A Level Economics 51: Tragedy of the Commons

1. Importance of Property Rights in a Market System:

Property rights refer to the legal ownership and control that individuals or entities have over assets, resources, and goods. In a market system, property rights play a fundamental role in facilitating efficient resource allocation and promoting economic growth. Here's why property rights are essential to the functioning of a market system:

• Incentive to Invest and Innovate: Secure property rights provide individuals and businesses with the assurance that they can enjoy the fruits of their investments and innovations. When people know they will reap the benefits of their efforts, they are incentivized to invest, take risks, and innovate, leading to increased productivity and economic growth.

• 
  

• Clear Ownership and Transferability: Property rights allow for clear ownership and transferability of assets. This enables individuals to buy, sell, or trade property, goods, and resources in the marketplace, promoting efficient allocation based on supply and demand.

• 
  

• Resource Allocation: Property rights facilitate the efficient allocation of resources by providing a framework for individuals to decide how to use and manage their property. Resources flow to their most valued uses as people make decisions based on their preferences and economic incentives.

• 
  

• Encouraging Specialization and Trade: With secure property rights, people can specialize in the production of goods and services they are most efficient at producing. This specialization leads to increased productivity and fosters trade, where individuals can exchange their products or services for other goods they desire.

• 
  

• Enforcing Contracts: Property rights are essential for enforcing contracts and agreements. When people trust that their rights will be protected, they are more likely to engage in transactions and trade with others, fostering economic cooperation.

2. Tragedy of the Commons and Market Failure: The tragedy of the commons is a situation where a commonly held, shared resource (such as a grazing pasture, fishery, or air and water quality) is overused and depleted because no individual or group has exclusive property rights over the resource. This leads to market failure and inefficiency due to the following reasons:

• Lack of Exclusivity: When no one owns exclusive rights to a resource, there is no incentive for any individual to protect or preserve it. Each person acts in their self-interest, using the resource to their advantage without considering its long-term sustainability.

• 
  

• Overconsumption: As more individuals use the shared resource to maximize their own benefits, it leads to overconsumption and depletion of the resource beyond its sustainable capacity. This creates a situation where the resource is eventually exhausted or damaged, negatively affecting everyone.

• 
  

• Negative Externalities: The tragedy of the commons results in negative externalities, where the actions of one individual negatively impact others. For example, overfishing in an unregulated fishery leads to reduced fish populations, affecting the livelihoods of other fishermen.

• 
  

• Inefficiency: The overexploitation of the commons creates inefficiencies in resource allocation. Instead of being allocated to its most valued uses, the resource is depleted and underutilized, leading to lost economic opportunities and social welfare.

Market Failure and the Role of Government:

The tragedy of the commons is an example of market failure because the free market cannot efficiently allocate the shared resource when property rights are not well-defined. In such cases, the government can intervene through regulation, establishing property rights, or implementing policies to address the overuse of the common resource. By creating property rights or setting limits on resource use, the government can incentivize sustainable management and prevent the depletion of shared resources, leading to more efficient resource allocation and improved social welfare.

---Inequities in Property Rights


In modern-day societies, property rights can exhibit inequities that result from various factors and historical developments. These inequities can lead to disparities in access, ownership, and control of property, exacerbating social and economic inequalities. Here are some ways in which inequities in property rights manifest:

Historical Disadvantages: In many countries, historical injustices and discriminatory policies have led to certain groups, such as indigenous populations or marginalized communities, being systematically denied access to land and property ownership. As a result, they face ongoing disadvantages in acquiring and holding property.

Land Concentration: In some regions, a significant portion of land is concentrated in the hands of a small elite, while a large section of the population has limited access to land ownership. This concentration of land ownership can perpetuate economic disparities and limit opportunities for social mobility.

Urban vs. Rural Property Rights: In urban areas, property rights may be better protected and enforced compared to rural regions, where informal or customary land tenure systems prevail. This disparity can lead to greater insecurity and vulnerability for rural communities in terms of land ownership.

Gender Disparities: Women often face discriminatory property laws and cultural norms, which restrict their rights to own and inherit property. These gender disparities can limit women's economic independence and exacerbate gender-based inequalities.

Inheritance Rights*: Inequity in inheritance rights is another aspect of property rights that contributes to social and economic disparities. In some societies, inheritance laws may favor male heirs over female heirs, perpetuating gender-based inequalities in property ownership and limiting financial security for women.

Lack of Legal Recognition: In some countries, certain types of property, such as communal land or informal settlements, may lack legal recognition. This can lead to insecurity of tenure and vulnerability to forced evictions, particularly among vulnerable populations.

Gentrification: In urban areas, gentrification can result in the displacement of long-standing communities due to rising property values and rents. As wealthier individuals move in, property prices increase, making it difficult for existing residents to afford to remain in their neighborhoods.

Addressing these inequities in property rights requires comprehensive policy measures and legal reforms to ensure fair and inclusive access to property ownership and control. Governments can enact laws that protect the rights of marginalized groups, strengthen land tenure systems, and ensure gender equality in property ownership. Additionally, land redistribution programs, affordable housing initiatives, and measures to address gentrification can help promote more equitable property rights.

In conclusion, inequities in modern-day property rights are rooted in historical legacies, discriminatory practices, and inadequate legal protections. Recognizing and addressing these inequities is essential for promoting social justice, economic opportunity, and sustainable development. Governments play a crucial role in enacting policies to protect property rights and promote fair and equitable access to resources for all members of society.

---* Inequities in Inheritance Rights

Inequity in inheritance rights is another crucial aspect that contributes to social and economic disparities in property ownership. In many societies, inheritance laws and cultural norms can perpetuate gender-based inequalities and favor certain privileged groups, leading to unequal distribution of wealth and property. Here's how inheritance rights can contribute to inequities in property rights:

1. Gender Bias: In some countries, inheritance laws may favor male heirs over female heirs, leading to gender-based disparities in property ownership. Women may face limitations in inheriting property, especially in patriarchal societies, which can restrict their economic opportunities and financial security.

2. 
   

3. Primogeniture: Traditional inheritance systems in some cultures follow primogeniture, where the eldest son inherits the bulk of family property, leaving younger siblings with limited or no inheritance rights. This practice can exacerbate wealth concentration within a specific group, leading to unequal access to resources.

4. 
   

5. Intestate Succession Laws: When a person dies without a will (intestate), inheritance laws dictate how their property will be distributed among heirs. In some cases, intestate succession laws may not adequately protect the rights of surviving spouses, children, or other dependents, leading to potential injustices.

6. 
   

7. Wealth Concentration: Inheritance can contribute to the concentration of wealth within certain families or social classes. When large amounts of property and wealth are passed down through generations, it can perpetuate economic disparities and limit opportunities for social mobility.

8. 
   

9. Informal Inheritance Practices: In many regions, informal inheritance practices may prevail, leaving vulnerable individuals, such as widows, orphans, and disadvantaged groups, without proper legal recognition of their inheritance rights. This lack of formal protection can lead to property dispossession and vulnerability to exploitation.

Addressing inequities in inheritance rights is crucial for promoting social and economic justice. Governments can play a vital role in enacting inheritance laws that promote gender equality, protect the rights of vulnerable groups, and ensure fair distribution of property among heirs. Efforts to promote legal awareness and empower marginalized individuals to claim their inheritance rights are also essential in addressing these inequities.

In conclusion, inheritance rights can significantly impact property ownership and wealth distribution in a society. Addressing the inequities in inheritance laws and cultural norms is essential for promoting equitable access to property, reducing wealth disparities, and ensuring equal economic opportunities for all members of society. Governments must actively work towards creating a fair and inclusive framework that upholds the principles of justice and equality in property rights.

On Hindus Abroad!

 

"Snakes in the Ganga" - An Exclusive Discussion with Rajiv Malhotra

 

John J. Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of Liberal Hegemony”

 

Quit Balochistan Movement

 

Sudha Bhardwaj gets Bail on Technical Grounds

 

What's Wrong With the Nobel is Wrong With Economics!

 

Misconceptions about Art 370 - Is the Indian government misleading its people?

Freedom for whom, at whose expense?

George Monbiot in The Guardian


‘When thinktanks and the billionaire press call for freedom, they are careful not to specify whose freedoms they mean. Freedom for some, they suggest, means freedom for all.’ Photograph: Dan Kitwood/Getty Images




Propaganda works by sanctifying a single value, such as faith, or patriotism. Anyone who questions it puts themselves outside the circle of respectable opinion. The sacred value is used to obscure the intentions of those who champion it. Today, the value is freedom. Freedom is a word that powerful people use to shut down thought.

When thinktanks and the billionaire press call for freedom, they are careful not to specify whose freedoms they mean. Freedom for some, they suggest, means freedom for all. In certain cases, this is true. You can exercise freedom of thought, for instance, without harming others. In other cases, one person’s freedom is another’s captivity.

When corporations free themselves from trade unions, they curtail the freedoms of their workers. When the very rich free themselves from tax, other people suffer through failing public services. When financiers are free to design exotic financial instruments, the rest of us pay for the crises they cause.

Above all, billionaires and the organisations they run demand freedom from something they call “red tape”. What they mean by red tape is public protection. An article in the Telegraph last week was headlined “Cut the EU red tape choking Britain after Brexit to set the country free from the shackles of Brussels”. Yes, we are choking, but not on red tape. We are choking because the government flouts European rules on air quality. The resulting air pollution frees thousands of souls from their bodies.

‘Yes, we are choking, but not on red tape. We are choking because the government flouts European rules on air quality.’ Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Ripping down such public protections means freedom for billionaires and corporations from the constraints of democracy. This is what Brexit – and Donald Trump – are all about. The freedom we were promised is the freedom of the very rich to exploit us. 

To be fair to the Telegraph, which is running a campaign to deregulate the entire economy once Britain has left the EU, it is, unusually, almost explicit about who the beneficiaries are. It explains that “the ultimate goal of this whole process should be to … set the wealth creators free”. (Wealth creators: code for the very rich.) Among the potential prizes it lists are changes to the banana grading system, allowing strongly curved bananas to be categorised as Class 1, a return to incandescent lightbulbs and the freedom to kill great crested newts.

I suspect that the Barclay brothers, the billionaires who own the Telegraph, couldn’t give a monkey’s about bananas. But as their business empire incorporates hotels, shipping, car sales, home shopping and deliveries, they might be intensely interested in the European working time directive and other aspects of employment law, tax directives, environmental impact assessments, the consumer rights directive, maritime safety laws and a host of similar public protections.

If the government agrees to a “bonfire of red tape”, we would win bent bananas and newt-squashing prerogatives. On the other hand, we could lose our rights to fair employment, an enduring living world, clean air, clean water, public safety, consumer protection, functioning public services, and the other distinguishing features of civilisation. Tough choice, isn’t it?


The overriding of the safety mechanism on a ride at Alton Towers led to two young women having their legs amputated

As if to hammer the point home, the Sunday Telegraph interviewed Nick Varney, chief executive of Merlin Entertainments, in an article claiming that the “red tape burden” was too heavy for listed companies. He described some of the public protections that companies have to observe as “bloody baggage”. The article failed to connect these remarks to his company’s own bloody baggage, caused by its unilateral decision to cut red tape. As a result of overriding the safety mechanism on one of its rides at Alton Towers – which was operating, against the guidelines, during high winds – 16 people were injured, including two young women who had their legs amputated. That’s why we need public protections of the kind the Telegraph wants to destroy.

The same ethos, with the same justification, pervades the Trump administration. The new head of the environmental protection agency, Scott Pruitt, is seeking to annul the rules protecting rivers from pollution, workers from exposure to pesticides, and everyone from climate breakdown. It’s not as if the agency was overzealous before: one of the reasons for the mass poisoning in Flint, Michigan, was its catastrophic failure to protect people from the contamination of drinking water by lead: a failure that now afflicts 18 million Americans.

‘The new head of the US environmental protection agency is seeking to annul the rules protecting rivers from pollution, workers from exposure to pesticides and everyone from climate breakdown.’ Photograph: Alamy

As well as trying to dismantle the government’s climate change programme, Trump is waging war on even the most obscure forms of protection. For instance, he intends to remove funds from the tiny US chemical safety board, which investigates lethal industrial incidents. Discovering what happened and why would impede freedom.

On neither side of the Atlantic are these efforts unopposed. Trump’s assault on public protections has already provoked dozens of lawsuits. The European council has told the UK government that if it wants to trade with the EU on favourable terms after Brexit, companies here cannot cut their costs by dumping them on the rest of society.

This drives the leading Brexiters berserk. As a result of the pollution paradox (the dirtiest corporations have to spend the most money on politics, so the political system comes to be owned by them), politicians like Boris Johnson and Michael Gove have an incentive to champion the freedom of irresponsible companies. But it also puts them in a bind. Their primary argument for deregulation is that it makes businesses more competitive. If it means those businesses can’t trade with the EU, the case falls apart.

They will try to light the bonfire anyway, as this is a question of power and culture as well as money. You don’t need to listen for long to the very rich to realise that many see themselves as the “independents” Friedrich Hayek celebrated in The Constitution of Liberty, or as John Galt, who led a millionaires’ strike against the government in Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged. Like Hayek, they regard freedom from democracy as an absolute right, regardless of the costs this may inflict on others, or even themselves.

When we confront a system of propaganda, our first task is to decode it. This begins by interrogating its sacred value. Whenever we hear the word freedom, we should ask ourselves, “Freedom for whom, at whose expense?”

Brexit deal must meet six tests, says Labour

• Fair migration system for UK business and communities
• Retaining strong, collaborative relationship with EU
• Protecting national security and tackling cross-border crime
• Delivering for all nations and regions of the UK
• Protecting workers' rights and employment protections
• Ensuring same benefits currently enjoyed within single market

How Corbyn could checkmate Farage and Johnson's Brexit plans

Paul Mason in The Guardian

In the progressive half of British politics we need a plan to put our stamp on the Brexit result – and fast.

We must prevent the Conservative right using the Brexit negotiations to reshape Britain into a rule-free space for corporations; we need to take control of the process whereby the rights of the citizen are redefined against those of a newly sovereign state.

Above all we need to provide certainty and solidarity to the millions of EU migrants who feel like the Brits threw them under a bus this week.

In short, we can and must fight to place social justice and democracy at the heart of the Brexit negotiations. I call this ProgrExit – progressive exit. It can be done, but only if all the progressive parties of Britain set aside some of what divides them and unite around a common objective.

The position of Labour is pivotal. Only Labour can provide the framework of a government that could stop Boris Johnson, abetted by Nigel Farage, turning Britain into a Thatcherite free-market wasteland.

Labour – and I mean here the 400,000 people with party cards and a meeting to go to – must go beyond the analysis and grieving stage, and do something new.

First, Labour must clearly accept Brexit. There can be no second referendum, no legal sabotage effort. Labour has to become a party designed to deliver social justice outside the EU. It should, for the foreseeable future, abandon the objective of a return to EU membership. We are out, and must make the best of it.

Next, we should fight for an early election. Almost all parts of the Labour movement have reason to resist this: for the Blairites it holds the danger that Corbyn will become PM – something they thought they had years to sabotage. For Corbyn, the nightmare is he gets stuck as a Labour prime minister with a Parliamentary Labour Party that does not support him. For the unions, they are out of cash. For the new breed of post-2015 activists, bruised by being told to eff off by what they assumed were their core supporters, it feels like a bad time to go back on the doorstep. But we must go there.

An early election – I favour late November – is the only democratic outcome in the present situation. No politician has a mandate to design a specific Brexit negotiation stance now. The only one with a democratic mandate to rule Britain just resigned, and his party’s 2015 manifesto is junk.

Europe cannot conduct meaningful Brexit negotiations with a scratch-together rump Tory government. So the whole process will be on hold.

In the election Labour should offer an informal electoral pact to the Scottish National Party, Greens and Plaid Cymru. The aims should be a) defeating Ukip and b) preventing the formation of a Tory-Ukip-DUP government that would enact the ultra-right Brexit scenario.

Caroline Lucas has indicated the price of such a pact might be a commitment to proportional representation. Labour – which cannot govern what is left of the UK alone, once Scotland leaves – should accede to this.

If, as a result of the snap election, Labour can form a coalition government with the SNP, Plaid and Greens, it should do so.

However, the most obvious problem is the position of Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon is right to demand a new independence vote, and to explore how to time that vote in a way that maintains Scotland’s continuous membership of the EU.

Given the strength of the remain vote in Scotland, Scottish Labour is faced with a big decision: does it oppose independence and go with Brexit to maintain the Union, or switch now to promoting independence to stay in the EU? I favour the latter, but it should be for Scottish Labour members to make that decision independently.

At Westminster, however, Labour should offer – in return for a coalition government – a no-penalty Scottish secession plan from the UK, funded and overseen by the Treasury and Bank of England.

Proportional representation, coalition government and Scottish independence were not in Labour’s game plan at 10pm on Thursday night. But neither was Brexit.

If the political ideas in your head, cultivated over a lifetime, rebel against all this, you must get used to it: with or without the help of the PLP, Scotland is headed out of the UK. But Labour has the opportunity to make that separation amicable; it will be obligatory for all progressive parties to ally with the Scots as – inevitably – the authoritarians of Ukip try to prevent Sturgeon’s second referendum.

As to what a Labour/SNP/Plaid and Green coalition would argue in the Brexit negotiations, the baseline has to be maintaining the existing progressive legislation on employment, consumer rights, women’s rights, the environment etc. But at the same time a Labour-led Brexit negotiation would have to drive a hard bargain over ending bans on state aid, or on nationalisation.

If it were possible to conclude a deal within the European Economic Area I would favour that. But the baseline has to be a new policy on migration designed for the moment free movement ceases to apply. It should be humane, generous, and led by the needs of employers, local communities and universities – and being an EU member should get you a lot of points.

But – and this is the final mindset shift we in Labour must make – free movement is over. Free movement was a core principle of the EU, developed over time. We are no longer part of that, and to reconnect with our voting base – I don’t mean the racists but the thousands of ordinary Labour voters, including black and Asian people – we have to design a migration policy that works for them, and not for rip-off construction bosses or slavedrivers on the farms of East Anglia.

Britain is not, as the far left peevishly dubbed it, “rainy, fascist island”: we’ve snatched glory from the jaws of ignominy in our history before now – but only when politicians have shown vision.

If they don’t show vision, we – the rank and file of Labour, the left nationalists and the Greens – who have way more in common than political labels suggest, should force them to unite and fight.

Bolivia Gives Legal Rights To The Earth

Kirsten Cowart


Bolivia has become the first country in the world to actually give nature legal rights in a huge effort to put a halt to not only climate change but the exploitation of our world, and in turn improve the quality of life for the people of Bolivia.

Our Mother Earth looks to Bolivia as they spearhead new economic and social models based on the protection and preservation for nature.

This idea had been developed by grass root social groups that presented their ideas to politicians and were accepted as one. In doing so, the Law of Mother Earth in Bolivia recognizes the rights of all living beings, whether they be plant or animal. This law gives our world equal status to human beings.

When this law is fully approved, this legislation will then provide the Earth with the rights to life and regeneration; liberation from genetic modification and biodiversity; naturally balanced systems, pure water and clean air; complete restoration from the effects of its human activity; and freedom from the continual contamination on all fronts.



The prioritising of this legislation based on broader principles of looking towards living in harmony side by side with the Earth and moving towards the collective good of all. At the core of this legislation is a full understanding that the Earth is sacred, which comes from the indigenous people called Andean, viewing the world as ‘Pachamama’ which translates to Mother Earth a living being.

Back in December 2010 the initial act had already outlined the rights of the earth as a dynamic and “indivisible community of all living systems and living organisms, interrelated, interdependent and complementary, which share a common destiny.”

With the Law of Mother Earth Bolivia’s government would then be legally bound to ensure the prioritising of not only the natural world’s policies and making sure that they are promoting sustainability and controlling industry, but making sure they have the wellbeing of its citizens and the world are at their heart.

The economy of Bolivia will be looking to operate within the limits of nature as they push towards a renewable green food stability and energy efficient technologies. Helping to prevent the drastic climate changes already taking place, ensuring that the future generations have brighter lives and a more hopeful future.

The Bolivian government is also requesting a call to arms with other rich countries to work together in adopting the recognition of the effects of climate change due to their high carbon emissions. According to an Oxfam report in 2009, Bolivia is particularly susceptible to the impacts of climate change with increasing drought, flooding and melting glaciers.

On the stage international change, the Bolivian government will have a duty to help promote the upkeep of the rights of Earth, while becoming advocates of not only peace but the elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Following the change to the Bolivian constitution back in 2009, the law will play a large part of overhauling the legal system. It helps represent a strong shift away from the universally adopted western development model to a much greener holistic vision, based on the concept of Vivir Bien meaning ‘to live well’.

The proposal for the new law brightly states:


“Living Well means adopting forms of consumption, behaviour and conduct that are not degrading to nature. It requires an ethical and spiritual relationship with life. Living Well proposes the complete fulfilment of life and collective happiness.”

An umbrella group for five different Bolivian social movements called the Unity Pact helps prepare the draft of the new law. The represent and speak for over 3 million people of the countries 36 different indigenous groups, the majority of them are small scale farmers who still call their ancestral lands home. The bill helps to protect not only their livelihoods but the diverse cultures that feel the immense impacts of the large industries.

One of the leaders of the social movement Confederación Sindical Única de Trabajadores Campesinos de Bolivia Undarico Pinto, states that “It will make the industry more transparent. It will allow people to regulate industry at national, regional and local levels,” helping to signify a large shift away from the exploitation of nature.

The draft laws that refers to the mineral resources of the world as “blessings” and goes further and states that Mother Earth, “is sacred, fertile and the source of life that feeds and cares for all living beings in her womb. She is in permanent balance, harmony and communication with the cosmos.”

Bolivia will also establish a Ministry of Earth to promote their new rights and make sure that they are all complied with. yet the economy of Bolivia is at this moment solely dependent of the exports of natural resources, earning almost a third of its foreign currency which averages around £300m a year from multiple mining companies. Bolivia is looking to create a new balance and obligations against the demands of that industry.

Bolivia Rain forest



Within the next few months, the full law is expected to pass and it is very unlikely to face opposition due to the ruling party, The Movement Towards Socialism, has been able to hold a considerable majority in their parliament. President Evo Morales, its leader, voiced a commitment to what they were creating at the World People’s Conference on Climate change that was held in Bolivia back in April 2010.



The Law of Mother Earth includes the following:

The right to maintain the integrity of life and natural processes.

The right to not have cellular structure modified or genetically altered.

The right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alteration.

The right to pure water.

The right to clean air.

The right to balance, to be at equilibrium.

The right to be free of toxic and radioactive pollution.

The right to not be affected by mega-infrastructure and development projects that affect the balance of ecosystems and the local inhabitant communities

This law pushes the world “harmony and peace” with “the elimination of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.”

Right to 30-day refund becomes law

Brian Milligan in BBC News


New consumer protection measures - including longer refund rights - have come into force under the Consumer Rights Act.

For the first time anyone who buys faulty goods will be entitled to a full refund for up to 30 days after the purchase.

Previously consumers were only entitled to refunds for a "reasonable time".

There will also be new protection for people who buy digital content, such as ebooks or online films and music.

They will be entitled to a full refund, or a replacement, if the goods are faulty.

The Act also covers second-hand goods, when bought through a retailer.

People buying services - like a garage repair or a haircut - will also have stronger rights.

Under the new Act, providers who do not carry out the work with reasonable care, as agreed with the consumer, will be obliged to put things right.

Or they may have to give some money back.

'Fit for purpose'

"The new laws coming in today should make it easier for people to understand and use their rights, regardless of what goods or services they buy," said Gillian Guy the chief executive of Citizens Advice.

When disputes occur, consumers will now be able to take their complaints to certified Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) providers, a cheaper route than going through the courts.

The Consumer Rights Act says that goods 

- must be of satisfactory quality, based on what a reasonable person would expect, taking into account the price 

- must be fit for purpose. If the consumer has a particular purpose in mind, he or she should make that clear

- must meet the expectations of the consumer

The Act has been welcomed by many consumer rights groups and further information can be found here.

"Now, if you buy a product - whether physical or digital - and discover a fault within 30 days you'll be entitled to a full refund," said Hannah Maundrell, the editor of money.co.uk. "The party really is over for retailers that try to argue the point."

The Act also enacts a legal change that will enable British courts to hear US-style class action lawsuits, where one or several people can sue on behalf of a much larger group.

It will make it far easier for groups of consumers or small businesses to seek compensation from firms that have fixed prices and formed cartels.