of necessity is the necessity of abandoning the commons of breeding... and it is the role of education to reveal to all the necessity of abandoning the freedom to breed" (p.1248).

Is Hardin therefore suggesting we must stop breeding? How does that enabling equal distribution of rights and freedom to the commons?
Eleni 686974

# data[].attributes.headline
Recruitment & Retention: Challenging in any business, but even more so here!

# data[].attributes.subject
Recruitment & Retention: Challenging in any business, but even more so here!

# data[].attributes.body
My undergraduate studies were in the business field, and I have spent a number of years professionally in jobs directly or indirectly related to human resource management (and a close family member has worked in recruitment for the past 20 years).

I really felt a lot of sympathy for all parties during the discussion about the challenges of both recruiting and retaining staff. EVERY successful organisation sometimes finds itself asking "what if?" after turning away well-qualified applicants because there are only a finite number of vacancies, and even more so if a new hire doesn't stay long (p.13). But it seems that these universal challenges of recruitment and retention become even trickier when your hiring strategy is more overtly tied to a wider ideological vision, as in this case.

- Sara (684725)

# data[].attributes.body
I thought that the discussion of nested governance systems organised at diverse levels was very valuable and interesting. Indeed, nested governance proved to be the key differentiator between the Maasai and colonial and postcolonial externally imposed governance institutions in successfully achieving ecological resilience of their land. I wonder how we could used nested governance systems in other parts of the world as well as outside of the SES sphere but in more general economic and political structures.

Marten 686321

# data[].attributes.body
I found this piece so interesting. This was my first time really receiving extensive information about the topic of co-ops. The writing showed how each co-op can struggle with finding the right balance between self-governance, meeting the needs and wants of customers and employees, but also continuing to stay true to their moral aims. However, what you also see is that there are contradictions, co-ops want to help and make changes, but there is this problem with inclusivity and making sure that everyone has a say in the decision making, yet people are being left out.

Tessa

Respond by Bo Yang:

Yes, it has opened the room of understanding the balances between self-governance and moral goals. But it is never binary interaction between two things, it is ever changing and transforming with encountered new agents, value, economic rationale and so on, with historic trajectories of becoming.

# data[].attributes.body
Co-op's are such an interesting idea and concept, especially to help make changes that are normally beyond our control. However, we see in this paper contradictions, in combatting exclusions and trying to be included in decision making, further people are excluded. As Zitcer points out, there is a glaring problem of inclusivity within this area of ethical food production and co-ops.

Both Co-ops have good intentions but in both cases, the problem is made the responsibility of those that are excluded, of the lower-income families and people of colour. They don't have the experience, they don't care, they're not educated in this area, they can't afford to shop here etc. This is where the real change can be made. Using anthropological research methods to understand why this is the case, and make it the responsibility and mission of the co-op to implement. When it comes to social justice, they can't just want the change, they need to be the change. Yes there is an issue with frequency when recruiting, but it's important to understand why this particular group lacks experience or the skills and provide what is lacking. For example, there are now policies in place that make managers responsible not only to make sure they hire diversely, but also their own success (bonus) depends on training and promoting people of colour. The aim should be inclusion at all costs.

Natasha (675589)

# data[].attributes.body
I found interesting to understanding the mutual constitution between institution and ecosystem. And I would like to look for more agents, and if much more agents included, does SES still work? Agents are those inside: group members, elites, authorities, or even gendered/aged actors. Also outsides: emerging marketing rational, layered levels of authorities, privileged and ordinary new comers and so on. Furthermore, some 'invasive' comers are also probably transforming as parts of SES. Thereby, agents are never stablised, but ever changing. How do systems perform as well?

Bo Yang

# data[].attributes.body
Zitcer argues how some voices can be excluded during the creation of coops however, they are still a better alternative than exploitation occurring through companies such as Walmart. As shown in this article there are many advantages to using coops within communities and there should be a greater emphasis placed on these advantages while communities come together to fix the issues. The author suggests a hybrid approach which would mean coops can show flexibility and be able to adapt to their surroundings and meet the collective needs of each community which hopefully means coops can achieve greater success and recognise the diversity within society. As noted, there are differences in income inequality among different communities and the coops attempt to address this through pricing premium goods at a higher rate and selling more of them in affluent communities, however this can contribute to furthering the disparities between communities and increase inequality.

Zoe

Responding to Zoe
The issues with each co-op are around struggling to find the right balance between self-governance, meeting the needs of employees and customers, expanding the business and remaining true to the ethical goals. The fact the membership does not appeal to a more diverse community in a neighbourhood seems to go unexamined or not seen as cause for concern. Rather than aiming for expansion, perhaps they should focus more on helping other co-operatives establish themselves with their own goals, neighbourhood knowledge and connections. A system of nodes in self governance may work more effectively than the expansion by a small number of existing co-ops.

Susie

Responding to Susie

Yes I completely agree, I just didn't articulate it well within my short paragraph! there needs to be a focus on collective action within diverse communities rather than expansion of the coops. The issues within the article regarding the coop such as exclusion and failure to thrive in certain areas need to be addressed in order to achieve success that meets the needs of whole communities which will be challenging as 'one size does not fit all' but overall self-governance and putting money and investing in local communities should be a priority rather than big Walmart chains exploiting workers.Zoe

Response from Karen: As a long time member of a co-op, this really resonated with me, particularly the challenge of expansion. What I've observed is that as the co-op has become more mainstream, demand grew, and they expanded to meet demand, the requirements for management hierarchy and the like have diluted the inclusion and democracy upon which they are founded. My co-op feels more and more like an upscale grocery store everyday. For me a turning point was when they took away the requirement to actually work in the shop (or some other capacity). I believe that for many it became less an investment in social capital but rather one in financial capital.

# data[].attributes.body
A line that stuck out to me in Mosse's article was:

“You can work for Dalits but to work as Dalits is politically dangerous” (143)

This was demonstrated through the necessity for the 'scaling' that the network had to pursue - almost disguising the caste based oppression they were fighting against and making it appeal to the interests of "distant others".

I think this raises a good point on community/collective action when fighting for the rights/wants/needs of oppressed groups - how are these voices truly heard? And how does this effect outcomes?
Emma N

# data[].attributes.body
I think the problem is really rooted in a combination of diversity, balance and time. The natural balance is out of kilter because of  intrinsic instincts (the inability to control greed, self-interest and denial) and the economic model that we pursued for too long.

Life is based on diversity but because we are all different there is not one solution that everyone can and will live up to.

We cannot backtrack and we cannot repair the damage quickly enough that the developed countries and Western ideologies have caused. Thus even if some people are moral and conscientious, others are not, or less, or they might not agree with suggested alternative models. And as noted in the text:

“confronted with appeals to limit breeding, some people will undoubtedly respond to the plea more than others. Those who have more children will produce a larger fraction of the next generation than those with more susceptible consciences.” (Anna, 675638)

________________
In response to your last point Anna, I feel like Hardin's argument there ignored the effects of education and wider social change that affects people's choices in life. Of course people who choose to not limit their breeding will produce more children - but those children are not necessarily more likely to have more children themselves. It seems to be an argument based on the idea that morals and values can be passed on biologically..

Claire

# data[].attributes.body
This was a very interesting piece. What struck me most is that one’s understanding of co-operatives is predominantly constructed via criticism of other forms of business’. The dual nature of cooperatives invokes doubts and is fraught with dilemma as it is deemed very important that the co-operatives’ ideology is marketed, and that they should be profitable. These notions, to do with growth, conflicts with the fundamental values of the co-operative. Discriminating between products that are sold to better align with a coop's values also maintains the exclusionary class structure of capitalist society.

Tanita - 685926

# data[].attributes.body
I found this to be a really well balanced representation of the realities and struggles of democratic ideals outside of the capitalist system. For me the defining point that Zitzer makes is that it is what we understand to be democracy and democratic ways of working that need to be challenged:

‘That upending of convention must influence the way business is conducted at the co-op.

Again, a co-op, when successful, can serve as a precursor to a more just set of institutional

arrangements. But democracy at work does not have to mean total reliance on consensus and

complete lack of hierarchy.’ Clare W 677349

# data[].attributes.body
yes, I totally agree that the article does not consider agency enough and I also see that a new generation does not necessarily have to embrace the values of a previous generation. That said, I do not see Hardin's view as too simplistic. It was written in 1968 and his prognosis for the future was rather realistic as we have been observing exponential growth to a point of the depletion of resources. To aspire better education is, of course, integral to driving social change,  but it still leaves me thinking that it is very optimistic, also in view of the human condition. Would all of humanity act on it? Education and creating awareness is one step, overcoming instincts and really changing a pattern / practice another (with regards to the text about cooperatives: “[…],living up to cooperative ideals is difficult in practice”Alkon, Guthman,p.2). A lot of us may not understand maximum yield as the ultimate goal, but that is not the case for everyone and we are running out of time. Another issue is the damage that we have already caused which links back to Claire BR’s :do we need firm direction in our daily lives and restrictive policies in order for us to think about the greater good of the commons? =>

I think this has become a global reality, but should still be looked at in context, considering economic model and local knowledge. In a global context we have to find solutions that are ecologically efficient, environmentally sustainable and economically viable. In addition to that we have to stress everyone's responsibility in this challenge, nurture empathy, engagement and dialogue to curb alienation. I think with a very heterogenous world population with different aspirations and different cultural background this illustrates a difficult task. Attitudes of society at large will probably only really change when scarcity feels real to everyone and denial will no longer be possible.

(675638, Anna)

# data[].attributes.body
“I do wonder if the flexible, informal system would have lasted long term.”

This reminds me of the anarchist movement in Spain when land and factories were collectivised and controlled by the workers.

I saw an interesting documentary on anarchism years ago and if I remember correctly the independent syndicates that they established worked until the movement died with the victory of Franco. It would have been interesting to see how it had further developed if it had not come to a stop by force. (675638, Anna)

https://distribution.arte.tv/fiche/NI_DIEU_NI_MAITRE

(it is possible to watch it on youtube. I remember that I found the documentary very interesting because it addressed questions of freedom and equality).

# data[].attributes.body
"NGOs in south India brought caste into development discourse, and centralized Dalits as internationally recognized sufferers of injustice and bearers of rights."

The article sheds light on how caste came into dialogue in the developmental discourse on basis of human-rights at the international level. A remarkable feat! For limiting ones roles, duty, life and opportunity on birth-based heredity categories is injustice in its cruelest form and undoubtedly a hindrance to progress.

Though, what stayed with me after the article was the above quote which labels Dalits as "internationally recognised sufferers". As a woman from India I completely understand the importance and need to recognise  injustice and a recognition of who it is practiced against. But then what? Is a practice as such of labelling while possibly strengthening group-activity for collective action, could it in the long-term prevent the group from seeing themselves as humans? Could it lead to over-identification as victims? And what of those who from the community break-out for they are done fighting for rights and just want to find a pathway to live a freer life? For example- the Dalits who converted to Buddhism to be rid-off caste-identity. Evolving into a new social-collective all together.

Are we to identify as cause re-stigmatising obscures-powerless groups as sufferers...continuing the narration of them being powerless?

But what of the humans that make the collective. Who too have a voice ,dreams and identity beyond the caste?

Just a series of questions that got triggered.

By Priyanka
683580

# data[].attributes.body
I read this paper with the lens of capture of interests and interest groups part of any process of representation - in this case consumers. The interesting topics in this paper - entanglements between  multiple / conflicting interests, not all necessary 'capitalistic' but also of the community  and multiple objectives seem to be a common theme across the papers of this week - who is that ultimately decides what objectives are legit and what are not.  I think any democratic system is bound to depend on representation, by definition and  capture of representation keeps popping up.
_________________________________
Skyler Oudega (Comment on Above):
Definitely the level of variation in any economic system we call 'capitalist' is really fascinating and I find your observation of 'multiple objectives' to be very telling, representation of differing objectives and priorities and therefore the individuals and part of the community which share those values being valued or undervalued, necessarily excluding certain groups. I found the discussion about bodies and whose 'health' decisions should be prioritized to be a challenging thing to ponder. The part where they say something along the lines of "if they only knew what was good for them" made me wince. - Skyler Oudega (687008)

# data[].attributes.headline
Forcing our own expertise onto local scenarios

# data[].attributes.subject
Forcing our own expertise onto local scenarios

# data[].attributes.body
The bottom line is in my opinion, that despite their altruistic nature, new ways of increasing efficiency related to pastoral production are met with opposition and disregard of recommened practices. I think a more straightforward approach would be mashing indigenous traditions with economic and sustainability considerations, and trying to bring the solution closer to applicants in its familiarity and methodology.

Andrew

Response to Andrew:
I agree with your point about taking into consideration indigenous knowledge and sustainable practices. Not doing so reminds me of what James Scott calls the 'God's eye view', and the problem of trying to make a society or agricultural practices 'legible' from the outside/ above, rather than appreciating the existing form of order.

However, I think it is important that when we do 'mash' indigenous knowledge with other considerations and incorporate it into e.g. sustainable policies, we also need to be careful to give credit to the sources of this knowledge.

Edda (667994)

# data[].attributes.body
I think constructs akin to HRLDF would be essential in nature for solving cultural misappropriation and misrepresentation. Pursuits and withdrawals of certain ethnic commnities can be difficult to deal with against policicy implementations which are meant to achieve advancement. Institutions tailored to mapping the cultural needs of these groups could prove quite helpful if we are willing to thrive for a world in which everyone is more or less satisfied with how our aggregated progress turns out.

Andrew

# data[].attributes.body
The way that these three articles overlapped despite their geographic range was impressive and interesting. Mwangi/Ostrom's discussion of the 'commons' and the ways in which the seeming necessity of certain top-down political forces seem to dismantle communalism, ("the “real” tragedy of the commons has been the lack of understanding shown by colonial and contemporary Kenyan government officials of the importance of a nested governance system for sustaining this Social-Ecological System over time,") connects very well to the way market forces and cultural differences in consumption disadvantage coops and "Also reported from other villages were: Dalit exclusion from commonproperty ﬁshing and the right to cut fodder grass; a teacher telling Dalit stu-dents they had no reason to register themselves for a Republic Day sportsevent; several cases of insults and assaults of Dalit men and women," Dalits being torn from interaction with their broader context and broader community. The exclusionary element also connects to the ways consumer coops, through their management/'ownership' principles seemingly necessarily  exclude certain 'neighbors'. My own experiences with coops in California reflect similar challenges, housing coops in Berkeley where friends lived, borne out of student mobilization and collective organization in the 60's counterculture, have become corporatized, taking on a top-down board of adult supervisors and managers, neutering student decision-making besides the 'student board representative'  which my best friend is, also indirectly (or directly) excluding and ostracizing low-income students of color who could most benefit from the rent prices which are about 1/4 the average Bay Area rent price because of the 'culture' of the 'Whole Foods' style white hippy majority.
Cooperation Jackson is a really positive (yet still small but expanding) development in Mississippi though which reflects a movement to transform the underdeveloped, low income black, historically marginalized city of Jackson and the surrounding area and give opportunity and self-directed development to the community, through federated small-scale coops which seem to embody the 'robustness' discussed in the Mwangi/Ostrom piece, here's a documentary: https://vimeo.com/groups/radicalfilmnetwork/videos/296897781

# data[].attributes.body
I really enjoyed this piece and its refutation of Hardin's tragedy of the commons. It argues against the patronising and damaging logics of industrialisation, and emphasises the need for local knowledge and governance of ecological resources. The authors use robustness and resilience as measures of good governance of a region and community. Using Maasai pastoralists as an example, they show the success of resource management in three different 'regimes', over a 100 year period. Their conclusion is that the "earlier indigenous institutions prior to colonial rule appear to have been more robust and resilient", even without the principles of private property and state regulation recommended by Hardin and co. They conclude by calling for an acknowledgement of what they call 'nested governance' - which I understand as listening to and not underestimating the importance of historical, cultural and local knowledge - which promotes care, compromise and cooperation between people and people and people and environment. It reminded me of the writing of Wendell Berry and more recently, James Rebanks.

Elliot

# data[].attributes.body
I think for me the most important challenge we can raise to the tragedy of the commons argument is to question the underlying assumptions of the model and provide ethnographic evidence which disproves the validity of these assumptions.
-Maria 687047

# data[].attributes.body
I really liked the long-term historical lens that the authors use here, as it allows a fuller representation that we often see 'in the moment'.

For me, this sentence sums up so much of what happened not just to the Massai but, what happens every day in politics, businesses, communities etc. 'A new and powerful actor...with clear

objectives....but with insufficient understanding of ecosystem processes.' The original sentence referred to gov't and land management, but in reality you could insert most actors or issues. Too often there is a desire (fueled by many factors) to enter a situation and change something, without fully understanding what it is you are changing, why it was done that way in the first place, and how it's connected to others systems and processes, and thus what unintended consequences it could have. - Karen

# data[].attributes.body
Hardin's piece was extremely interesting to read as it brought up issues which I think are still very much open to debate today. Are humans inherently selfish? Or is it that it's difficult to measure and realise how our individual actions contribute to wider problems issues? Do we need firm direction in our daily lives and restrictive policies in order for us to think about the greater good of the commons? And is Hardin's view applicable globally and to all mankind? Or is culture an important factor to consider? (I'm thinking of the idea of individualist vs collectivist cultures usually presented in a West vs East context)

Different countries' response to Covid-19 and the debate that raged around wearing masks is a good example.

Hardin calls for abandoning the commons in breeding - essentially restricting people's right to have children and as many as they want or can. This would be in direct violation of the UN's Declaration of Human Right's and yet since Hardin's piece was published some countries did enact policies restricting people's right to breed, notably China's One-Child Policy which received a great amount of criticism around the world.

Hardin says there are no technical solutions to the issues of over-population - that it is a moral issue. He also argues that the commons can only be justifiable under conditions of low-population. I wonder whether with the invention of mobile technology and the internet and the consequent increase in connections between people across much larger areas he would still argue the same. With such technology, mobilising large amounts of people from a grass-roots level has become much easier and faster. Protests, especially environmental ones are now rarely limited to one space but spread globally through channels such as social media. Can there not be collective action surrounding our commons such as air, oceans, forests etc be affected in the same way without needing for severe population reduction and/or control?

Claire Bate-Roullin

In response to Claire: Lots of great points that you raise. For me, his argument about population was too simplistic. We are also seeing the same argument of overpopulation being used to explain issues around climate change. This ignores the fact that we all have very varied carbon footprints. Highly consumerist, industrialised, Western societies are far more polluting than so-called "less developed" countries. The population argument strives for business as usual rather than real change and concrete responses from governments. (Hannah Abbott 685904)

# data[].attributes.body
I think this links back to a question in the breakout room: "is climate change a tragedy of the commons, or of capitalism?" I would think it is a tragedy of capitalism and the Western notion of the individual, as history as well as ethnographic research of today would provide examples of sustainable living in collectives (indigenous communities for example). (675638, Anna)

# data[].attributes.body
Maasai Conversation: Cattle farming accused of damaging environment - Bing video

# data[].attributes.headline
This article has a very interesting narrative. I enjoyed exploring the role of different types of governance in regards to food sales in a supermarket setting. It identifies the problems of governance from the perspective of left and right wing politics, Weavers Way is able to generate broader awareness of relevant social and environmental issues through its programming and outreach, though its message is rather mainstream, focused on incremental change to existing systems. Mariposa, while promoting anagenda that calls for greater transformation, is limited by its organizational capacity, making its current reach somewhat questionable. Although these issues are directly related to the supermarket scene and management I feel as though they offer food for thought on a more general level, and explore the difficulties that politics play in today's society when actions are specifically characterised in either a liberal or capitalist perspective. It is unusual to explore feelings of racialization and general exclusion within a neo-liberal perspective and I thought it provides an interesting contrast to the inexclusive tendencies that we explored in week 4. 

# data[].attributes.subject
This article has a very interesting narrative. I enjoyed exploring the role of different types of governance in regards to food sales in a supermarket setting. It identifies the problems of governance from the perspective of left and right wing politics, Weavers Way is able to generate broader awareness of relevant social and environmental issues through its programming and outreach, though its message is rather mainstream, focused on incremental change to existing systems. Mariposa, while promoting anagenda that calls for greater transformation, is limited by its organizational capacity, making its current reach somewhat questionable. Although these issues are directly related to the supermarket scene and management I feel as though they offer food for thought on a more general level, and explore the difficulties that politics play in today's society when actions are specifically characterised in either a liberal or capitalist perspective. It is unusual to explore feelings of racialization and general exclusion within a neo-liberal perspective and I thought it provides an interesting contrast to the inexclusive tendencies that we explored in week 4. 

# data[].attributes.body
leanne

# data[].attributes.headline
Brings me back to indeginous lecture and the readings I thought it linked well with the blog that was used in week 4 linking the pandemic to indeginous tribes and indeginous peoples ability to survive through cultural remedies without resources rather than us. Making me question the limits to science. I feel there could be a more appropriate way to provide security, in a world where land is under constant threat and I question how we might use nested governance systems in other parts of the world, politically and socially it could be extremely valuable to everyday life.

# data[].attributes.subject
Brings me back to indeginous lecture and the readings I thought it linked well with the blog that was used in week 4 linking the pandemic to indeginous tribes and indeginous peoples ability to survive through cultural remedies without resources rather than us. Making me question the limits to science. I feel there could be a more appropriate way to provide security, in a world where land is under constant threat and I question how we might use nested governance systems in other parts of the world, politically and socially it could be extremely valuable to everyday life.

# data[].attributes.body
- leanne 653428

# data[].attributes.body
Having been a member of a large food co-op in America, I found this article really interesting and relatable. I believe that more collective ownership, such as through food co-ops, is the way forward to a more ethical, sustainable future with greater decision-making and self-determination at the community level. The issue is to make sure that the community needs are met, that there is inclusivity. As we see in the article, when starting a food co-op, the local community should be involved in its creation and running. Consultations should take place with local residents to ensure that what is sold is what is actually wanted, that the price points are appropriate, etc. I loved the way Weavers Way also engaged in community projects. Whilst not perfect, it was a step in the right direction. I think it is important to cap the size of a co-op too, to avoid it losing its values. The way Weavers Way helps other co-ops get established is really interesting. This allows room for more new co-ops, rather than continued growth of the same one.

Hannah Abbott (685904)

(Adding this here as I realised I'd put it in the wrong column originally!)

# data[].attributes.body
For me the most striking aspect of the concept of food cooperatives is their ability to rely on a community whilst transforming governance and ownership in the food system within a neo-liberal capitalist framework. The attempt is admirable even though it has its shortcomings, which, in my opinion, all stem from the fact that food cooperatives still exist in a capitalist world.

As we have seen in the article, the two examples depicted by the author are slightly different when it comes to their political engagement, with Mariposa food co operative described as more radical, and Weaver’s Way as more liberal. The result of their political leaning is visible when it comes to the profit they produce and to the opportunities they generate both for the community as for their employees. The more liberal co-operative, resembling the neoliberal market model seems to be thriving more, which is proven by its ability to produce more capital and to expand in more areas and offer more satisfactory salaries to its staff (at least to the ones on top of the pyramid, the general managers, department managers and the administrative staff).

Expansion is mostly seen as a positive aspect of business, something that is to be striven for because it enlarges and enriches the company and in this case, the community as well. But many times expansion has been proven problematic, as it requires sacrifices (in this case, relocations to wealthier neighbourhoods) and exploitation (marking up prices) or exaggeration (creating new categories for healthy food such as 'premium' or 'super premium'). It is undoubtedly not easy to operate as a non-capitalist money generating company owned by a large community in a globalized capitalist society, especially if your focus is not profit but providing people with agency in decision making when it comes to their food provision, valuable jobs and a feeling of trust and connection. For these reasons, the efforts of food cooperatives are still admirable, but they leave a lot of the space for improvement when it comes to the overall audience they are targeting and the morality behind some of their choices. In order to make a real change and to help people, it is very important that food cooperatives relocate from gentrified places to more impoverished neighbourhoods, offer one hot/cold (and healthy) meal for cheap or even for free to everyone that needs it (could be cooked on the premises, using seasonal vegetables/fruits) and entertain the idea of community in a more holistic way, which includes everyone's well being and nourishment. And finally, food cooperatives should take a better look at the homogeneity of their staff and audience and seriously consider diversifying whom they target for employment and whom they offer opportunities to.

677134 (Ioana Illes)

# data[].attributes.body
The framing of employee and employer was especially interesting to me here. I believe we are entering a new age of employer responsibility that encourages more cooperative depictions of employer and employee and I agree with that. I think in discussions of co ops, this model feels achievable. The focus on community based economies and local structures helps reclaim humanity and dignity for the worker, where as larger corps like Walmart or tesco use the worker as disposable equipment. Localized economies highlight inherent value of each person in a community. I felt the text was very optimistic in understanding communities as having the ability to come together to solve problems. Despite the issues of exclusion, gentrification and the issue of homogeneity of members in cooperatives, I appreciate the assertion that cooperatives can begin to overcome exclusivity. I find myself an optimist of cooperation through this reading.

jakob lewis 686335