He describes how he defines and measures each of these components. It took me a couple of close readings to understand what he is trying to do with these components. I decided it was first important to understand how components of the S3 framework work together. The above short presentation gives a hint.
One of our readings for the week in my Open Ed class was a decade-old blog post by David Bollier (someone of whom I had never before heard) where he explained “the idea of the commons.” OpenEd is not even mentioned until almost the end of the article, yet from this collaborator with Norman Lear (someone whose works I knew and by them entertained), I learned some mind-opening material on the way to the OER.
Bollier clarifies the commons in very precise language, detailing what the commons is and what it isn’t. It’s a good read and I invite you to read it. I’m sure you’ll learn something! As I walked myself through the overview, I wanted to see if Bollier averted the tragedy of the commons in his definitions and suggested solutions.
All of his structures mention accountability in some form or another, whether personal or participatory through community. He even suggests adaptations of laws, changes in culture and public policy to advance the commons. Bollier argues against what he calls enclosure and dispossession, and I wondered if these definitions in his terms would be hailed by economists as ways to avoid the tragedy of the commons, instead of what Bollier delineates as the need for “innovations in law, public policy, commons-based governance, social practice and culture.”
I found suggested solutions to the tragedy of the commons that mention both the major practice now and the way of the “idea of the commons” as suggested by Bollier. One solution is the (1) “imposition of private property rights [and] government regulation” which would be through an economist’s point of view and the most common world-view today, and NOT a choice of Bollier. And the (2) “development of a collective action arrangement” which could get the stamp of approval by Bollier if the commons was understood “as a verb as much as a noun [and that a] commons must be animated by bottom-up participation, personal responsibility, transparency and self-policing accountability.”
We’re ten years down the road of when Bollier wrote these definitions and they still seem as actions fresh set for a sure trajectory. Is it because we as a community haven’t made much progress with the “idea of the commons” or we have tried and failed to implement changes across a major segment of society and they remain as “new” ideas in my purview?
As I continue to take this class, I’m going to see if I can find some answers.
