#30 Something has to change in the governance of the commons
Now it is up to us
We’ve just witnessed two critical COPs: the Biodiversity COP16 and the Climate COP29. Yet, their outcomes offer little cause for optimism. The challenges remain depressingly familiar. These conferences reflect deep and unresolved tensions between the haves and the have-nots, rich and poor countries, current and future generations—and ultimately, between humanity and nature.
The casualties of this ongoing struggle are becoming increasingly apparent. The have-nots, impoverished nations, future generations, and nature bear the brunt of inaction. It’s as stark—and as tragic—as that.
These outcomes expose a systemic failure of our current governance structures. International mechanisms are incapable of restraining markets dominated by entrenched interests. Worse still, it’s not just markets that have been hijacked—many governments are complicit, captured by the forces they should regulate.
The result is undeniable: the system as it stands does not work. It neither addresses the inequalities it perpetuates nor prevents the destruction of the ecosystems on which we depend.
Initiated by the Club of Rome, reforms were proposed to shift the governance of the COP process from negotiation to implementation of climate commitments. It emphasizes the need for stricter criteria for selecting COP presidencies, ensuring only countries with high climate ambition and commitments to phase out fossil fuels host these gatherings. It calls for a shift from large negotiation-focused conferences to smaller, solution-driven forums held more frequently to track progress and address issues like equity, finance, and technology in line with scientific evidence. Furthermore, it urges the establishment of robust mechanisms to hold countries accountable for their climate commitments, including independent reviews and benchmarking to ensure national actions align with global targets. Without such reforms, the letter warns, the current COP structure cannot deliver the urgent transformations required to secure a sustainable future.
That’s clear, but I think the problem runs deeper. Negotiating in this way about common goods will remain a challenge, and we probably need a more fundamental reset.
So there is more to be done. For example, Joyeeta Gupta, a distinguished Professor at the University of Amsterdam and winner of the Spinoza Award 2023, is undertaking a research project to write a Global Constitution. This draft Constitution aims to identify all rights and responsibilities in the Anthropocene context. It also promotes social well-being and environmental prosperity within an equitable world.
If you, as a reader, want to contribute, you can write a 1000-word essay on what a 21st-century global constitution should include. You have until the first of December. Also, this coming Wednesday in Pakhuis de Zwijger in Amsterdam, we will discuss with Joyeeta how we can make it happen, that better global governance.
But in the meantime, I think we should not stop thinking. We can not rely on governments or markets for solutions. It is up to us. Us, as being the commons, the place between the market sector and the public sector. As Henry Mintzberg coined it, the plural sector. This encompasses households (including household labour), informal networks, non-profit organisations, cooperatives, and similar entities. Sometimes called ‘the commons’, referring to the concepts introduced by Elinor Ostrom. It refers to anything outside hierarchical public sector structures or market-based transactions. According to Mintzberg:
“Responsible social movements and social initiatives, often carried out in local communities but also networked globally for collective impact, are the greatest hope we have for regaining balance in this troubled world.”
(Mintzberg, 2015, p. 57)
This is also what Mariana Mazzucato advocated for in a recent article that I referred to in another blog. In her article, she foremost writes about setting a collective objective (as the common good goal), the direction. At the same time, it might be more important to discuss how to organise that if global governance does not seem to deliver.
The rest of this text is based on an article I wrote a month ago in Het Financieele Dagblad (in Dutch).
More Space for the Commons: Investing in Collective Solutions
The idea of the commons is centuries old. Before the rise of solid governments and efficient markets, communities tackled shared challenges themselves. Collective effort was the norm because there was no external institution to shift responsibility. Today, we call this concept "the commons"—a term that captures how private collaboration for the public good can be highly effective. At its core, it’s about public interests being managed by private entities.
The notion that markets do not always serve the collective interest is not new. Aristotle warned that markets are only beneficial when aligned with the common good. When they serve only the interests of a select few or specific groups, they risk going astray.
The Limitations of Government and Market
Many people believe that solving collective problems neglected by the market is the government’s job. However, it’s not that simple. Governments often struggle with inefficiency in executing public tasks and are increasingly plagued by indecision. Additionally, issues such as a lack of expertise, manpower, and decisive leadership exacerbate their challenges. This has sometimes resulted in outright incompetence, as evidenced by crises like the earthquake damage compensation in Groningen or the childcare benefits scandal in the Netherlands.
This growing inefficacy has highlighted the increasing importance of organizing collective interests through private initiative. Nobel Prize-winning economist Elinor Ostrom championed the idea of polycentric governance, a system where societal interests are balanced appropriately across multiple levels.
Examples of the Commons in Action
Many initiatives, organizations, and companies in the Netherlands address public interests using private or semi-private methods. The plural sector. For instance:
Social enterprises focus on creating societal value as their primary goal.
Citizen initiatives like energy, housing, or healthcare cooperatives where individuals collaborate to achieve shared objectives.
Employees hold ownership and decision-making power in alternative ownership models, such as steward-owned companies.
These initiatives challenge conventional market norms by adopting unique ownership or decision-making structures or prioritizing social impact over profit. This undercurrent of private actors managing public interests offers potential solutions to the paralysis of government and markets that do not inherently serve collective needs.
Three Major Shifts Needed to Invest in the Commons
While the commons hold great promise, three significant changes are required to realize their full potential:
1. Redefining Ownership Rules
Most existing laws are designed around private ownership, making them ill-suited for collective arrangements. Genuine collective ownership is complex for housing cooperatives or care collectives. It involves shared liability and benefits. For example, who benefits from rising property values in a housing cooperative? How do you fairly distribute the harvest or account for each member’s contributions in a shared garden or farm? While there are successful examples, such models only work when "collective" no longer translates to individual shares, stakes, or liabilities.
2. Recognizing Social Enterprises as Legal Entities
It would help if governments formally acknowledged social enterprises as a legal category. Such recognition almost materialized in the Netherlands, but the current administration has failed to see the importance of businesses that explicitly serve the public good. Establishing this legal status would bridge the gap between profit-driven companies and non-profit foundations.
3. A Cultural Shift
Community initiatives often arise from necessity or conviction rather than hobbyism. They must be taken seriously as viable alternatives between markets and governments to thrive. This requires a cultural shift in how we perceive and support such efforts.
Why the Commons Matter
Investing in the commons means rewriting rules and moving away from market-centric thinking—not because markets are inherently bad, but because they cannot provide everything that genuinely enriches our lives. Collective solutions can address the shortcomings of markets and governments, helping us tackle pressing societal challenges in innovative and equitable ways.
Take care,
Hans