Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-s6l46 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T12:43:22.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two enduring lessons from Elinor Ostrom

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 April 2013

BRETT M. FRISCHMANN
BRETT M. FRISCHMANN*
Affiliation:
Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University, New York, NY 10003, USA
*
*Email: frischma@yu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

This article is a tribute to Elinor Ostrom. It explores two enduring lessons she taught: a substantive lesson that involves embracing complexity and context, and a methodological lesson that involves embracing a framework-driven approach to systematic, evolutionary learning through various interdisciplinary methodologies, theories, and empirical approaches. First, I discuss Ostrom's work on environmental commons. I illustrate the two lessons through a discussion of the tragedy of the commons. Next, I explain how the two lessons play a significant role in recent efforts to extend Ostrom's work on environmental commons to knowledge/cultural commons. I draw a parallel between the tragedy of the commons allegory and the free-rider allegory, and show how many of the problems Ostrom explored in the environmental context are manifest in the cultural environmental context. I discuss an ongoing research project that follows the path that Ostrom blazed and systematically studies commons in the cultural environment.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Institutional Economics , Volume 9 , Issue 4: Elinor Ostrom Memorial Issue , December 2013 , pp. 387 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © [The Author] 2013. Published by Millennium Economics Ltd 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996), Creativity in Context: Update To The Social Psychology Of Creativity, Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Becker, C. D. and Ostrom, E. (1995), ‘Human Ecology and Resource Sustainability: The Importance of Institutional Diversity’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 26: 113–133.Google Scholar
Benkler, Y. (2006), The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Burk, D. L. and Lemley, M. A. (2009), The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It, Chicago and London: University Of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coase, R. H. (1960), ‘The Problem of Social Cost’, Journal of Law and Economics, 3: 1–44.Google Scholar
Cook-Deegan, R. and Dedeurwaerdere, T. (2006), ‘The Science Commons in Life Science Research: Structure, Function and Value of Access to Genetic Diversity’, The International Social Science Journal, 58 (2): 299–318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Demsetz, H. (1967), ‘Toward a Theory of Property Rights’, The American Economic Review, 57 (2): 347–359.Google Scholar
Frey, B. (2008), Happiness: A Revolution in Economics, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frischmann, B. (2007), ‘Cultural Environmentalism and The Wealth of Networks’, University of Chicago Law Review, 74: 1083.Google Scholar
Frischmann, B. (2012), Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Infrastructure, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frischmann, B. M. and Lemley, M. A. (2007), ‘Spillovers’, Columbia Law Review, 107 (1): 257–301.Google Scholar
Gordon, W. J. (2010), ‘Discipline and Nourish: Construction Commons’, Cornell Law Review, 95 (4): 733.Google Scholar
Hardin, G. (1968), ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’, Science, 162: 1243.Google Scholar
Hayes, T. and Ostrom, E. (2005), ‘Conserving The World's Forests: Are Protected Areas the Only Way?’, Indiana Law Review, 38: 595–617.Google Scholar
Hess, C. and Ostrom, E. (eds.) 2005, Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Indiana University Bloomington (2008), The Vincent and Elinor Ostrom Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, http://www.indiana.edu/~workshop/ (accessed 12 February 2013).Google Scholar
International Association for the Study of the Commons (2012a), Home Page, http://www.iasc-commons.org/ (accessed 12 February 2013).Google Scholar
International Association for the Study of the Commons (2012b), History, http://www.iasc-commons.org/about/history (accessed 12 February 2013).Google Scholar
Lemley, M. A. (2005), ‘Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding’, Texas Law Review, 83: 1031–1075.Google Scholar
Macey, G. P. (2010), ‘Cooperative Institutions in Cultural Commons’, Cornell Law Review, 95 (4): 757.Google Scholar
Madison, M. J., Frischmann, B. M., and Strandburg, K. J. (2010a), ‘Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment’, Cornell Law Review, 95 (4): 657–709.Google Scholar
Madison, M. J., Frischmann, B. M., and Strandburg, K. J. (2010b), “The Complexity of Commons”, Cornell Law Review, 95 (4): 839–850.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1979), ‘The Normative Structure of Science’ in The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 267–278.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990), Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1998), ‘A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action: Presidential Address, American Political Science Association, 1997’, The American Political Science Review, 92 (1): 1–22.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2000), ‘Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14 (3): 137–158.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005), Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007), ‘A Diagnostic Approach For Going Beyond Panaceas’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104 (39): 15181–15187.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2009), ‘A General Framework for Analyzing Sustainability of Social-Ecological Systems’, Science, 325 (5939): 419–422.Google Scholar
Pink, D. H. (2010), Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, New York: Riverhead Books.Google Scholar
Reichman, J., Dedeurwaerdere, T., and Uhlir, P. (forthcoming), Global Intellectual Property Strategies for the Microbial Research Commons, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reichman, J. and Uhlir, P. (2003), ‘A Contractually Reconstructed Research Commons for Scientific Data in a Highly Protectionist Intellectual Property Environment’, Law and Contemporary Problems, 66: 315–462.Google Scholar
Samuelson, P. (1954), ‘The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36 (4): 387–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schweik, C. M. and English, R. C. (2012), Internet Success: A Study of Open-Source Software Commons, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Strandburg, K. J. (2009), ‘Evolving Innovation Paradigms and the Global Intellectual Property Regime’, Connecticut Law Review, 41: 861–920.Google Scholar
Uhlir, P. F. (ed.) (2011), Designing the Microbial Research Commons: Proceedings of an International Symposium, National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Von Hippel, E. (2006), Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar