Relevant Theories

I. Tragedy of Commons: The "tragedy of the commons" is an economic idea that

explains how shared resources, available to everyone, can get used up because
individuals put their own needs before the well-being of the group. This concept was
first presented by ecologist Garrett Hardin in a highly influential essay back in 1968.
He showed that when lots of people use a limited resource that's available to
everyone, like pastures for grazing, fishing areas, or even clean air, they often focus
on what's best for themselves, which can lead to using up too much of the resource
and, eventually, its destruction. Hardin used the example of shepherds adding more
sheep to a shared grazing land to explain this. Every shepherd makes a logical choice
to increase their own flock, but when everyone does this, the land gets overgrazed and
becomes useless for everyone. This theory relies on the idea that these resources are
rivalrous (one person using them means less is available for others), non-excludable
(nobody can be stopped from using them), and scarce. This creates a situation where
what's good for each individual in the short term ends up harming the long-term
health of the resource. A real-life example of this is the historical overfishing of the
Grand Banks.
II. Share Economy: The sharing economy, also called the collaborative or peer-to-peer
economy, is a way of doing things where people share, rent, or swap things they're not
using fully, like stuff, services, and resources. This usually happens through apps and
websites. It's all about using technology to put people who own things in touch with
people who need them for a short time, making the most of what's available. The
sharing economy pushes the idea that it's better to use something when you need it
than to own it outright, which cuts down on waste and is better for the planet. It can
take different forms, from non-profits like tool lending places to businesses out to
make money, and it covers everything from passing on used goods to getting more
use out of long-lasting stuff and doing things together. While it can save people
money and help cut down on pollution, it also has some problems, like not having
clear rules and worries about whether it's fair and treats workers right.
III. Free Rider Problem: The "free rider problem" pops up in economics when people
get the perks of shared things like goods, services, or resources without actually

[1]
helping to pay for or maintain them. This tends to happen a lot with what are called
"public goods" – things that nobody can really be stopped from using and where one
person using it doesn't mean less of it for someone else. These free riders take
advantage of this situation by getting all the benefits without putting in any money or
effort, which messes things up when it comes to how these goods are made and
shared. A good example is a lighthouse: it helps all sailors navigate, but most of them
probably don't help pay to keep it running, leaving just a few to foot the bill.
Wikipedia is another example – it gives free info to millions, but only a tiny number
of users actually give money to keep it going.

[2]
 LITERATURE REVIEW:
(Garrity, 2012) Tragedy of the Commons, Business Growth, and the Fundamental
Sustainability Problem:
This paper takes another look at Garrett Hardin's famous "Tragedy of the Commons,"
but this time through the lens of systems thinking. It highlights how the conflict
between growth and limits, coupled with our limited ability to fully grasp complex
situations (bounded rationality), keeps fueling our current sustainability problems.
The authors point out that positive feedback loops, like increasing population, our
desire for more and more stuff driven by profit, and the cutthroat nature of markets,
are constantly bumping up against the natural limits of resources. This collision leads
to a system that just can't keep going and eventually falls apart.

Using the example of managing fisheries, the author criticizes market-based fixes,
such as Individual Transferable Quotas (ITQs). While these might encourage some
responsible behavior, they often put short-term profits ahead of the long-term health
of the resource and can make social inequalities even worse. On a global scale, the
paper challenges the idea that economic growth will automatically lead to
environmental improvement (like what the Environmental Kuznets Curve suggests).
Instead, using the IPAT equation, it shows that to keep up with projected population
and economic growth, we'd need to make our technology five times more efficient by
2052—a goal that seems practically impossible given the current state of things.
The real power of this paper comes from how it weaves together systems thinking and
a deep dive into social and economic issues, painting sustainability as a web of
interconnected feedback loops. It breaks down tricky situations like overfishing and
the intricacies of global capitalism as systems that are all linked, showing how our
limited thinking—based on the info we have at hand and the desire for quick wins—
often leads to using up resources faster than we should. This ties in with what
Sterman (2000) said about the system's own behavior driving outcomes, but the paper
takes it further by looking at how modern free-market ideas contribute to the problem,
suggesting that chasing profits often pushes environmental and social burdens to the
side. The paper pushes back against the idea of "sustainable development" as a cover

[3]
for business as usual, resonating with Daly's (1996) push for a stable economy. It also
uses the Business Industrial Growth (BIG) model to spell out how our endless pursuit
of more stuff and the spread of global markets keep widening the gap between the
haves and have-nots. And it highlights the mental hurdles that keep us from truly
understanding and dealing with the explosion of growth, using examples like the
"bacteria in a bottle" to illustrate the point.
This paper presents some really interesting ideas, but it also has some blind spots.
First, it really pushes for local, community-based solutions, drawing on Schumacher's
Buddhist Economics. However, it doesn't fully grasp how tough it would be to scale
up small-group CPR governance, like Ostrom described in 1990, to tackle global
problems like climate change. Getting everyone on the same page across different
countries and interests is just incredibly difficult. Second, the suggestions for
tweaking capitalism, like adding carbon taxes and fee-bates, feel a bit pie-in-the-sky.
There's not enough thought given to whether these are actually realistic politically, or
how to push back against powerful corporate interests and the pressure of short-term
election cycles. Third, brushing aside technological advancements could mean
missing out on new circular economy approaches that are starting to separate
economic growth from resource consumption, even if they're still in their early stages.
Last but not least, the analysis doesn't really address power struggles, like how
corporations exert influence to block policies (think of fossil fuel lobbying) and the
huge differences in bargaining power across the globe. These power dynamics have a
massive impact on how resources are used and sustainability efforts actually play out.

[4]
 RECOMMENDATIONS:
In order to tackle the deep-rooted issues we've been discussing, decision-makers and
organizations need to focus on solutions that work on multiple levels, ensuring our
economic actions stay within safe environmental boundaries.
Firstly, governments should take the lead in changing policies to account for the true
environmental and social impact of our actions. This could be achieved through
measures like putting a price on carbon emissions, offering incentives for eco-friendly
products, and enforcing stricter rules on how we use natural resources.
A concrete example is managing fisheries: we could set conservative limits on how
much fish can be caught and, in the short run, provide financial support to fishing
communities to make up for any economic downturn during the period when fish
populations are recovering. This way, we secure the long-term health of the fish
stocks without harming the people who rely on them.
Secondly, we should empower local communities by supporting local businesses,
such as co-ops and community-led initiatives. This can help shift away from the
constant pressure for economic growth.
Supporting local farming, small-scale renewable energy grids, and closed-loop
production could build resilience and fit with Schumacher's ideas of fulfilling work
and less emphasis on material things.
Also, wide-ranging educational efforts need to weave sustainability and
interconnected thinking into school lessons and everyday conversations to challenge
the mindset of endless growth. This involves using media and public forums to draw
attention to the dangers of unchecked expansion.
Global rules and structures are super important to tackle problems that cross borders,
like climate change. We need international deals that set strict limits on carbon
emissions and make sure resources are shared fairly.
Organizations like the UN can step in and create rules to stop countries from trying to
get ahead by lowering their environmental standards, essentially punishing those who
try to take shortcuts.
Also, to level the playing field, we need changes in how campaigns are financed and
make sure corporations are held responsible.

[5]
This could involve taking away some of the special rights that corporations currently
enjoy, which would reduce their ability to influence policymakers through lobbying
and get us back to focusing on what's good for people and the planet.
If we combine these approaches with putting money into eco-friendly innovations,
like technologies that support a circular economy, we can avoid the trap of the Jevons
Paradox and shift towards a new way of doing things that's not just about constant
growth, but also about fairness, healing the planet, and building a more resilient
world.

[6]