A lot of rhetoric about the commons seems to treat them as if they have some inherent property that determines whether a resource should be a commons or not. Herein, I want to suggest that our resource classifications are challenged and made fluid by technology. By way of a “for example,” lets revisit some key concepts.
Two key concepts in commons theory are subtractability (or rivalrousness) and excludability:
* Subtractability refers to the degree to which one person’s use of a resource diminishes others’ use. For example, my learning of algrebra does not diminish the amount of algebra remaining for others. * Excludability refers to whether or not a user can be efficiently excluded from using a resource. For example, it is typically understood that we cannot be efficiently excluded from breathing the atmosphere.Historically, when resources are non-excludable they are classified as commons (or public goods), and more specifically when commons are subtractable they are classified as “common pool resources,” or CPRs.
So, here are some concrete examples of how technology changes the possibilities for resource classification:
Technology allows subtractable to become non-subtractable: Because, originally, users had to share the frequency spectrum as a CPR, it was partitioned and licensed to each broadcaster. New technology which enables a more flexible use of the frequency spectrum, makes possible a broader range of sharing of the resource (i.e. open spectrum). Technology allows non-subtractable to become subtractable: Intellectual property is a frequent example here. A new invention, which might be shared via instructables.com or Make magazine, can, with the emergence of broader patent rights, be made into a finite resource. Technology allows non-excludable to become excludable: Cattle were once allowed to roam freely on the plains of the western United States, largely because fences were too expensive to build. When the invention of barbed-wire fencing reduced costs, the American frontier was transformed into a patchwork of enclosed private resources. As this process is mirrored in information technologies today (e.g. DRM), it is often referred to as the “second enclosure movement” (e.g. Boyle). Technology allows excludable to become non-excludable: The Internet is, of course, a powerful force in the reversing of traditional economic excludability (the spread of open-source software is another).In addition, the astute reader may note in the examples above that technology is actually able to blur the lines between subtractability and excludability. What becomes apparent is that subtractability is merely a form of excludability (i.e. by eating an apple, I exclude anyone else from eating it).
In closing, the relationship of human society to its resources is not an objective fact but is a political decision, and the arguments brought to bear in that decision depend largely on the technology available to manage those resources at the time the decision is being made. For this reason, as technology changes we must continually revisit the decisions made previously with respect to civilization and its resources. The conversation never ends.