7 - Individual and common property

Summary

In the previous chapter, we explored the idea of a policy panacea. In this chapter we build on this discussion by unpacking the idea of a property regime, which broadly points to who owns the environment. Because the panaceas that we discuss in this book make assumptions about the actors involved, unpacking the concept of property regimes help us understand policy panaceas.

In this chapter and the next chapter, we will address three interrelated questions. First, what do we mean when we talk about a particular property regime, such as individual or public or common property? Second, what are the relationships between these types of property? And third, is there evidence that one or another type of property performs better than the others?

To begin to answer these questions, this chapter focuses on the difference between individual and common property. And to do this, we need to clarify what we mean by each of these property regimes. Common property is an example of collective property, and means ownership by a community. Collective property can also mean ownership by a non-profit organization, by a corporation, or by a state. Individual property means property by individuals, and is often referred to with the term “private property”. But private property really means ownership by any actor other than the state, and so includes other collective property regimes. There is thus a spectrum of ownership from the most individual to the most collective, and to me the transition to the collective level occurs when we move beyond the household unit, even though households are technically made up of multiple individuals.

Let's return to the hypothetical scenario of the Dominican fishery where I have worked. In Chapters 4 and 5, we explored the different rules that the fishers could use to create a system of property rights. But unasked in those chapters was, should the fishers adopt a more individual or common property regime? A tension exists between individual and common property that reflects the divergence between individual and group interests discussed in Chapter 1. Should rights be granted to individuals for their benefit or to the group for its collective benefit? Or can the two types of ownership work together?