[governance] Parminder's exchange with Bertrand

[Parminder]

Milton L Mueller wrote:
> I forgot to highlight one of the most important observations here wrt to Ostrom and collective governance, which is this:
> ________________________________________
>
>   
>> 1. Clearly defined boundaries (effective exclusion of external unentitled parties);
>>     
>
> In other words, even if you are dealing with something governed as a "commons," in almost all cases there must be boundaries and effective exclusion for that governance form to work. A simple example: there are "common beaches" in the shore areas of New Jersey in the U.S., but those beaches are commons ONLY for people who are citizens of the towns and villages abutting them. This is so for obvious reasons - if you are not a member of that community you have no right to access the beach, and protecting the quality and viability of the shore is the responsibility of the community that owns it, for open access would allow people with little stake in the beaches to despoil them and crowd out the people who live there. 
>   
It is best to root conceptual discussions in specific examples. In the 
light of what you say above, with which I strongly agree, I ask you and 
others with whom I engaged with the issue of role of global remotely 
controlled capital in local governance issues. And this is a real situation.

There is a multistakeholder (in democratic framework) effort to develop 
policy and practices for the best use of ICTs in a state of India to 
achieve its educational aims, in government schools. Do you think a 
representative of microsoft, and a couple of more US based global 
digital companies, have a legitimate 'stake' in evolving such policies 
and practices? (The fact is that they have completely taken over the so 
called 'multistakeholder' process, 'effectively' excluding 
educationists, progressive civil society actors etc.)

And with 'stake' i dont mean contribution of possible expertise which 
can always be sourced from any needed quarters, and in fact should be 
accessed from all possible parties who may posses it.

In fact 'stake', the central word in multistakeholderism, is what needs 
a solid analysis. Stake is not 'availability of expertise', a confusion 
that is often made. Purely financial stake, which doesnt effect the 
livelihood and life quality of someone directly involved, and which is 
very neutral otherwise to the specific 'live' issues involved (as share 
capital is), is also not a 'stake' in my view when we speak of 
multistakeholderism in political terms.

So, we need to have ways to establish what is 'stake' and who has 
legitimate 'stake' in a given issue whose governance is under 
consideration. I havent read Ostrom but she must have done some work on 
this. But I remain convinced that in a case like the one I posited 
above, remotely controlled share capital has no legitimate 'stake' in 
any local political process. This of course does not mean that its 
interests are not given a hearing and treated fairly.

Parminder
> A true "open access commons" in which there is no exclusion whatsoever is quite rare, although it does exist and is quite relevant to information resources in the public domain. But information of course is non rival in consumption and therefore not what Ostrom defines as a common pool resource. 
>
> People who romanticize commons governance, especially by counterposing it to private property, typically ignore the fact that both forms of governance require "clearly defined boundaries and effective exclusion." The only difference is that in one case the unit of ownership and decision making is the individual household, person or firm, and in the other case it is a larger collectivity. Those who say that either form of governance is inherently superior to the other are anti-empirical; both have advantages, and either can operate better in certain circumstances. 
>
> To tie this back to Parminder, based on his latest post I can see where we part ways as well as agree. Parminder has decided that people acting as political collectivities are inherently superior to people acting as private market actors or businesses. Probably he is operating under the delusion that political/democratic processes are inherently guided by a public interest logic whereas private market action is driven by private interest which is inherently opposed to public interest. I disagree. Politicians and political parties have self-interest and can exploit. Competitive market processes can promote the public interest. I think people are people, and they need both political processes and economic maximizing processes to survive, and both serve as appropriate checks on each other. To me, democracy without liberalism is just mob rule, just as capitalism without law, rights and democracy is lousy. So while we agree strongly on extending democratic governance modes into the global arena we probably have radically different ideas about  how to do it. If you designate "neo-liberalism" as the main enemy I don't think you understand very well the real challenges of global governance. 
>
> However, getting back to Ostrom and collective governance, even if you extend democracy beyond the nation-state you still have to decide what is the relevant community for governance decisions. The people who are always yammering about how good and noble it is to be group-oriented or collective oriented, and ridiculing those of us who talk about the individual, always seem to forget that communities have boundaries, and some of the world's worst crimes come not from individuals attacking or exploiting each other, but from groups - states, ethnicities, religions, etc. - defining other groups as excluded and "the other." No individual, no private, profit-maximizing corporation, could ever produce anything like WW 2 and its national and ethnic carnage.
>
> --MM
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100227/71812c41/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t