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.

Fallacies of Capitalism 6: The Growth at all Costs Fallacy

What are the consequences of the "growth at all costs" fallacy, which prioritizes GDP growth without considering the ecological limits and social consequences? 

The "growth at all costs" fallacy is the belief that prioritizing GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth should be the primary goal of an economy, regardless of the ecological limits and social consequences. This approach fails to consider the long-term sustainability of economic activities and can lead to several negative consequences. Let's explore these consequences with simple examples:

1. Environmental degradation: The "growth at all costs" mindset often leads to the exploitation of natural resources without considering their finite nature and the capacity of the environment to absorb waste. For example, imagine a country that prioritizes rapid industrialization without implementing proper environmental regulations. This may result in deforestation, water pollution, air pollution, and the depletion of natural resources. Over time, such activities can damage ecosystems, harm biodiversity, and contribute to climate change, compromising the well-being of both present and future generations.

2. Social inequality: The focus on GDP growth alone can exacerbate social inequality. Economic growth does not always benefit all members of society equally. For instance, imagine an economy that experiences significant GDP growth driven by industries that rely heavily on low-wage labor. While the overall GDP might increase, the benefits may disproportionately flow to the wealthy or corporate elites, while the working class experiences stagnant wages and reduced social protections. This can widen the gap between the rich and the poor, leading to social unrest and an erosion of social cohesion.

3. Overconsumption and materialism: The "growth at all costs" fallacy encourages a culture of overconsumption and materialism, where people are constantly encouraged to acquire more goods and services. This can contribute to resource depletion and waste generation, placing further strain on the environment. For example, a society that values GDP growth above all may prioritize the production and consumption of goods without considering their environmental impact or the true well-being of individuals.

4. Neglect of social well-being: Prioritizing GDP growth without considering social consequences can result in the neglect of essential social factors that contribute to overall well-being. For instance, a society focused solely on economic growth may overlook investments in education, healthcare, social safety nets, and other critical social infrastructure. This neglect can have detrimental effects on human development, quality of life, and social cohesion.

5. Unsustainable economic practices: The "growth at all costs" fallacy can perpetuate an economic system that relies on continuous expansion and consumption, often at the expense of long-term sustainability. By disregarding ecological limits, such as resource scarcity and pollution thresholds, this approach can lead to economic instability, environmental crises, and compromised future prospects for economic development.

In summary, the "growth at all costs" fallacy, which prioritizes GDP growth without considering ecological limits and social consequences, can result in environmental degradation, social inequality, overconsumption, neglect of social well-being, and unsustainable economic practices. Recognizing the importance of sustainable development and taking into account ecological and social considerations is crucial for ensuring a more balanced and resilient economy that benefits both current and future generations.

The world lacks an effective global system to deal with debt

Rebeca Grynspan in The FT

There is an alarming tendency among the international community to regard debts in the developing world as sustainable because they can, after some sacrifice, be paid off. 

But this is like saying a poor family will stay afloat because they always repay their loan sharks. To take this view is to overlook the skipped meals, the foregone investment in education and the lack of health spending that forcibly make room for interest payments. This sort of debt trap is a social catastrophe in the making. Ten years from now, the debt may be repaid, but the family will be ruined. 

This is the dilemma facing many developing countries, both big and small. The pandemic, cost of living crisis and rising interest rates have brought them to a point where they can only pay their debts by way of austerity or foregone investment in the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Their debts are sustainable in that they can be repaid, but unsustainable in every other way. 

Furthermore, this full-blown development crisis with debt distress at its core also threatens a new lost decade for much of the world economy. 

The repeat of a 1980s-style debt crisis that could in turn threaten global financial stability is perceived to be marginal. But the public debt of developing countries, excluding China, reached $11.5tn in 2021. By some accounts, serious debt problems are largely confined to a small share of this figure, owed by highly vulnerable low-income countries such as Chad, Zambia or Ethiopia. 

But the situation is deteriorating rapidly. During the pandemic, government debt ballooned by almost $2tn in more than 100 developing countries (excluding China), as social spending went up while incomes froze due to lockdowns. Now, central banks are raising interest rates, which exacerbates the problem. Rising rates have meant capital flight and currency depreciation in developing economies, as well as increasing borrowing costs. These factors have pushed countries such as Ghana or Sri Lanka into debt distress. 

In 2021, developing countries paid $400bn in debt service, more than twice the amount they received in official development aid. Meanwhile, their international reserves declined by over $600bn last year, almost three times what they received in emergency support through the IMF Special Drawing Rights allocation. 

Foreign debts are therefore eating an ever-larger piece of an ever-shrinking national resources pie. As inflation rises, natural disasters become more frequent and food and energy imports rise in price, countries need more, not less, contingency planning assistance. 

A much bolder approach is needed. Recent efforts by the international community to agree on large-scale emergency debt measures have faltered. This is despite important efforts at the G20 through the now-discontinued Debt Service Suspension Initiative, and the Common Framework for Debt Treatments, which is in need of crucial improvements, such as suspending payments during negotiations and an extension to middle-income countries in debt distress. 

The failure of these efforts has revealed the complexity of existing procedures, characterised by creditors who refuse to engage in restructuring with extraordinary powers of sabotage. Crisis resolutions are often too little, too late. The world lacks an effective system to deal with debt. 

An independent sovereign debt authority that engages with creditor and debtor interests, both institutional and private, is urgently needed. At a minimum, such an authority should provide coherent guidelines for suspending debt payments in disaster situations, ensuring SDGs are considered in debt sustainability assessments, and providing expert advice to governments in need. 

Furthermore, a public debt registry for developing countries would allow both lenders and borrowers to access debt data. This would go a long way in boosting debt transparency, strengthening debt management, reducing the risk of debt distress and improving access to financing. Progress on both these fronts could begin with an independent review of the G20 debt agenda: India’s presidency may bring a historic opportunity to succeed where others have faltered. 

Tackling the current global debt crisis is not only a moral imperative. In a context of growing climate and geopolitical distress, it is one the biggest threats to global peace and security and financial stability. Without supporting countries to become sustainable, their debts will never be realistically repayable.

The failure of liberal democracy and the rise of China’s way

Eric Li in The Economist

ALARM BELLS are ringing about the state of democracy. Freedom House proclaims the “global decline in democracy has accelerated” and that even in America it has “declined significantly”. Much of the weakening is happening in countries that are aligned with America, according to research by the V-Dem Institute in Sweden. Larry Diamond, a political sociologist, argues that the “democratic recession” has reached a “crisis”, intensified by the pandemic. There are many diagnoses. Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist, believes the American government is captured by elites and the public is divided by cultural identities. And then there are those who always reach for the easy answer, blaming China and Russia.

On the other side of the spectrum, democracy’s sceptics are enjoying a moment of Schadenfreude. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, recently criticised the West’s failed attempts to “enforce democracy” on other countries whose cultures were ill fitted for such political systems and called on them to stop. Kishore Mahbubani, a Singaporean diplomat and scholar, believes America has in some ways “all the attributes of a failed state.” A decade ago even I weighed in, arguing that China’s model is superior to the West—a smug way of saying democracy is doomed.

Yet these pronouncements miss the mark because they share a flawed definition of democracy. To be more precise, they mistakenly equate liberalism with democracy, thereby rendering liberal democracy the only form of democratic governance. This is wrong.

In 1992, at the end of the cold war and beginning of a golden era for liberal democracy’s universalisation, Lord Bhikhu Parekh, a political theorist, wrote in an essay, “The Cultural Particularity of Liberal Democracy”, that “liberal democracy is liberalised democracy: that is, democracy defined and structured within the limits set by liberalism.” This combination, he noted, was crystallised around the 18th century in Europe and was widely championed in practice by the West only after the second world war as a way of opposing the Soviet Union. Democracy itself, in its earliest Western incarnation in ancient Greece, long preceded liberalism.

Moreover, in combination, liberalism was the dominant partner and democracy was subjugated. In fact, liberalism was hostile to democracy. The development of liberal institutions over the past two to three centuries has in many ways consisted of attempts at limiting the power of democracy. If we are to be historically accurate and intellectually honest, we need to recognise that liberal democracy is but one kind of democracy.

During the European Enlightenment, liberal thinkers such as Locke, Montesquieu and Mill proposed revolutionary ideas about how human societies should be governed based on the tenets of liberalism, such as the individual as the fundamental unit of society, the sanctity of private property and the primacy of procedural rule of law. Most modern liberal political institutions were developed with these ideas—representative government based on elections, separation of powers, freedom of the press, an independent judiciary and so on. They are fundamental to America’s constitution and to most other liberal societies.

But at the same time, many liberal forefathers also recognised that the goal of liberal institutions is to deliver happiness to the people. If that outcome is not met, procedures must be changed. According to Mill, even access to voting could be curtailed, say, if a citizen were illiterate.

Liberal democracy had enormous successes, notably in the second half of the 20th century. During that period, liberal democratic countries delivered unprecedented prosperity to their people—so much so that many countries, including China, sought to emulate many of the West’s practices, such as market economics. However when groups like Freedom House and V-Dem rank countries on their levels of democracy, it in essence measures countries on how closely they follow liberal institutional procedures. When people say democracy is receding in many countries, they really mean liberalism is in trouble.

Why is liberalism in bad shape? The reason is that in many places it seems to be failing its junior partner—democracy. Liberal democracy is in crisis mode because so many of these countries face severe problems: persistent inequality, political corruption, collapse of social cohesion, lack of trust in government and elite institutions, and incompetent government. In short, liberalism has been failing to deliver democratic outcomes.

In the Soviet Union there was a popular joke: “We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us.” In many liberal societies, people can turn that around: “We pretend to vote, they pretend to govern.” At this rate, the word “liberal” may soon no longer deserve to be followed by “democracy”.

A broader view of governance

The world needs a better and more inclusive way of evaluating democracy. Defining and measuring democracy by liberal procedures is way too narrow—historically, conceptually and under contemporary conditions. In ancient Greece, when democracy was first practised in the West, democratic politics was rather illiberal. There was no concept of individual or minority rights. That was why Plato and Aristotle—no democrats, both—criticised its majoritarian nature. Elections were not the only way of selecting leaders. Sortition—choosing leaders by lottery—was widely practised and fit Aristotle’s definition of democracy.

In the contemporary West, populist movements from the right and socialist activism on the left seem to be, at least in part, attempts to hold liberalism accountable for not delivering on outcomes. Looking at democracy anew is no easy task and will no doubt take a lot of work and debate. But I venture to propose a common-sense idea: let’s measure democracy not by procedures but by outcomes.

Democracy’s normative goal must be to deliver satisfaction to a vast majority of people over a long period. What good are elections if they keep producing poor leaders with the public stuck in perpetual cycles of “elect and regret”? What good is an independent judiciary if it only protects the rich? What good is separation of powers if it is captured by special interests to block necessary reforms? What good is freedom of the press, or freedom of speech for that matter, if it corrodes societies with division and dysfunction? What good are individual rights if they result in millions of avoidable deaths, as has happened in many liberal democracies during the pandemic?

In its attempt to challenge a rising China, America’s president, Joe Biden, frames this competition as a starkly ideological dichotomy of democracy versus autocracy. With that in mind, the administration is hosting a gathering of democracies on December 9th and 10th, to which some 110 countries or regions invited. A review shows that these 111 places (with the US included) consist of around 56% of the world’s population but had cumulative covid-19 deaths of 4.2m, which is 82% of the world’s total. More glaringly, the three countries with the highest deaths are the host country (780,000), which boasts of being the oldest democracy, Brazil (615,000) and India (470,000), which relishes being the largest democracy.

As for the seeming target of the gathering, China, it has 1.4bn people and just 5,697 deaths from covid-19.

Some may object that this was because China restricted freedoms more than “democracies”. But what kind of democracy would sacrifice millions of lives for some individuals’ freedom not to wear masks? It is precisely in this way that liberal democracy is failing its citizens.

Perhaps it is possible to develop a set of measurements that show which countries are generating more democratic outcomes. How satisfied are most people with their countries’ leadership and directions? How cohesive is society? Are people living better than before? Are people optimistic about their future? Is society as a whole investing enough to ensure the well-being of future generations? Beyond the narrow and procedural-centric liberal definition of democracy, outcomes must be taken into consideration when we define and evaluate democracies.

I would suggest that when it comes to outcomes, China doesn’t score so badly. The country has its problems—inequality, corruption and environmental degradation to name a few. But the government has been tackling them aggressively.

This is probably why a vast majority of Chinese people tell pollsters that they are generally satisfied with how the country is being governed. Can we at least now entertain the idea that China is generating more productive and democratic outcomes for its people and, measured by these concrete results, its political system is more democratic than that of the United States, albeit different, at the moment?

Abraham Lincoln characterised democracy in the most eloquent layman’s term: government of the people, by the people, for the people. I dare say that the current Chinese government outperforms America on all three. Chinese people overwhelmingly believe their government belongs to them and they live in a democracy; and it is a fact that a vast majority of China’s political leaders come from ordinary backgrounds. Quite to the contrary, many Americans seem to believe that their government is captured by monied interests and formed by an elite oligarchy. As for the last part, “for the people”, China is way ahead on outcomes.

The world needs greater diversity in the concept of democracy that is both historically truer (because democracy was not always liberal) and practically more beneficial. Many developing countries have seen their economic growth stagnate. They need to be unshackled from the ideological rigidity of the liberal doctrine and to experiment with their own ways of realising their democratic potential. New perspectives and measurements might help liberal societies as well.

Decoupling liberal democracy

For too long, liberalism has monopolised the concept of democracy and liberals have taken their democratic credentials for granted. This may be one cause for why many liberal governments are failing to deliver democratic outcomes for their people. Being measured not on procedures but on actual performance may be just the spur for liberal countries to implement much-needed reforms. If liberal governments could again deliver more democratic outcomes, so much the better for the world.

This perspective, on the need to judge democracy by its outcomes, is rarely discussed in global debates over governance. Liberal societies champion diversity in just about everything except for diversity in models of democracy, even at a conceptual level. But the reality is that the history of democratic aspirations and practices has been immensely rich and diverse. Besides Athenian democracy being decidedly not liberal, there were centuries of democratic ideals and institutional practices in China’s Confucian tradition—also not liberal. At this point in time, the world is certainly in need of more democratic experiments.

I am not attempting to advocate any particular form of democracy, and certainly am not making a case for majoritarian or direct democracy—which China is definitely not. Rather, I am proposing to broaden and pluralise both the definition and measurements of democracy. China’s current socialist democracy is surely a model worthy of study given the country’s obvious successes.

The American foreign-policy thinker Anne-Marie Slaughter recently argued that the United States should “accept at least the possibility that other forms of government could be better.” She further suggested, as a new measure of governance, that people evaluate which countries are doing a good job at achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals.

It is a great idea. And the broader point needs to be amplified: end liberalism’s monopoly on democracy—and let more forms of democracy flourish.