• kbaril

    Is the graphic on this article some sort of joke? I don’t get it

    But dialogue on the commons is critical- before we loose it as a part of our community heritage- I studied Admiralty law based on common law- and the pragmatic- we’re all on this ship together- is a beacon for great negotiations and win/win social policy- Folks might want to look at common law legal cases all the way from early water law- expropriated for the highest best social benefit for all– to last week’s common law ruling in a Texas court that — air, like water, wildlife and shellfish- are to be managed for “common benefit ” and therefore people have a right to sue for clean air and climate change– thanks for the article

  • Marcello Palazzi

    Progressio Foundation, which I co-founded in 1989 in Rotterdam, called it the “civic” domain, and specifically, civic economy, civic leadership, civic governance and civic enterprise. Civic originates from the Latin civis, the citizens, ethically and philosophically, the appropriate unit to which all human action in the economic, governance, entrepreneurial and leadership spheres ought to aim at. This is not just the right thing to do, but surely it is accompanied by just rewards to the civis, as the cases of Singapore, the Scandinavian countries and a few others can prove, if we examine the last 25 years’ records.

  • Pat Nichols

    Lohman’s thoughtful piece resonated strongly on a couple of points. The notion that our sector exists to address market failures is both too anemic and too robust, it seems to me. We can’t fully satisfy the implied obligation there (sometimes it falls to government and sometimes it simply can’t be satisfied at lest in the short term).

    Also, it seems obviously true that “common” activity precedes markets and governments–both logically and historically. In fact, both are best seen as collaborative exercises. It seems to me markets are better understood as means of communication (inherently shared or common) about the transfer of goods and services. That framing sees them as limited but powerful vehicles for addressing a limited range of issues. It might help the right get over the dangerous notion, identified by Lohman, that markets represent solutions to all ills. And, it might help the left get over a reflexive aversion to markets.

  • Allan Shore

    Love this piece. Makes the case very clearly, as I often argue, as to why the social sciences are really the strongest of sciences. The power of people in common is what makes other knowledge have value, blended or not. I was thinking of something similar today when I heard about the Master Teacher effort of the Obama Administration to reward STEM instruction. To me, having physical sciences, math, technology, etc., expertise without a balance of its sociological implications makes it nothing to most people in the future where the calculations of the software will forever be beyond their visibility anyway. If we make better people we get better overall results. Awesome writing.

  • Caroline Oliver

    A great topic – so crucial to all our futures. See also this year’s BBC Radio 4 Reith Lectures by Niall Ferguson on Civil and Uncivil Societies and the work of Elinor Ostrom who died this summer. In the UK we are suffering from this agenda having become very political with the current government’s rhetoric around creating a “Big Society” while reining in public finances. A very uncomfortable juxtaposition.