What Do We Have in Common? A Comparative Framework for Old and New Literature on the Commons

International Review of Social History

Volumn 57, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 269-290

  de Moor, Tine ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84988468773     PISSN: 00208590     EISSN: 1469512X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S002085901200020X     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. See also my brief article “De herontdekking van het collectief”, at http://www.socialevraagstukken.nl/site/2012/03/21/de-herontdekking-van-het-collectief/.
2. See Frank Van Laerhoven and Elinor Ostrom, “Traditions and Trends in the Study of the Commons”, International Journal of the Commons, 1 (2007), pp. 3–28.
3. Stefan Brakensiek, “The Management of Common Land in North Western Germany”, pp. 225–245
4. Paul Warde, “Common Rights and Common Lands in South West Germany, 1500–1800”, pp. 195–224
5. both in Martina De Moor, Leigh Shaw-Taylor, and Paul Warde (eds), The Management of Common Land in North West Europe, c.1500–1850 (Turnhout, 2002).
6. Peter Hoppenbrouwers, “The Use and Management of Commons in The Netherlands; An Overview”, in The Management of Common Land in North West Europe, c.1500–1850 pp. 87–112.
7. The Management of Common Land in North West Europe, c.1500–1850
8. Martina De Moor, Leigh Shaw-Taylor, and Paul Warde, “Comparing the Historical Commons of North Western Europe”, in The Management of Common Land in North West Europe, c.1500–1850 pp. 15–32, 18.
9. See Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice (Cambridge, MA, 2007), but see also initiatives such as http://creativecommons.org/.
10. The problems this multiple use of the term “commons” brings along have been discussed at length in Tine De Moor, “From Common Pastures to Global Commons: A Historical Perspective on Interdisciplinary Approaches to Commons”, Natures Sciences Sociétés, 19 (2011), pp. 422–431.
11. In a few exceptional cases, historians have applied theoretical frameworks developed to understand commons, such as the framework of Elinor Ostrom, Governing The Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge, 1990), to other common-property systems than land, such as water boards
12. see e.g., Brigitta Dolfing, Waterbeheer geregeld? Een historisch-bestuurskundige analyse van de institutionele ontwikkeling van de hoog-heemraadschappen van Delfland en Rijnland 1600–1800 (Leiden, 2000).
13. Ostrom, Governing the Commons, p. 30.
14. Idem, “The Rudiments of a Theory of the Origins, Survival, and Performance of Common Property Institutions” in Daniel W. Bromley, David Feeny et al. (eds), Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Policy (San Francisco, CA, 1992), pp. 293–318.
15. Ronald J. Oakerson, “Analyzing the Commons: A Framework”, in Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice and Policy., pp. 41–62.
16. Bromley and Feeny, Making the Commons Work.
17. See, for example, the case of the Beverhoutsveld in Flanders in Martina De Moor, “Common Land and Common Rights in Flanders”, in De Moor et al., The Management of Common Land, pp. 113–142.
18. C. Ford Runge, “Common Property and Collective Action in Economic Development”, in Bromley and Feeny, Making the Commons Work, pp.17–27, 18.
19. See also S. von Ciriacy-Wantrup and Richard C. Bishop, “‘Common Property’ as a Concept in Natural Resource Policy”, Natural Resources Journal, 15 (1975), pp. 713–727.
20. See e.g. De Moor, “Common Land and Common Rights in Flanders”.
21. The introduction of the “Code Civil” (or Code Napoléon, 1804) in several western European countries allowed, for example, only a temporary form of legal recognition to a group of persons who had land in common but – as a group – did not form a legally recognized administrative unit (i.e. a municipality).
22. For equivalent institutions elsewhere in north-western Europe, see the chapters in De Moor et al., The Management of Common Land.
23. In the southern Netherlands, the Hapsburg emperors Maria Theresa and Joseph II especially were influenced by physiocratic ideas. See, among others, J. Dupont, “La politique agricole en Hainaut sous Marie-Thérèse”, in Université Catholique de Louvain (ed.), Miscellanea historica in honorem Leonis van der Essen, Universitatis catholicae inoppido Lovaniensi iam annos XXXV professoris (Brussels [etc.], 1947), II, pp. 855–869
24. H. van Houtte, Histoire économique de la Belgique à la fin d'Ancien Régime (Ghent, 1920)
25. E. Clicheroux, “L'évolution des terrains incultes en Belgique”, Bulletin de l'Institut de recherches économiques et sociales, 23 (1957), pp. 497–524.
26. J.L. Hammond and Barbara Hammond, The Village Labourer 1760–1832: A Study in the Government of England before the Reform Bill (London [etc.], 1911).
27. Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science, 162 (New Series) (1968), pp. 1243–1248.
28. Émile de Laveleye, De la propriété et ses formes primitives (Paris, 1891).
29. De la propriété et ses formes primitives.
30. Ford Runge, “Common Property and Collective Action”, pp. 70–72.
31. Kathryn Norberg, “Dividing up the Commons: Institutional Change in Rural France, 1789–1799”, Politics and Society, 16 (1988), pp. 265–286, 273.
32. Ford Runge, “Common Property and Collective Action”, pp. 70–72.
33. Anton Kos, Van meenten tot marken, p. 248.
34. Ostrom, Governing the Commons, p. 90.
35. See e.g. Marie-Daniëlle Démelas and Nadine Vivier (eds), Les propriétés collectives face aux attaques libérales (1750–1914). Europe occidentale et Amérique latine (Rennes, 2003).
36. Rodgers et al., Contested Common Land, p. 14.
37. Contested Common Land., p. 194.
38. Contested Common Land., pp. 197–199.
39. See a.o. R.S. Meinzen-Dick and R. Pradhan, “Implications of Legal Pluralism for Natural Resource Management”. IDS Bulletin 32:4 (2001), pp. 10–17
40. idem, “Legal Pluralism and Dynamic Property Rights”, CAPRi Working Paper No. 22 (Washington DC, 2002); available at http://www.capri.cgiar.org/pdf/CAPRIWP22.pdf; last accessed March 2012.
41. For an overview of the dissolution of commons in Europe, see Nadine Vivier, “Introduction”, in Démelas and Vivier, Les propriétes collectives, pp. 15–34.
42. See De Moor et al., The Management of Common Land.
43. T. De Moor, “Participation Is More Important than Winning: The Impact of Social-Economic Change on Commoners' Participation in 18th–19th-Century Flanders”, Continuity and Change, 25 (2010), pp. 405–433.
44. See e.g. The Common Core of European Private Law; http://www.common-core.org/.