The governance of natural resources used by many individuals in common is an issue of increasing concern to policy analysts. Both state control and privatisation of resources have been advocated, but neither the state nor the market have been uniformly successful in solving common pool resource problems. Offering a critique of the foundations of policy analysis as applied to natural resources, Elinor Ostrom here provides a unique body of empirical data to explore conditions under which common pool resource problems have been satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily solved. Dr Ostrom first describes three models most frequently used as the foundation for recommending state or market solutions. She then outlines theoretical and empirical alternatives to these models in order to illustrate the diversity of possible solutions. In the following chapters she uses institutional analysis to examine different ways - both successful and unsuccessful - of governing the commons. In contrast to the proposition of the tragedy of the commons argument, common pool problems sometimes are solved by voluntary organisations rather than by a coercive state. Among the cases considered are communal tenure in meadows and forests, irrigation communities and other water rights, and fisheries.
Elinor Ostrom (née Awan; born August 7, 1933) is an American political economist.[2] She was awarded the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, which she shared with Oliver E. Williamson, for "her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons."[3] She was the first, and to date, the only woman to win the prize in this category. Her work is associated with the new institutional economics and the resurgence of political economy.[4]
Ostrom lives in Bloomington, IN, and is on the faculty of both Indiana University and Arizona State University. She holds a Distinguished Professor at Indiana University and is the Arthur F. Bentley Professor of Political Science and Co-Director of the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis at Indiana University in Bloomington, as well as Research Professor and the Founding Director of the Center for the Study of Institutional Diversity at Arizona State University in Tempe. Ostrom also serves as a lead researcher for the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resource Management Collaborative Research Support Program (SANREM CRSP), managed by Virginia Tech and funded by USAID.[5]
由于学识尚浅,没有很高深的评论。 不知道是不是因为作者是女性的缘故,我认为她的分析是非常有“人情味儿”的。现在许多理论是机械式的,将人们当做有固定程式的机器人来进行分析的,而且常常令人感到冷漠和绝望——比如众所周知的理性经济人假设。而作者认为...
评分 评分经济学解决“公地悲剧”的第三条道路 经济学将自己的理论建立在“理性人”的基础上,也就是说个人的私利,通过市场这个“看不见的手”,能够导致公利的产生。从亚当·斯密到曼德维尔,然后经过20世纪的哈耶克和弗里德曼等人的完善,让自私成为了一种美德。 自由市场经济理论的...
评分中国的环境面临着从所未有的压力,空气、水和垃圾的问题是环保组织最关心的。就我的观察而言,目前环保组织的争取重点在政府信息的公开与民间组织的的介入,即在外部监督上做文章。 本身不是政治学的科班出身,出于工作的需要和个人的兴趣而阅读这本书,对埃莉诺的思想源流等...
评分classic. 为了thesis读的书,相见恨晚获益匪浅。虽然理论的实践总是面对诸多困难,但至少提供了一种可探索的模式。个人对广泛适用的简单模型不是很感冒,因为通常模型越简单,现实越打脸,所以这种多方考量商量着来留出余地的讨论反而比较合我胃口。
评分4星。当年轰动一时,而且让作者得了诺贝尔经济学奖。但是仔细想想有一些过誉。作者真正的贡献在于提出解决CPR问题不能只靠国家或者市场,因为二者(尤其是前者)可能会缺乏地方信息。但这一点实际上哈耶克很早就讲了(大约作者写这书50年前),所以不是很清楚这本书真正的贡献在什么地方。作者提出的8条解决CPR的建议都需要严格的论证和实证检验,而这些是这本书没有提供的。作者的分析方法主要是比较案例,但是没有回答为什么要关心这些案例?以90年代的标准看,这本书依然是上乘之作,但是放在今天,阅读的收获会比较小。最重要的是,为什么自治组织不能产生特殊利益?这是我在美国最常见的一种问题,所以我觉得Olson还是更高一筹。
评分针对公地问题私有化&政府管制外的第三条道路,非常有启发性!(作者是第一位女性诺贝尔经济学奖获得者,????????
评分因为经典,所以近于常识;语言平顺,逻辑清晰。
评分作者实在是太considerate了,每一个道理都讲得相当透彻,经常是我刚刚写下心得就发现下一句正是我写的心得的意思...
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2026 book.wenda123.org All Rights Reserved. 图书目录大全 版权所有