Tragedy on Commons

According to Susan J. Buck, the study of the reasons behind tragedy on commons are meaningful as we can learn a lot from it (Buck 1995). There are different viewpoints about the reasons behind the tragedy on commons. And in the following passages the author is to discuss some viewpoints about the reasons behind the tragedy on commons, basing on which the author make clear his own standpoint and discuss the practical meaning of studying the reasons behind the tragedy on commons with an example.

What are the reasons behind the tragedy on commons? Hardin, who should be the first authority studying these reasons, observed that the tragedy or decline of the commons resulted from the unlimited access (Buck 1995). However, this viewpoint was denied by Buck who pointed out that tragedy or decline of of the commons was not the result of unlimited access, but rather was the result of the historical forces of the industrial revolution, agrarian reform, and improved agricultural practices, as usually the commons were managed under the restrictions of regulations, though there might be violations of these regulations and abuses of the commons (Buck 1995).

Buck wrotes:

The increased productivity was often touted by land reformer as proof of the evils of the commons system. However, the change was the result of many factors, and not just of enclosure. Some of the increase would probably have occurred without enclosure, ...Enclosure took the better land and subjected it to the new and improved methods of agriculture....Improved roads and transportation facilities made marketing easier, ...(Buck 1995)

So, it is clear, according to Buck, that the main reasons that led the decline of the commons did not come from the commons system itself. Why so many people insisted that the reasons behind the decline dated from the commons system itself? From Buck (1995) it can be decided that one of the important reasons was that many people were driven by their own interest, which they could not tell others and which needed to be covered by excuses.

The author agrees with Buck’s viewpoint and thinks that what Buck told us is meaningful to our real lives, because Buck’s viewpoint are reasonable, illuminating, and thus can be applied to explain social phenomenon. Referring to Buck, the author considers that the reasons behind the abnormal high prices of houses in mainland China is also a typical example of Tonypandy. Many people, especially businessmen from the field of real estate, deem that the high prices are caused by great demands and lack of land in China. Referring to Buck (1995) , the author observes that these people are fooling common Chinese people in order to obtain their one interest. It can not be denied that there are countries in the world where people own less land per person than in China. Before 1990s, house prices were not high at all in China. It is reported that Chinese people own 36 square meters of housing per person, which has outnumbered many developed countries and as a result, there appear many ghost cities in China. These facts tell us that the so-called reason for  high house prices offered by these businessmen from the field of real estate is not reasonable at all and this reason is touted because of great interest these people want to grab.

In a word, understanding the true reasons behind the tragedy on commons has great significance to our real lives, which is conducive to the interest of common people and to the development of our society.