Cited by 965Economic Theory and InstitutionsConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementExperimental Behavioral Economics Studies

Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action

Ostrom, Elinor·2015·Cambridge University Press eBooks

Abstract

The governance of natural resources used by many individuals in common is an issue of increasing concern to policy analysts. Both state control and privatization of resources have been advocated, but neither the state nor the market have been uniformly successful in solving common pool resource problems. After critiquing the foundations of policy analysis as applied to natural resources, Elinor Ostrom here provides a unique body of empirical data to explore conditions under which common pool resource problems have been satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily solved. Dr Ostrom uses institutional analysis to explore different ways - both successful and unsuccessful - of governing the commons. In contrast to the proposition of the 'tragedy of the commons' argument, common pool problems sometimes are solved by voluntary organizations rather than by a coercive state. Among the cases considered are communal tenure in meadows and forests, irrigation communities and other water rights, and fisheries.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/cbo9781316423936

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These innovations exemplify governance design principles: institutional arrangements that enable sustainable citizen engagement beyond individual leadership.

    “These innovations exemplify what Ostrom (2015) terms “governance design principles”/; institutional arrangements that enable sustainable citizen engagement beyond individual leadership.”
  • Conservation biology adopts the approach of identifying common classes of problems and associated solutions, where crises observed across multiple contexts lead to an understanding of multiscaled dynamics yielding solutions that can be tailored to given sociological and ecological contexts.

    “This is the approach adopted in conservation biology, where crises observed across multiple contexts (e.g., ecosystem collapse, mismanaged commons) lead to an understanding of multiscaled dynamics yielding solutions that can be tailored to given sociological and ecological contexts (8, 47, 64).”

    From Stewardship of global collective behavior (2021) · cites this paper as [47]

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ostrom, E.
Venue
Cambridge University Press eBooks
Published
2015-09-23
OpenAlex
W4253773297
Cited by
965
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 127 · 2025: 141 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 85 · 2022: 80 · 2021: 117 · 2020: 95 · 2019: 61 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
52.59
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic Theory and Institutions
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Conservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
Keywords
commons governance, common-pool resources, tragedy of the commons, institutional analysis, state control of natural resources, privatization, voluntary organizations, meadows, forests, irrigation communities, water rights, fisheries, natural resource policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review