1 / 16

The Travesty of a Common

The Travesty of a Common. The m anagement and u se of a c ommon in a c hanging Flanders (18th-19th Century) p ut into the E uropean h istorical p erspective. M. De Moor Ghent University Martina.demoor@Ugent.be Presentation for WOW3 June 2-6, 2004, Bloomington.

vartan
Download Presentation

The Travesty of a Common

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Travesty of a Common The management and use of a common in a changing Flanders (18th-19th Century) put into the European historical perspective M. De Moor Ghent University Martina.demoor@Ugent.be Presentation for WOW3 June 2-6, 2004, Bloomington

  2. Differences in approach • Historians • concentrate on • dissolution of commons • commoners as groups of users • Insufficient attention for strategies of commoners • Other social sciences (sociology, economy,...) • concentrate on PROBLEMS caused by: • Functioning in groups (intra-personal conflicts) • Behaviour of individuals within groups (free-riding) • Insufficient attention for context and path dependency M. De Moor

  3. A 3-dimensional approach to researching commons as social-ecological systems • As a resource -> comprising a complete range of different resources -> USE of a Common Pool Resource • As a property regime -> to delimit the type and number of people allowed to use the common -> USERS of a Common Property Regime • As an institution -> to organise the interaction between resources and users -> MANAGEMENT as a Common Pool Institution M. De Moor

  4. Structuring the debates CPR M. De Moor

  5. Structural Factors Utility CPR Efficiency Resilience CPI CPrR Criteria for the evaluation of the functioning of commons Equity M. De Moor

  6. Central research questions • How did the use and management of commons evolve INTERNALLY (equity, utility, efficiency) and in relation with STRUCTURAL FACTORS (demographic changes, agricultural development,…)? • Which problems did they encounter? Were these solved and if so, how? M. De Moor

  7. Case-study in Flanders, 18th-19th c. • Near Bruges: Gemene and Loweiden • Meadow along a river • Rights to the common were hereditary • Primarily used for cattle grazing • Management by the users but period of external control and management (1862-1882) by local government • And…. • Still a “common” today • Excellent archives • Possibility of in-depth-research based on resolution books, lists of commoners, bookkeeping, marriage registers…. M. De Moor

  8. Changes of use, users and institution • Participation of commoners in the system: number of participants, their participation intensity, participation strategy • Exploitation: evolution of exploitation level, use of price mechanism • Organisation: origins of income and expenditures, financial balance M. De Moor

  9. Changes in participation of commoners • Growing group of persons entitled to use under influence of population growth • BUT from end of 18th c. onwards: • Declining relative participation level from • Until 1790: 70-80% of subscribers participated • 1840: 50% • Exclusion process and more control of use • Less and less farmers, more and more wage labourers M. De Moor

  10. Changing user-profile M. De Moor

  11. Interpretation of changes Commoners adapted their participation strategy to the changing place of the common in agriculture and to changes in the professional structure => Did the commoners’ changing strategy influence their actual use of the common? M. De Moor

  12. Changes in the level and mode of exploitation M. De Moor

  13. Interpretation of changes Decision to privatise the use of the common in the 1840s AND was caused by the declining utility of the common for the commoners - > But why didn’t they privatise the management too? M. De Moor

  14. Changes in financial management M. De Moor

  15. Interpretation of changes The management was not aimed at commercialisation of the goods (cfr. exploitation level) but at the changing needs and advantages of the users • Private use, common management • Private profit, common costs M. De Moor

  16. Conclusions Changing agricultural system (and demografic and professional changes) Changes in the income strategy of the commoners Affects the utility of the common for commoners Participation strategy of commoners towards the common Commoners changed the mode of exploitation of the common to their needs M. De Moor

More Related