Elinor Ostrom, activist and campaigners for social and economic justice have lost an important advocate and supporter.
Ostrom who was a Professor at Indiana University was the first woman to be awarded the Nobel Prize for Economic Sciences in 2009.
Ostrom's work challenged and rebutted fundamental economic beliefs, particularly free market and neo-classical economic paradigms. Ostrom was particularly concerned with relational aspects of economic activity — the ways in which people interact and negotiate with each other to forge rules and informal social understandings.
Ostrom's early work focused on what she called co-production. Ostrom argued that many public services depend heavily on the contribution of time and effort by the persons who consume these services, i.e., the clients and citizens.Ostrom believed that services rely as much upon the unacknowledged knowledge, assets and efforts of service ‘users’ as the expertise of professional providers. It was the informal understanding of local communities and the on the ground relationships that make services more effective.
Co-production describes the relationship that exist between ‘regular producers’, like health workers, police, and schoolteachers and their ‘clients’ who may be transformed by the services into safer, better educated and/or healthier persons.
Ostrom defined co-production as
“…the mix of activities that both public service agents and citizens contribute to the provision of public services. The former are involved as professionals, or ‘regular producers’, while ‘citizen production’ is based on voluntary efforts by individuals and groups to enhance the quality and/or quantity of the services they use”
One implication is that privatization of public services and the turning over of services to the market fundamentally transforms the relationship between provider and service user and hampers the development of co-production and democratic governance.
Her later work examined how people and communities collaborate and organize themselves to manage collective shared resources like forests, fisheries and natural and social resources. The research overturned the conventional wisdom about government regulation and challenged the idea that private ownership of public resources is better and more effective. Ostrom's work provides clear evidence that the commons-based traditions of cooperation and communal management of resources is not a violation of basic economic common sense.
Her work undermines political conservatives and mainstream economists who denigrate collectively managed property and government and who argue that only private property and the "free market" can responsibly manage resources. Her work also directly challenges current ideas that privatization and private ownership and expert management of resources is the most effective strategy.
Ostrom advocated a “polycentric” approach to managing shared or common resources involving oversight “at multiple levels with autonomy at each level. Ostrom argued that shared management of resources helps to establish rules that “tend to encourage the growth of trust and reciprocity” among people who use and care for a particular commons.
Ostrim argued that key management decisions should be made as close to the scene of events and the actors involved as possible.
Her work showed that the people most affected by or with a stake in a particular resource are the ones best able to collaborate to use and manage those shared resources effectively and sustainably.
Ostrom's work demonstrates the importance of shared (collective) rather than expert or private management of resources and knowledge and emphasises the importance of active citizen partcipation. She cited a comprehensive study of 100 forests in 14 countries that detailed how the involvement of local people in decisionmaking is more important to successfully sustaining healthy forests than who is actually in charge of the forests.
David Bollier writes of the significance of Ostrom's work:
In the 1970s, economics was quickly veering into a kind of religious fundamentalism. It was a discipline obsessed with “rational individualism,” private property rights and markets even though the universe of meaningful human activity is much broader and complex. Lin Ostrom pioneered a different, more humanistic way of thinking about “the economy” and resource management. She originally focused on property rights and “common-pool resources,” collective resources over which no one has private property rights or exclusive control, such as fishers, grazing lands and groundwater. This work later evolved into a broader study of the commons as a rich, cross-cultural socio-ecological paradigm. Working within the social sciences, Ostrom proceeded to build a new school of thought within the standard economic narrative while extending it in vital ways.
Ostrom's work also has direct relevance to the current economic and environment crises. She wrote:
"We cannot rely on singular global policies to solve the problem of managing our common resources: the oceans, atmosphere, forests, waterways, and rich diversity of life that combine to create the right conditions for life, including seven billion humans, to thrive.....Success will hinge on developing many overlapping policies to achieve the goals,.......We have a decade to act before the economic cost of current viable solutions becomes too high. Without action, we risk catastrophic and perhaps irreversible changes to our life-support system.”
Articles written in memory of her work are here, here, here and here.
A reading list of her work is here.
The last article she wrote before she died is here
Her last book, published just before her death was titled Working Together: Collective Action, the Commons, and Multiple Methods in Practice, and describes the advantages of using several different research methods to study a problem.
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Sunday, April 15, 2012
There are plenty of reasons to oppose the Barnett Government's privatization of public hospitals and public health services at Fiona Stanley Hospital and the Midland Hospital.
Here is another one (article here).
Here is another one (article here).
The religious views of the provider of a public hospital should never determine what services are provided. We must oppose the imposition of outdated catholic theology on the provision of a public service.