Kulturwissenschaftliches Institut, Essen

1. Johannes Euler, M.Sc.
“Fortschrittskolleg NRW: Future Water”
Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities
Commons-Institut e.V.
1st Thematic Conference on Urban Commons
International Association for the Study of the Commons
Bologna, Italy
Nov. 6, 2015
Commoning:
Core Determinant for Commons

2. 2 / 22
Outline
• Introduction
• Goods Classification
– Description, Critique, Alternative
• Good or Resource?
• Commons
• Commoning
• Commons-Projects
• Conclusion

3. 3 / 22
Commons = CPR ?
E. Ostrom (2002: 215ff.)

4. 4 / 22
Conventional Classification
High Subtractability of Use Low Subtractability of Use
High Excludability Private Good Toll / Club Good
Low Excludability CPR / Common Good Public / Collective Good
Adams & McCormick (1987: 192); E. Ostrom (2010: 645)
“the costliness of exclusion is not a function of the nature of the good,
but rather depends on how the good is supplied and at what level it is produced”
(Cowen 1985: 61)

5. 5 / 22
Classification of Goods: Critique I
Cowen (1985: 53ff.)
Excludability and/or Subtactability depend on:
(a) what technology is used to produce that good,
(b) how much of the good is produced,
(c) the distribution mechanism for the good,
(d) how intense the demand is for the good,
(e) how we define the marginal unit of the good,
(f) what sort of activities we are willing to define as 'consumption', and
(g) the different meanings we are willing to attach to the notion of exclusion.

6. 6 / 22
Classification of Goods: Critique II
It's not inside the goods,
not a natural characteristic.
What matters is how we relate to these things.
Euler (2015)

7. 7 / 22
Classification of Goods: Critique III
In principle, everything could be private,
commercial or state-run!
High Subtractability of Use Low Subtractability of Use
High Excludability Private Gardening Propretarian Software
Low Excludability Commercial Irrigation
System
State-run Radio
Euler (2015)

8. 8 / 22
Classification of Goods: Critique IV
And everything could be a commons!
The social practice is what matters!
High Subtractability of Use Low Subtractability of Use
High Excludability Urban Gardening Free Software
Low Excludability Community-run Irrigation
System
Free Radio
Euler (2015)

9. 9 / 22
Alternative Classification I
What benefit such a classification can be
remains to be seen.
Highly subtractive Use Neutral or Additive Use
Highly Exclusive Private Good Toll / Club Good
Highly Inclusive Common Good Open-Access Good

10. 10 / 22
Are Commons Goods ?
Things become goods when somebody finds
something good.
This is purely subjective and not observable.
There is no direct link to objective properties.
Inclusion of intersubjectively defined properties
Brodbeck (2009: 760ff.)

11. 11 / 22
Are Commons Resources ?
Formerly: re-source = continuously rising spring
Now: “any material or conditions existing in
nature which may be capable of economic
exploitation” (Meeker 1987, as cited in Shiva 1992: 206)
Manifestation of the exploitative and dominating
relation of humans towards nature
Shiva (1992: 206ff.)

12. 12 / 22
Alternative Classification II
What benefit such a classification can be
remains to be seen.
Highly subtractive Use Neutral or Additive Use
Highly Exclusive Private Matter Toll / Club Matter
Highly Inclusive Common Matter Open-Access Matter

13. 13 / 22
Commons = Social Form ...

14. 14 / 22
… of Matter ...
… not merely Goods
… not merely Resources
… not merely Products
… but of Matter (tangible and intangible)

15. 15 / 22
… Determined by Social Practices
“There is no commons without commoning”
(Linebaugh, as referred to in Bollier 2011)
Which Logic of Action?
CentralAuthority?
Commercial?

16. 16 / 22
Commoning I
… commonly engaging in an activity, doing
together, taking into consideration others'
needs
… Production, Reproduction, Produsage
(co-production), Use in Common
… Self-organization
cf. Acksel et al. (2015)

17. 17 / 22
Commoning II
… relating to each other as Peers
… Needs-satisfaction as aim
… Mediation
cf. Acksel et al. (2015)

18. 18 / 22
Commoning III
Self-organized
ReProdusage
and Mediation
of Peers
who aim at satisfying their Needs

19. 19 / 22
Commons-Projects
Autonomous Organizations of Commoning

20. 20 / 22
Conclusion
• Everything could be a commons
• What matters is the social interaction!
• Commons = Social Form of Matter
determined by Commoning
• Commoning = Self-organized ReProdusage
and Mediation of Peers who aim at satisfying
their Needs

21. 21 / 22
Questions?
Thank you very much for your attention!
Johannes Euler – Commoning: Core Determinant for Commons

22. 22 / 22
References
Acksel, B., & Euler, J., & Gauditz, L., & Helfrich, S., Kratzwald, B., & Meretz, S., & Stein, F., & Tuschen, S. (2015). Commoning: Zur
Kon-struktion einer konvivialen Gesellschaft. In: Adloff, F., & Heins, V. (eds.) Konvivalismus: Eine Debatte. Transcript: Bielefeld,
Germany.
Adams, R., & McCormick, K. (1987). Private Goods, Club Goods, And Public Goods As A Continuum. Review of Social Economy, 45(2),
192-199.
Bollier, D. (2011). The Commons, Political Transformation and Cities. Retrieved on April 7, 2015 from
http://bollier.org/commons-political-transformation-and-cities
Brodbeck, K.-H. (2009). Die Herrschaft des Geldes: Geschichte und Systematik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft: Darmstadt,
Germany.
Cowen, T. (1985). Public goods definitions and their institutional context: a critique of public goods theory. Review of Social Economy,
43(1), 53-63.
Euler, J. (2015). Commons-creating society: On the radical German discourse. Review of Radical Political Economics 48(1).
Ostrom, E. (2002). Commons. In: Cuff, D., & Goudie, A. (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Global Change. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
England, 215-218.
Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems. American Economic Review,
100:3, 641-672.
Shiva, V. (1992). Resources. In: Sachs, W. (ed.). The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge and Power. Zed Books: London,
England, 206-218.
Johannes Euler – Commoning: Core Determinant for Commons