Commons

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term commons (from Latin. Communis ; from cum and munus ; English common ; dt. G emein (sam) ) denotes resources (code, knowledge, food, energy sources, water, land, time, etc.) that result from self-organized processes of the common needs-oriented production, administration, maintenance and / or use (commoning) emerge. Commons are often located “beyond the market and the state”, which means above all that other logics of action dominate in commons contexts.

Definition of terms

The complexity as well as the different uses and translations of the term often lead to misunderstandings.

The geography professor James McCarthy regards commons as a key concept, “ a complex word with a wide range of active meanings, involving ideas and values, with which we attempt to understand, represent and influence the practices and relationships central to contemporary culture and society ”. American commons researcher David Bromley noted in 1992 that it was difficult to find such a misunderstood concept as the commons in the literature on natural resources and environmental policy.

Similar to common in German , the English commons has experienced shifts in meaning over the course of time from vernacular or common to general, vulgar and vicious, devious, mean . Frequent transfers in the German-speaking area such as common property , common property or common property are neither congruent with the commons term nor with each other. They each emphasize certain aspects, but do not capture the full spectrum of meanings of the commons. Since they are associated with goods-centered, legal form-centered and property-centered associations, the direct use of the term commons in German is becoming more and more popular.

Common property

The term common good (also collective good), which comes from the economic theory of goods in the 20th century, is derived from properties that are ascribed to the good itself. For example, public goods are referred to as goods that are difficult to exclude people from access . And common goods or common goods as such, from which there is no exclusion, but rivalry in consumption. In contrast, the economist Friederike Habermann , for example, emphasizes that the way a good is used - i.e. who is excluded from use and why, is always determined socially. It is not a genuine property of a thing itself. Exclusion is understood here as the result of active action. The term common good corresponds to the English Common Good or Common Pool Resource (CPR).

Commons

Often Commons is translated into German with Allmende . Historical commons refer to legal forms of common ownership in agriculture, forestry and water management. Since the mid-1990s, the term knowledge commons has been used metaphorically for the area of intellectual property . Here, however, completely different legal forms come into play than with traditional commons.

The term commons is used much more comprehensively nowadays and includes commons as a historically special (legal) form of commons, without being identical to them.

Common property

Sometimes commons are equated with common property, that is, with collective property . This manifests itself in different forms, such as cooperatives, stock corporations or foundations. In fact, common property is often the basis of ownership of commons. However, commons can also be implemented on the basis of private property , because the decisive factor is how the specific rules of use are designed. A house can de jure be private property, but it was de facto handed over to joint use and responsibility in the long term (as realized by the rental house syndicate , for example ). In the area of ​​information- centric commons (software, texts, etc.) there are copyleft licenses that are also based on individual ownership. These offer the possibility of free access ( Open Access ) with at the same time unambiguous authorship in terms of ownership.

Sharing economy

Since the sharing and common use of resources plays a major role in commons, these are sometimes erroneously referred to as the sharing economy or sharing economy . Commons researcher Stefan Meretz points out the difference between sharing and swapping: sharing is a positive-reciprocal action, i.e. an action that connects people, while swapping is a negative-reciprocal action, i.e. one that divides people. The sharing economy only creates new economic opportunities by destroying old ones ( e.g. Uber at the expense of the taxi industry), which is known as innovative disruption . The goal of sharing as the core of commoning , on the other hand, is the collective satisfaction of needs.

Typology and its criticism

In numerous papers and discussions on commons typologies are common, which are based either on the focus of the work, on the different approaches to the commons or on the different environments in which commons develop.

Research at the Bloomington School ( Elinor Ostrom et al.) And the International Association of the Commons (IAS) often focuses on so-called natural commons, while the peer-to-peer or P2P debate or research on commons-based peer production predominantly refers to knowledge commons , or digital commons. Other common classifications are, for example, material and immaterial commons, in order to point out the different properties of the central resources, or urban and rural commons, in order to emphasize the different location in space. Sometimes there is also talk of social commons; in his book The Zero Marginal Cost Society , the American economist Jeremy Rifkin uses the term collaborative commons.

These classifications are criticized, for example, by Helfrich and Bollier. Their criticism is based on the fact that these classifications do not do justice to the diverse character of commons. Every commons is based on material as well as immaterial foundations, regardless of whether water or data are the focus of a commons. In addition, all commons are characterized by the production and exchange of knowledge.

Helfrich argues:

  • every commons is based on natural resources and needs them for reproduction
  • every commons is a knowledge commons
  • every commons is a social process.

So the talk of “social commons” is basically a pleonasm . For the social process, on the other hand, self-organization and collaboration (Latin: con, “mit-”, laborare “work”) are formative, which also makes Rifkin's concept of the collaborative commons appear redundant.

References to old and new commons (often also: traditional and modern commons) are less problematic, as they do not make a categorical distinction, but a temporal classification. This plays a significant role, since commons are always context-bound, i.e. they also develop depending on technical developments, particularly in the use of energy sources and the state of information and communication technologies.

Different approaches

Commons from a historical perspective

In the historical sciences, a focus is placed on the investigation of traditional practices and institutions of the commons as well as on their containment or privatization.

Magna Carta and Charter of the Forest

An original of the Magna Carta from 1215 (London, British Library, Cotton MS. Augustus II. 106).

In his book The Magna Carta manifesto: liberties and commons for all , historian Peter Linebaugh has examined the history of the commons in England. The rights to use commons were protected at the beginning of the 13th century by two documents that complement each other: on the one hand by the Magna Carta (1215) and on the other hand by the Charter of the Forests of King Henry III . The Magna Carta is now considered the most important precursor of constitutional law. It formulates and defends central political freedom and civil rights (e.g. habeas corpus ). The Charter of the Forests is less well known. Access to the commons was confirmed as a common right for those who did not own land. On the basis of the Charter of the Forests, these so-called commoners could get wood for building and heating from the forest or let their cattle graze on the forest pastures . The Charter of the Forests was therefore of great importance for securing livelihoods through access to subsistence resources.

Enclosures and counter-movements - yesterday and today

Historically, enclosure denotes the conversion of common property and goods freely used under customary law into exclusive and mostly individual private property, above all through land consolidations ( common division ). In England the enclosures took place more and more from the 15th century . They were promoted by feudal lords and the king in order to enforce the intensification and commercialization of agriculture. These enclosures often met bitter resistance from those affected. Social movements emerged like the Diggers and Levellers , who actively campaigned against the enclosures by tearing down fences, digging up walls and leveling the land again in order to cultivate it together. In Germany, too, there were comparable enclosures that were a major cause of the peasant wars. Karl Marx describes this process as the “so-called original accumulation” and Karl Polanyi the “de-embedding” or commodification of nature, work and money. The containment and privatization of the Commons separated people from their means of subsistence and had to sell their labor on the market in order to secure their livelihood.

While this process of containment of the commons is often understood as the history of the origins of capitalism , Rosa Luxemburg pointed out in her main work The Accumulation of Capital that capitalism permanently “needs non-capitalist formations ... as a breeding ground at its expense, through its absorption “(1913) its accumulation takes place. Burkhard Lutz spoke in analogy to the "outer" of the "inner land grab". The geographer David Harvey argues similarly . For him, enclosures or expropriations are a central and permanent aspect of the capitalist economy. According to James Boyle , a second containment phase relates to intangible goods such as B. Genomes, digital code and knowledge.

Some authors emphasize that containment processes are to be understood as struggles in which privatization can be limited and reversed through resistance, "anti-containment" and "reclaim the commons" movements. With Karl Polanyi , the process of containment and resistance to it can be understood as a “double movement” of disentangling and re-embedding.

Economic access

Theory of goods

Types of goods according to excludability and rivalry
Degree of rivalry
= 0 		Degree of rivalry
= 1
Degree of exclusion
= 0 		public good
(e.g. dyke) 		Common good
(e.g. overcrowded inner city street)
Degree of Exclusion
= 1 		Club good
(e.g. pay TV) 		Private goods
(e.g. ice cream)

In economic theories, the term commons is usually associated with a certain category of goods . Here goods are differentiated based on the categories of excludability and rivalry . A high level of excludability is assumed when it is easy to exclude people from access to a good. The degree of rivalry is viewed as high if the use of the good restricts or even makes it impossible for others to use it. As Commons (or common pool or common ; English common good or English common-pool resource ) are - in contrast to the private property , public good and club good - refers to those goods which have a low excludable and a high degree rivalry.

Criticism of this approach is directed in particular against the fact that the two categories of excludability and rivalry are assumed to be inherent in things, instead of being understood as the results of human action. Cowen argues that excludability depends, among other things, on how and how much is produced, how distribution is organized, how high the demand is. These arguments also apply to the category of rivalry. It is pointed out that the degree of rivalry can vary with different uses. Photographing an apple has a different effect on the uses of third parties than eating it. Also, if there are enough apples, the use for others will not be equally restricted, which can be achieved by growing apples. The traditional theory of goods is thus attested to an inadmissible naturalization . The reason for this is that the social form of production of goods - whether as commodities or commons - is ignored. Commons don't just exist, they are made. Whether something becomes a commons is a social question and not determined by the nature of things.

Tragedy of the Commons

Within the economic access is the so-called tragedy of the commons ( English tragedy of the commons ) is of great importance for the understanding of the common concept. The figure of thought is very old, but came back to the center of the debate through an article by microbiologist and ecologist Garrett Hardin from 1968. Hardin assumes that with freely accessible goods the users tend to overuse them and thus destroy them. This is because people are eager to maximize their income . To make this hypothesis plausible, Hardin uses the metaphor of a communal pasture where everyone can drive their sheep. According to the thesis, they would still drive another animal out to pasture, since the yield would benefit them individually, but the costs would have to be borne by everyone. Ultimately, the meadow would be overgrazed and the result would be suboptimal for everyone.

This popular approach by Hardin has been criticized from various quarters. The main argument is that what is described is not commons, but so-called no man's land , i.e. land that is not inhabited, maintained or cultivated by anyone. Hardin admitted 30 years later that he had spoken of the unregulated commons. Ostrom et al. Pointed out that people communicate with each other and are able to make agreements in order to prevent overuse .

Institutional economics approach

From the perspective of New Institutional Economics Commons are primarily as institutions for collective use of common-pool resources ( common land described -Ressourcen). They can be formal and informal and contain rules and norms that provide important incentives and framework conditions for cooperative action. The tragedy described by Hardin can be averted in stable institutions that are self-determined by commoners. The main interest of the institutional economics approach is therefore the analysis of institutions of common property management.

The most prominent representative of this approach is the political scientist Elinor Ostrom . With numerous scientists in her environment, she compared field studies on community management around the world, for example of irrigation systems in Spain, Nepal and Indonesia, pastureland in the Swiss Alps, arable land in Japan, fish stocks in Canada or community forests in Bolivia and Mexico. Based on this empirical research, she developed the so-called design principles , which enable the successful management of common pool resources . As a summary of her research, Ostrom named the following principles for successful solutions to local commons problems:

  1. Clearly defined limits and an effective exclusion of external unauthorized persons.
  2. Rules regarding the appropriation and provision of common resources must be adapted to local conditions.
  3. Users can participate in agreements to change the rules so that better adaptation to changing conditions is possible.
  4. Monitoring compliance with the rules.
  5. Graduated sanction options for rule violations.
  6. Conflict Resolution Mechanisms .
  7. The self-determination of the community is recognized by higher government agencies.

Comedy of the Commons and Tragedy of the Anti-Commons

The comedy of the commons ( English comedy of the commons ) and the tragedy of the anti-commons ( English tragedy of the anticommons ) each describe not the overuse, but the underuse of resources as a problem. The comedy of the commons refers to cases in which resources show increasing economies of scale (in use) when more people use them. This phenomenon is called “ The more, the merrier ” in everyday English . In such cases, resources are threatened not from overuse, but from underuse. According to the legal scholar Michael Heller, the tragedy of the anti-commons arises when a resource is underused due to regulation - for example when there are too many private owners and they block each other. Examples of this are the underuse of knowledge due to patent and copyrights and the orphanage of knowledge and cultural assets .

Experimental approach in psychology and behavioral economics

The experimental game theory approach is important within psychological and behavioral economics commons research . Here the so-called tragedy of the commons and other decision-making situations are described with the help of mathematical formalization . It is experimentally investigated which conditions lead to humans cooperating. For example, Ostrom, Gardner and Walker have shown in game theory that if the actors can communicate with one another, the tragedy of the commons can be prevented.

Commons as a social process

Commoning as a central definition category of commons

“ There is no commons without commoning ” - this sentence, attributed to the historian Peter Linebaugh, sums up the commons approach that focuses on practices and processes. The distinction as to whether something is a commons is not made here based on the qualitative properties of a resource. Rather, the decisive criterion is seen in the practices and processes with which those involved relate to the resource. Water can be bottled and sold as a commodity, or it can be used, maintained and managed as a commons. Commons are thus created through commoning. This focus on practices enables an approach that takes into account the contextuality of commons. Linebaugh goes one step further and suggests, instead of using Commons as a noun, to use Commoning as a verb: “ the commons is an activity and, if anything, it expresses relationships in society that are inseparable from relations to nature. It might be better to keep the word as a verb, an activity, rather than as a noun, a substantive ”.

self-organisation

Self-organization is a central component of commons practices ( commoning ). In this context, it describes the possibility and actual practice of the actors involved to define and implement those rules and goals that generate or maintain the Commons. Similar to systems theory and economics (e.g. Friedrich August von Hayek ), self-organization is about the creation and self (re) production ( autopoiesis ) of social systems or organizations and institutions. However, in stark contrast to systems theory and economics, self-organization in Commons does not simply take place "spontaneously", but primarily through the conscious action of the respective actors.

In contrast to participation , self-organization is not about taking part in something that is prefabricated, but rather about structuring action in a self-empowering way, largely autonomously. The French scientists Pierre Dardot (philosopher) and Christian Laval (sociologist) describe this process as creative, instituting practice. This means that self-organization goes beyond the concept of self-administration , which is represented in jurisprudence , since it does not primarily mean the administrative management of existing organizations, but the structure, design, maintenance and change of the organization itself. The idea of ​​self-organization is close what is meant by collective self-management .

Commons researcher Stefan Meretz emphasizes that self-organization needs conditions in order to succeed. Self-determination and perceived fairness are central. Self-organization can fail in particular when foreign logics creep into commoning. If, for example, results or resources are distributed equally in the abstract, without taking the different needs into account, formal justice is reversed into perceived unfairness: “As soon as fairness is not observed, there is a risk that individual strategies of benefit maximization will prevail. Then market thinking breaks into the Commons. "

Care and Commons

While there is a great deal of closeness between the commons and some care approaches, the relationship has not yet been systematically worked out. The discourse on care activities or care was of feminist introduced currents. In this way, economic commons approaches in particular are challenged, since there is no resource in the sense of a workable object in care activities, but care relationships are always intersubjective . At the same time, reproductive activities are the basis of every society.

In capitalism, the relationship between the economy and care and commons is one-sided “extractive”. Care activities are structurally unpaid or underpaid, and commons often serve as the basis for economic exploitation. Care and Commons as non-capitalist formations, as described by Rosa Luxemburg , thus become a social breeding ground for privatized profit. This ties in with the subsistence theory of Maria Mies , Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen and Claudia von Werlhof , who comprehensively comprehend subsistence as the production of what is essential for life and understand the expansion of the subsistence area as an important social transformation path. This transcends a division of the spheres into a male-structured production and a female ascribed reproduction. The theologian Ina Praetorius points out that the need to be active not only includes the joy of individual activity, but also the assumption of necessary activities as a matter of course: “It goes without saying that people, as related-free beings, want to do more than their own Advantage".

Paradigm / worldview

In the international anthology Commons. Patterns of joint action , Helfrich and Bollier argue that commons refers to “forms of knowledge, action and being” that “lead to categories of the description of the world [...] that shift the framework of meaning beyond what is conceivable in a 'marketable democracy'” . According to Thomas Kuhn , a category change is one of the characteristics of a paradigm shift .

Knowledge in ... dominant paradigm prevailing paradigm
ontology Substance ontology Process ontology
focus is on Things, objects, things that we can relate to Relationships, connections
be become
Categories the separation the connection
Result derived from the properties of things, objects, things the properties and contexts
Methods measure, count, evaluate etc. Make visible, give meaning / meaning, feel
methodology Axioms, models template
Detecting Causalities Potential
Cognitive goal Predictability, certainty deeper relationships, more vitality

The philosopher Andreas Weber also sees Commons as the expression of a paradigm that “challenges our political system, which revolves around the market / state duopoly.” In this paradigm, separating (polar) categories are replaced by connecting categories. An example of this is the switch from production / reproduction to care . In this way, a relational worldview develops in which affects are also important. Commoning is ultimately an expression of living with, compassion, and loving. Anthropologists in particular point this out. Neera Singh describes this using the example of dealing with community forests in Indian villages “ One village leader simply described the collective action to protect forests as' Samaste samaste ko bandhi ke achanti ', that is,' each and every“ one ”holds the other together. ' I think he was also referring to the affective capacities of all bodies, human and nonhuman, to come together and get entangled in relations of affect and accountability ”. Similar to Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri : “the dynamics of the diverse singularities in common [has] nothing to do [...] with the traditional dialectic between the many and the one. While the one stands in opposition to the many, the common is compatible with the multiplicity, and is even made up of them ”.

Social generalization

The theory and practice of the commons have inspired numerous authors to reflect on the possibilities of societal generalization of the commons approach. These approaches are based on the assumption that commons gain in importance through the crisis-prone nature of capitalism and can complement or replace it.

Commons transition

Michel Bauwens and the P2P Foundation have developed ideas and political proposals to promote the transition to a social knowledge society. The basis is shared, freely accessible knowledge, open source hardware , the promotion of the social and solidarity economy , networked, democratized cooperatives and the concept of the partner state. The proposals are aimed at spreading the concepts and practices of the Commons in the political arena. One example of implementation is the FLOK (Free / Libre Open Knowledge) project in Ecuador.

Commons-based peer production

In his central work The Wealth of Networks, the law professor Yochai Benkler develops the thesis of commons-based peer production as a third form alongside market and central planning . He postulated that, based on free knowledge and free information production could be economically efficient than one in which innovation by individual property rights such as patents and copyright hedged are. While Benkler only considers the new mode of production for digital information goods that can be copied , Stefan Meretz extends the concept to material goods and argues that industrial mass production is a resource-efficient copying machine for material products in which the informational effort already outweighs the material expenditure by far. The computer scientist Christian Siefkes argues similarly. He points to the increasing number of decentrally usable production resources (such as free 3D printers such as RepRap ) and the emergence of community-based technical infrastructures.

As a follow-up to the Oekonux project, the scientific peer-review journal Journal of Peer Production was founded in 2009 , in which current developments are reflected. In the context of the Commons debate, Silke Helfrich pointed out that peer production is not only based on Commons, but also creates it, and therefore suggested the term Commons Creating Peer Production .

Peer economy

The computer scientist Christian Siefkes proposed to conceptually extend the commons-based peer production to the whole of society and developed a model for a peer economy. The starting point is the consideration that people spend time creating their living conditions. While capitalism uses the market as “indirection” to distribute the goods produced - without it being clear beforehand whether they can be used and sold - peer production does not distribute the goods, but the effort involved in their production. Only what is needed is produced - the relationship between needs and products is therefore "direct". At auction, the cost offers and demands that are behind the goods are weighted and put in relation to each other. In this way, unpopular tasks can achieve a high weighting and correspond to a higher time expenditure of popular activities. Goods are distributed over pools, "paid" is made with the effort made.

The concept of the peer economy was criticized for its adherence to the exchange principle, among other things, and at the same time it was praised as a possible transition concept to a society without exchange. Siefkes himself later distanced himself from the exchange principle and relied entirely on the principle of contribution.

Ecommony

For the economist and historian Friederike Habermann , on the basis of the Commons “the whole of life and business can be thought differently”. She therefore speaks of Ecommony in a play on words with Economy . Habermann sees two central principles: (1) “Possession instead of ownership: With commons, what counts is who actually needs and uses something, and not the right to exclude others or to sell” and (2) “Contribute instead of swapping: take action out of inner motivation - with secured access to resources ". This expresses what Karl Marx described with the sentence "Everyone according to his abilities, everyone according to his needs".

Commonism

The discussion about commonism aims on the one hand at the development of commons and commons principles in all areas of life, on the other hand commons are understood here as the basic form of a different social order. In the cultural and social sciences, the term is primarily related to a commons-based political culture.

Examples

The following examples show - in different ways in each case - other logics of action ("beyond market and state") in the sense of the Commons definition:

literature

  • M. de Angelis: Omnia Sunt Communia. On the Commons and the Transformation to Postcapitalism. London 2017, ISBN 978-1-78360-062-5 .
  • Y. Benkler: The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven / London 2006, ISBN 0-300-12577-1 .
  • V. Bennholdt-Thomsen: Money or Life. What makes us really rich. Munich 2010, ISBN 978-3-86581-195-0 .
  • S. Bödeker, O. Moldenhauer, B. Rubbel: Wissensallmende. Against the privatization of the world's knowledge through "intellectual property rights". Hamburg 2005, ISBN 3-89965-118-9 .
  • J. Boyle: The public domain. Enclosing the commons of the mind. New Haven Conn. et al. 2008, ISBN 978-0-300-13740-8 .
  • P. Dardot, C. Laval: Commun. Essai on the revolution on the XXIe siècle. Paris 2014, ISBN 978-2-7071-6938-9 .
  • A. Exner, B. Kratzwald: Solidarity Economy & Commons. Vienna 2012, ISBN 978-3-85476-607-0 .
  • F. Habermann: Ecommony. UmCARE for togetherness. Sulzbach am Taunus 2016, ISBN 978-3-89741-386-3 .
  • F. Habermann: Exchanged! Why a good life has to be free of exchange logic for everyone Ulrike Helmer Verlag 2018. ISBN 978-3-89741-424-2 .
  • S. Helfrich, Heinrich Böll Foundation (Ed.): Who Owns the World? To rediscover the commons. Munich 2009, ISBN 978-3-86581-133-2 .
  • S. Helfrich, Heinrich Böll Foundation (Ed.): Commons. For a new policy beyond market and state. Bielefeld 2012, ISBN 978-3-8376-2036-8 . ( PDF )
  • S. Helfrich, D. Bollier (Ed.): The world of the Commons. Pattern of joint action. Bielefeld 2015, ISBN 978-3-8376-3245-3 . ( PDF )
  • S. Helfrich, D. Bollier: Free, fair and lively. The power of the commons. Bielefeld 2019, ISBN 978-3-8376-4530-9 . ( PDF )
  • L. Hyde: The gift. How creativity enriches the world. Frankfurt am Main 2008, ISBN 978-3-10-031840-4 .
  • L. Lessig: Free culture. Nature and future of creativity. Munich 2006, ISBN 3-937514-15-5 .
  • New start in Switzerland: Coming home. Neighborhoods as commons. Baden / CH 2016, ISBN 978-3-03881-000-1 .
  • E. Ostrom: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge 1990, ISBN 0-521-40599-8 .
  • S. Preissing: Contribution and equivalent exchange. Alternative management. Sulzbach / Taunus 2016, ISBN 978-3-8260-5930-8 .
  • J. Rebanks: My life as a shepherd. Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-570-10291-6 .
  • G. Ruivenkamp, ​​A. Hilton (Eds.): Perspectives on Commoning. Autonomist Principles and Practices. London 2017, ISBN 978-1-78699-178-2 .
  • D. Schläppi and M.-C. Gruber (ed.): From the commons to the sharing economy. Common property and collective resources from a historical and legal perspective . Series of contributions to legal, social and cultural criticism, vol. 15. Berlin 2018, ISBN 978-3-8305-3833-2 .
  • C. Siefkes: Contribute instead of swapping. Material production based on the free software model. Neu-Ulm 2008, ISBN 978-3-930830-99-2 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ B. Acksel, J. Euler, L. Gauditz, S. Helfrich, B. Kratzwald, S. Meretz, F. Stein, S. Tuschen: Commoning: To the construction of a convivial society. In: F. Adloff, VM Heinz (Ed.): Konvivialismus. A debate. Bielefeld 2015, pp. 133–145.
  2. ^ M. de Angelis: The beginning of history. Value struggles and global capital. London 2007.
  3. ^ F. Matteoni: The Commons are realizable. Ugo Mattei in conversation about the theory and practice of the »Commons«. In: Jungle World. No. 51, 2013.
  4. ^ E. Ostrom: Beyond Markets and States. Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. In: American Economic Review. 100 (3), 2010, pp. 641-672.
  5. ^ S. Helfrich, Heinrich Böll Foundation (Ed.): Commons. For a new policy beyond market and state. Bielefeld 2012.
  6. ^ J. McCarthy: Commons. In: N. Castree, D. Demeritt (Eds.): A companion to environmental geography. Malden, Massachusetts 2009, pp. 498-514.
  7. ^ DW Bromley: The commons, common property, and environmental policy. In: Environmental and Resource Economics. 2 (1), 1992, pp. 1-17.
  8. ^ I. Illich: From the right to meanness. Reinbek near Hamburg 1982.
  9. ^ PA Samuelson: The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure. In: The Review of Economics and Statistics. 36 (4), 1954, pp. 387-389.
  10. ↑ JM Buchanan: An Economic Theory of Clubs. In: Economica. 32 (125), 1965, p. 1.
  11. ^ Elinor Ostrom, Vincent Ostrom: Public Goods and Public Choices. In: ES Savas (Ed.): Alternatives for delivering public services. Toward improved performance. Boulder, Colorado 1977.
  12. ↑ a b c d F. Habermann: Ecommony. UmCARE for togetherness. Sulzbach am Taunus 2016.
  13. ↑ Network of free knowledge: Knowledge commons report 2009 - Who owns the world. 2009.
  14. ^ S. Meretz: Grundrisse of a free society. In: T. Konicz, F. Rötzer (eds.): Departure into Unknown (Telepolis). In search of alternatives to the permanent capitalist crisis. 2014.
  15. ↑ a b S. Helfrich: Commons do not fall from the sky. In: OYA. (20), 2013, pp. 14-17.
  16. ^ S. Bödeker, O. Moldenhauer, B. Rubbel: Wissensallmende. Against the privatization of the world's knowledge through "intellectual property rights". Hamburg 2005.
  17. ^ A b Y. Benkler: The wealth of networks. How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven / London 2006.
  18. ↑ N. Grüne, J. Hübner, G. Siegl (Ed.): Rural common goods. Collective use of resources in European agriculture. 2016.
  19. ↑ F. Mestrum: The Social Commons: Rethinking Social Justice in Post-Neoliberal Societies. 2016.
  20. ^ J. Rifkin: The Zero Marginal Cost Society. The Internet of Things, the common collaborative and the retreat of capitalism. Frankfurt am Main 2014.
  21. ↑ a b S. Helfrich, D. Bollier (Ed.): Die Welt der Commons. Pattern of joint action. Bielefeld 2015.
  22. ^ S. Helfrich: Towards a Commons Creating Peer Economy. May 30, 2013, accessed May 16, 2017.
  23. ^ S. Helfrich: Die Welt der Commons. In a world of terror? December 2, 2015, accessed May 16, 2017.
  24. ^ C. Hess: Is There Anything New Under the Sun ?: A Discussion and Survey of Studies on New Commons and the Internet. 2000, p. 5. ( PDF; 89 KB )
  25. ^ R. Rilling: Viral Ownership Patterns. About some challenges to the hegemony of private property. In: I. Lohmann, R. Rilling (Ed.): The sold education. Criticism and controversy about the commercialization of schools, further education, upbringing and science. Opladen 2002, pp. 303-313.
  26. ^ JM Neeson: Commoners. Common right, enclosure and social change in England, 1700-1820. Cambridge / New York 1996.
  27. ^ T. de Moor: The Silent Revolution. A New Perspective on the Emergence of Commons, Guilds, and Other Forms of Corporate Collective Action in Western Europe. In: International Review of Social History. 53 (S16), 2008, p. 179.
  28. ^ P. Linebaugh: The Magna Carta Manifesto. The struggle to reclaim liberties and commons for all. Berkeley Calif./ London 2008.
  29. ↑ H. Zückert: common land and common land lifting. Comparative studies on the late Middle Ages up to the agricultural reforms of the 18th and 19th centuries. Century. In: Sources and research on agricultural history. Volume 47, Stuttgart 2003.
  30. ↑ K. Marx: Das Kapital. Critique of Political Economy. First volume. Fourth edition ed. by F. Engels. 1890.
  31. ↑ a b K. Polanyi: The Great Transformation: Economic and Political Origins of Our Time. Boston 1944.
  32. ↑ B. Lutz: The short dream of perpetual prosperity. A new interpretation of the industrial-capitalist development in Europe of the 20th century, Frankfurt am Main / New York 1989.
  33. ^ D. Harvey: The 'New' Imperialism: Accumulation by Dispossession. In: Socialist Register. 40, 2004, pp. 63-87.
  34. ^ J. Boyle: The Second Enclosure Movement and the Construction of the Public Domain. In: Law and Contemporary Problems. 66 (1), 2003, pp. 33-74.
  35. ↑ a b J. Boyle: The public domain. Enclosing the commons of the mind. New Haven Conn. including 2008.
  36. ↑ SB Federici, M. Birkner, M. Henninger (eds.): Caliban and the witch. Women, the body and the primordial accumulation. Vienna 2012.
  37. ^ T. Cowen: Public Goods Definitions and their Institutional Context. A Critique of Public Goods Theory. In: Review of Social Economy. 43 (1), 2006, pp. 53-63.
  38. ^ J. Euler: Defining the Commons: The social practice of commoning as core determinant. 2015. ( PDF; 206 KB ).
  39. ↑ S. Meretz: What are Commons? Commons in a goods classification. In: Contraste. 26, 2009, p. 9.
  40. ^ S. Helfrich, Heinrich Böll Foundation (Ed.): Commons. For a new policy beyond market and state. Bielefeld 2012, p. 85.
  41. ^ G. Hardin: The tragedy of the commons. In: Science. (New York, NY) 162 (3859), December 13, 1968, pp. 1243-1248.
  42. ↑ SV Ciriacy-Wantrup, RC Bishop: Common Property as a Concept in Natural Resources Policy. In: Natural Research Journal. 15, 1975, pp. 713-727.
  43. ↑ G. Hardin: Extensions of “The Tragedy of the Commons”. In: Science. May 1998, pp. 682-683.
  44. ^ A b E. Ostrom, R. Gardner, JM Walker: Rules, games, and common-pool resources. Ann Arbor, Michigan 2006.
  45. ↑ Political Science, Volume 2, Paul Kevenhörster, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften , 2006, ISBN 3-531-15184-3 , p. 357
  46. ^ CM Rose: The Comedy of the Commons: Commerce, Custom, and Inherently Public Property. In: The University of Chicago Law Review. 53 (3), 1986, pp. 711-781.
  47. ↑ M. Heller: The Tragedy of the Anticommons. In: Harvard Law Review. 111 (3), 1998.
  48. ↑ M. Heller: Die Tragig der Anti-Allmende. In: S. Helfrich, Heinrich Böll Foundation (Ed.): Commons. For a new policy beyond market and state. Bielefeld 2012, pp. 91-98.
  49. ^ S. Kopelman, JM Weber, DM Messick: Factors influencing cooperation in commons dilemmas: A review of experimental psychological research. In: E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dolsak, PC Stern, S. Stonich, EU Weber (Eds.): The drama of the commons. Washington DC 2003, pp. 113-156.
  50. ↑ A. Ernst: Ecological-social dilemmas. In: ED Lantermann, V. Linneweber (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Psychology. Göttingen 2008.
  51. ^ M. de Angelis: The beginning of history. Value struggles and global capital. London 2007, p. 243.
  52. ↑ S. Helfrich: Common goods are not, they are made. In: S. Helfrich, Heinrich Böll Foundation (Ed.): Commons. For a new policy beyond market and state. Bielefeld 2012, p. 90.
  53. ^ F. Matteoni: The Commons are realizable. Ugo Mattei in conversation about the theory and practice of the »Commons«. In: Jungle World. (51), December 19, 2013.
  54. ^ J. Euler: Commons-creating Society. On the Radical German Commons Discourse. In: Review of Radical Political Economics. 48 (1), 2016, p. 96.
  55. ↑ J. Niewöhner, E. Sörensen, S. Beck: Introduction. Science and Technology Studies - science and technology research from a social and cultural anthropological perspective. In: E. Sörensen, S. Beck, J. Niewöhner (Eds.): Science and Technology Studies. Bielefeld 2012, p. 32.
  56. ^ P. Linebaugh: The Magna Carta Manifesto. The struggle to reclaim liberties and commons for all. Berkeley Calif./ London 2008, p. 279.
  57. ↑ J. Euler, S. Helfrich: From “with” and “for” to “through”: On the relationship between researching and being researched as well as researching the commons. In: B. Aulenbacher, M. Burawoy, K. Dörre, J. Sittel (eds.): Public Sociology: Science in Dialogue with Society. Frankfurt am Main 2017, pp. 146–165.
  58. ↑ P. Dardot, C. Laval: Commun. Essai on the revolution on the XXIe siècle. Paris 2014, pp. 429–451.
  59. ↑ a b S. Meretz: Ubuntu philosophy. The structural community of the Commons. In: S. Helfrich, Heinrich Böll Foundation (Ed.): Commons. For a new policy beyond market and state. Bielefeld 2012, pp. 58–65.
  60. ↑ B. Kratzwald: The whole of life. Self-organization between pleasure and necessity. Sulzbach / Taunus 2014.
  61. ↑ C. Wichterich: Building blocks of the future and the charm of doing it yourself. Against care and resource extractivist capitalism. In: A. Tauss (Ed.): Socio-ecological transformations. Think the end of capitalism. 2016, pp. 183-204.
  62. ^ V. Bennholdt-Thomsen: Money or Life. What makes us really rich. Munich 2010.
  63. ↑ R. Scholz: The Gender of Capitalism. Feminist Theories and the Postmodern Metamorphosis of Patriarchy. Bad Honnef 2000.
  64. ^ I. Praetorius (ed.): Economy is Care or: the rediscovery of the obvious. An essay. Berlin 2015, p. 56.
  65. ↑ S. Helfrich (2016) Keynote, 4th IASC Regional Conference Europe Commons in a “Glocal” World. Global Connections and Local Responses 10.-13. May 2016, University of Bern / Switzerland
  66. ↑ A. Weber: Reality as commons. A poetics of participation for the Anthropocene. In: S. Helfrich, D. Bollier (Ed.): Die Welt der Commons. Pattern of joint action. Bielefeld 2015, p. 368.
  67. ↑ C. Collomb: Ontology relationnelle et pensée du commun. In: Multitudes. 45 (2), 2011, p. 59.
  68. ↑ NM Singh: The affective labor of growing forests and the becoming of environmental subjects: Rethinking environmentality in Odisha, India. In: Geoforum. Vol. 47, 2013, pp. 189-198.
  69. ↑ M. Hardt, A. Negri: Common Wealth. The end of property. Frankfurt am Main 2010, p. 196.
  70. ↑ XE Barandiaran, D. Vila-Viñas: The FLOK doctrine. In: Journal of Peer Production. Issue 7, 2015.
  71. ^ S. Meretz: Commons-based peer production. In: spw - magazine for socialist politics and economy. (158), 2011, pp. 27-31.
  72. ↑ C. Siefkes: Peer Production - The Unexpected Rise of a Commons-Based Mode of Production. In: S. Helfrich, Heinrich Böll Foundation (Ed.): Commons. For a new policy beyond market and state. Bielefeld 2012, pp. 348–353.
  73. ↑ J. Soderberg, Maxigas: Book of peer production. Gothenburg 2014.
  74. ↑ C. Siefkes: Contribute instead of exchanging. Material production based on the Free Software model. New Ulm 2008.
  75. ↑ S. Merten: Peerconomy - A Critical Review. 2008.
  76. ^ S. Meretz: Peer Economy. A transition concept. In: Forays. 41, Vienna 2007.
  77. ↑ C. Siefkes: Producing without money and compulsion. In: R. Zelik, A. Tauss (Ed.): Other possible worlds? Hamburg 2012.
  78. ↑ C. Siefkes: Free sources or how production became a minor matter. In: jour fixe initiative berlin (ed.): “Something is missing” - utopia, criticism and promise of happiness. Münster 2013, pp. 255–272.
  79. ↑ F. Habermann: Common-based future. How an old concept enables a better future. In: From Politics and Contemporary History. 2015, pp. 35–37.