Workshop on the Ostroms, the Commons and Polycentric Self-Governance

Workshop on the Ostroms, the Commons and Polycentric Self-Governance A place to explore and implement the insights of the Ostroms on how disparate people come together and agree on rules and decisions to manage resources.

I have too many bookmarks open that relate to Elinor , her work and that of many collaborators regarding the "commons" and self-governance. To unclog my browser -- and as a tribute to Lin -- I decided to build this small corner of the universe. I hope some will find it helpful. I note that I have started a group for continuing Ostrom's research and practice in the science and art of human c

ooperation:

The Collaborative Center Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/265938633573148/

Please feel free to visit and hang out there with others who are interested in learning about self-governance and institutional analysis. Paul Dragos Aligica and Peter Boettke have attempted a review of the Elinor and Vincent Ostroms' insights: http://mercatus.org/publication/social-philosophies-ostroms-institutionalism:

“More often than not Bloomington institutionalism is seen in a narrow way, i.e. only in relationship to the common pool resources studies, which are, indeed, very salient, yet, in fact, only one of the many dimensions of this research program. The reality is that the study of the “commons” emerged from a broader and deeper intellectual perspective that frames at a foundational level the work of the Bloomington scholars. As such, it is only one of the ways in which this intellectual vision becomes operational in the research practice. A closer look at this “perspective” reveals the fact that it is complex and profound enough to deserve to be considered what the literature calls a “social theory” or a “political philosophy.” Both explicit and implicit in the Ostroms’ work are attempts to understand, chart, evaluate, and articulate the basic categories with which we think about the social aspects of human life, as well as a willingness to deal with philosophical questions about social order and social behavior. Encapsulated in their studies are views about the nature and desirability of alternative systems of social organization and an effort towards their philosophical understanding. Even more, their empirical and policy-relevant contributions could be positioned in a very telling way at the intersection of several major trends in modern social thinking. Such exercises in interpretation reveal that the Ostroms’ contributions not only have a well-defined place in this intellectual history context, but also that, in many respects, their originality transcends the standard schools of thought and disciplinary boundaries. To focus only on the more salient and publicly visible pieces of the research produced by the Bloomington scholars — such as those on “governance” and “commons” — would be to miss an important part of Ostroms’ perspective on social order and institutionalism.

“The main objective of this paper is to explore what we call the “social theory” or the “social philosophy” that presumably shapes, inspires and defines the Ostroms’ research program. Our argument is that what we have called the “social theory” behind the Bloomington School’s research agenda has in fact two facets that may or may not be consistent with each other. Even more, they may or may not be necessarily and inseparably connected with the rest of the program. The first is built around the concept of “polycentricity” and a series of Public Choice insights, and is a challenge to two of the deepest assumptions of political and economic sciences in the 20th century: the monocentric vision of social order and the “market” versus “state” dichotomy. The second is built around a view of social order seen as a knowledge and learning process, along with a series of observations about the human condition, fallibility, coercion and error as well as about the factors engendering institutional order as a response to the challenges posed by them. But irrespective of how we approach and consider the relationship between these two facets, one thing is clear and stays unchanged: both feature an unambiguous normative engagement on behalf of self-governance and a robust faith in human freedom and human ingenuity.”

- See more at: http://tokyotom.freecapitalists.org/2014/04/29/751

住所

Tokyo

ウェブサイト

アラート

Workshop on the Ostroms, the Commons and Polycentric Self-Governanceがニュースとプロモを投稿した時に最初に知って当社にメールを送信する最初の人になりましょう。あなたのメールアドレスはその他の目的には使用されず、いつでもサブスクリプションを解除することができます。

その団体に問い合わせをする

Workshop on the Ostroms, the Commons and Polycentric Self-Governanceにメッセージを送信:

共有する

カテゴリー