The Politicization of the Tragedy of the Commons

           

            Garret Hardin’s infamous paper “The Tragedy of the Commons” regarding the causes of degradation in our global environment has unfortunately been greatly politicized. He makes the claim that humans act solely out of self-interest rather than to benefit the whole of the group, or in this case; the environment. One of Hardin’s claims is that land privatization will help this tragedy because land owners will want to preserve their land. Hardin’s argument is flawed in that he provides no evidence for saying how land privatization is beneficial for the commons. However, privatizing communal lands has had the same implications that leaving the land to communal use would. Deforestation, overuse of fertilizers leading to run-off, and the harming of biodiversity is still being reported on private land, more so than mutually owned land. Throughout history it has been seen that a community that shares land actually has stronger incentive to preserve it. For example, an individual owning private land would want to preserve it because they have their children, grandchildren, etc. in mind. This is because they are thinking about the future generations to use that land, therefore disproving Hardin’s argument.

           

            This claim that land privatization is beneficial to the commons has been greatly politicized. Despite refutations against Hardin’s paper, “The Tragedy of the Commons” is still serving as a basis for social policy for many institutions including the United Nations. This adoption by influential corporations, institutions, and governments has only continued to promote private ownership and uncontrolled growth through capitalist markets. Another one of Hardin’s widely accepted arguments is that the poor are to blame for environmental destruction. The falsehood of this arguments only gives more power to wealthier countries in the world and their ability to blame third world countries for their own wealth gap and impoverished areas. Hardin discounts racism, imperialism, and exploitation of humans claiming that poverty is a natural element in the world and those living in it bring it upon themselves.

            How can we blame third world countries for environmental degradation? We must take a look at ourselves. Countries like the U.S. and the U.K. had their time to industrialize, and now that global warming has been taken off the political back burner, wealthier countries are looking at third world countries to blame for it. However, rather then set blame and prevent these nations from further development, we must search for a solution to allow these countries to develop more sustainably. This is a large piece of the current climate talks in Paris. Do the wealthier nations owe it to those who have less? Less developed countries feel it would be unfair that they have the same amount of responsibility as developed nations for a problem they did not initially cause. Whereas wealthier nations, such as the US want to avoid binding commitments that could be detrimental to their economies. There seems to be a considerable amount of support for an agreement on emission goals and financial commitments, but it will be tough on deciding what to call it. A treaty? An accord? A protocol? The United Nations climate chief is hoping the outcome will be something binding.

            The adoption of “The Tragedy of the Commons” theory by governments and institutions has created a political myth. This had led to a façade that there is basically no other option besides the current dominant world order. Hopefully this myth can be looked beyond and powerful countries will realize that it is them to blame for environmental degradation, and the financial costs should be allocated accordingly.

Globalization and the Plutocracy

Globalization, regardless of one’s opinion of it, is growing and spreading rapidly throughout states in the world. I dislike the wealth disparity that is occurring worldwide due to globalization. Over the summer I began reading a book called Plutocrats: The Rise of the Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else by Chrystia Freeland. This book completely enlightened me to just how bad the wealth disparity is already and how quickly it is growing.

Chapter 7 of the Foer reading greatly explains the economic concerns with capitalism in globalization. Foer illustrates the concerns with his explanation about how referees are nominated. In Italian club soccer, referees are nominated by two members on a council and they decide. One member is a representative of Juventus of Turin and the other AC Milan, the two most powerful football clubs in Italy, both owned by exponentially rich families. Foer highlights that because of this, the two clubs usually get the most mediocre referees and the ones who can be easily corrupted for their benefit. Well known and impartial referees never work at Juventus games and when referees go against these powerful clubs, they find themselves working in less popular leagues, Foer notes on page 170. Not only does this narrative parallel the growing disparity in Italy, but also the wealth gap worldwide.

Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super-Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else takes on the task of explaining how rapidly the wealth gap has grown worldwide in the past few decades. One of the reasons I personally love the book is because rather than focusing on persuading readers, Freeland focuses more on explaining the rise of plutocracy in globalization as objectively as possible. One of her main points in the book so far has been that this increasing global wealth gap has caused people all over the world to have more in common with citizens from other countries than his own countrymen—all because of socioeconomic status. I think this is a really interesting point especially when considering it with one of possible outcomes of globalization—the deterioration of individual states and the formation of one giant global state. Though I’m not sure if the deterioration of individual states could completely take place because capitalism requires competition, I think it brings an interesting image of the future into question; a future where instead of nations, people are separated and grouped by class. Once again, though I’m not sure how probable this outcome is, it is still one worth considering.

Freeland also notes that globalization has kick started “twin gilded ages.” The first gilded age is one occurring in the BRIC nations—Brazil, Russia, India and China—where their industrializations are taking off. Part of the industrialization of these nations has come from out sourcing of labor from the United States and other western nations. The second gilded age is occurring in the United States, where a growing wealth gap is occurring, especially worse after the recession. Historically, we have learned that gilded ages are not good for the general populous. And this is all because of globalization, according to Freeland. 

The effects of globalization on pre-existing cultures

Globalization is a term that defines the movement towards intensified economic interaction and towards global uniformity. Due to the current power and influence that the Western world exercises, globalization can be seen to imply the integration of the world into a capitalistic western culture. While globalization has an array of positive effects such as opportunities, interconnectedness, economic prosperity, etc. there are also many problems that can arise. One such problem is that globalization tends to impose the western culture onto other countries.

Media and technology are the basis for the advancement of globalization. They enable the quick spread of goods as well as ideas. However, the media is a form of propaganda for the western world whether this is intentional or not. Third world countries are compelled to view the western world in a positive light due to the images of the modern world that are represented in magazines, newspapers, social media and films. The problem with this is that the negative events that occur are often over looked. There are a multitude of problems that exist in the western world, yet they are ignored. These industrialized countries seem to lack flaws and their ways seem to be the answer to any problems. I experienced an example of this is when I was in Tanzania and would make conversation with the women who did their laundry outside on my way home from where I was working. One conversation that stuck with me was when I talked to this one lady on my last day in Africa. She looked at me and asked me to please take her children back with me to the United States. When I asked her why she wanted me to do this she told me that America was perfect and without any poverty and that she knew this from all the magazines where everyone was beautiful and rich.

In the book, How Soccer Explains the World the author gives an example of how globalization affects local culture. A big part of the Iranian culture is the role women play. The book talks about how women were not allowed to watch soccer yet they pushed through the gates in order to watch the game. And after the match was won, some women took off their Hijab to celebrate. While globalization gave these women the opportunity to fight for their rights, which is a positive thing, it does conflict with their traditions and culture.

It is not always easy to decide whether or not this is a good or a bad thing. On the one hand, globalization can give people an outlet for expressing their beliefs and improving their lives yet on the other hand, this can sometimes lead to the alteration of long traditions and deeply rooted local culture. One thing that is clear, however, is that the western world is imposing their culture on the rest of the world. In this way, globalization can be compared to colonialism in the sense that it impacts the pre-existing culture of the developing countries. Through the promotion of globalization in media, the western world, especially the United States, indirectly imposes their ideas and promotes their system to the rest of the world.

The relationship of the nation state and capitalist economy in the age of globalization

In the age of globalization, modern nation states and the free market are not separated from each other, they rather form an entity on the world market. Moreover, the specific role of the nation state is changing. This opposes the view of many anti-globalization activists who tend to view the regulating power of the nation states as the opposite (and sometimes the cure) to problems caused by neoliberalism and globalization.

In a modern capitalist society, the economy (or the "relations of productions") is basically made up of two spheres: On the one hand, goods are being produced. On the other hand, these goods are traded on the free market. Both cannot exist without the other, thus they have to always be analyzed together.
From a capitalist point of view, the role of the nation state is to provide the necessary preconditions for a successful production. The state enables (and forces) its citizens to be a part of the economy by educating them to pick a job while also providing some social security. Without the characteristics of a nation state, such as a government, a bureaucracy and a legal system, there would hardly be any production.
The sphere of the free market does not rely as heavy on the nation state, but still needs some institutional support to be able to function. The nation state must for example provide an infrastructure and some judicial accountability to ensure smooth transactions.
While this seems like a relatively one-sided deal that favors the economy, the nation state also needs the economy to ensure its very existence. The benefits from a capitalist economy provide the material basis for the nation state. Without the wealth accumulated by the economy, there would be no taxes and the state as a whole would fail.

With the rise of globalization in the 1970s, the role of the nation state in International Relations began to change. The growing influence of economic forces transformed the way in which politicians made decisions. They started to think about foreign matters in a more commercial way. Political thinking did not disappear, but it started to look a lot more like economic thinking. At the same time, national sovereignty was also undermined by this. Since there was a growing international competition, decisions about labor market policies for example were increasingly depended on the labor markets of other countries. There was a tendency to protect the state's national currency and its "economic territory" alongside the classic state territory.
The national states are not the "victims" of these developments. They made them possible in the first place through policies of deregulation and neoliberalism.

When anti-globalization activists call for a "stronger state" that should regulate commerce and limit the effects of globalization, they do not take into account that the modern nation state itself is organizing and providing the very foundation on which capitalist production and the principles of globalization are based on. Trade regulations and social security systems can moderate the negative effects of free trade - but these are measures undertaken by an institution (the state) that relies on capitalism itself to be able to function. Institutional barriers to the capitalist economy will only go to such an extent that they will not harm free trade. The modern nation state and its capitalist economy are closely intertwined by definition. Globalization is furthering this relationship instead of abolishing it.

The Legitimacy of the Security Council is a Function of Constructivism.

As Ian Hurd states in his article about the legitimacy of the Security Council, it is only given legitimacy by states’ perception of power. Perception is a formation of social and cultural values that influence the thought process of a person or state. The Security Council is a desirable position that is considered to have authority. However, this authority comes from perception, a function of constructivism. Its legitimacy is a socially constructed ideal that can be altered through cultural changes and can overturn the respect with which the Security Council is seen.

Over time, global culture has turned the Security Council into a symbol of power. When the UN was first created, the Security Council was truly a group of states that had more say, more authority, and more influence than others, making it a clear goal to attain. Membership connotes status and recognition because the Council has powers that others don’t have. This influences peoples’ perceptions of it, making them think that it is legitimate because it is a desirable, hard to attain position.

However, over the years, non-member states have had a larger role in Council meetings, participating more. This increase of participation devalues the special privileges of membership. Now, while the Council still no doubt has influence, it can be argued that its legitimacy exists because of the historical perception of power instead of the Council’s real power. Since non-members can have an arguably equal influence in the Council, membership has lost its value. Despite this fact, membership is still associated with authority and power through symbolism, granting the Council a legitimacy that is constructed by history but has the potential to be quickly dissolved.

Constructivism stresses that thoughts are created by social interaction, and that history is mutable. This ideal is clearly seen through the example of the Council. Historically it had power, and now that power remains but is being altered through social perception. Identity plays a central role in constructivism and can change as a person or state becomes part of a larger group. This change occurs as a state enters the Council and begins to be influenced by other identities within the group. Here, power identities come into play: identities that change based off changes in the balance of power. Since the Security Council only has value due to its symbolic power, states have a false sense of power balance shifts.

The Security Council itself acts in part as a constructivist body: the members have a collective security pact to protect one another, which creates a group of states that are part of a larger group whose identities change as a result of new and different influences. This socialization can make change difficult, which is why the Council sometimes is ineffective at making quick decisions.

Because of many contributing factors, the Council only has symbolic legitimacy because of its symbolic power that stems from authentic power from the past. By looking at constructivist theory, one can understand how the Council is socially constructed and how its authority only comes from perception.  

Globalization: Prosperous or potent?

            Many years ago, Thomas Malthus predicted that the human population would outsource food production leading to societal ruin dismissing the idea of unlimited growth. While he may have incorrectly predicted the future (so far..), he does make valid points about the relationship between population growth and resource availability. He also is not the only person to get long-term forecasts wrong: the peak oil date has come and gone several times as the amount of known oil reserves have increased. Also, Malthus had yet to see the tractor trailer, sewing machines, designer babies, or penicillin! As the world population nears 8 billion, population growth has fallen in line with increased quality of life and per capita GDP. Population also has a direct effect on the labor force in that a larger population means more worker to produce goods and services, as well as more people to consume those goods and services. Human ingenuity caused by globalization; if being defined by the increased communication, movement, economic, and political flow across borders, has offset the predicted effects of a larger population.

           

            Birth control has been able to offset a population explosion. In developing countries fertility rates are often very high due to the lack of access to birth control availability. Increasing awareness and access to birth control can also stall population growth. Having a child also bears an opportunity cost. In developing countries, women often have children at younger ages. If incentive for education rises, women will choose to go to school rather than start a family at a younger age therefore having fewer children in the future which decreases the fertility rate. Family planning is the education of the number of spacing of children through the use of birth control. It has been found that there is a correlation between higher levels of education and affluence among females and lower birth rates. Without the globalization of medicine and technology in these developing countries, the world population would be outsourcing our resources.

            Population has also been offset by access to education. Education has increased confidence in those who live in poverty and encourages environmental practices in developing countries. Educated women who are working will delay having children. Incomes are also ten times lower in developing nations than in developed countries. This results in a low growth rate per capita GDP. If these countries want to reach the standard of living that there is in developed countries, population growth must be limited. Education can also increase a country’s affluence. Education can raise awareness of sustainability and improve standards of living. Access to education can eradicate poverty, generate creative minds, reduce child mortality, and promote sustainability. An educated person can start a small business such as farming and selling produce in local markets allowing their family to rise from poverty and improve a country’s GDP. The globalization of education has had a snowball effect in increasing a country’s GDP and population stabilization.

            Technology and unexpected crop yields have allowed us to feed our growing population thanks to globalization. Going back to Malthus, he thought that if the food supply grows linearly, and population grows exponentially, the population will surpass the food supply. In the past 100,000 years, farmers have been able to increase the world’s agriculture output with improved technology and more efficient use of resources. In the twentieth century, farming became more mechanized with fertilizer and the tractor trailer allowing us to increase crop yields. This supports the claim that globalization is not necessarily new. Industrial agriculture uses mechanization and standardization to produce food to sustain our population. Globalization has allowed technology and ideas like irrigation, fertilization, mono-cropping, and pesticides to allow our food supply to grow in sync with our population.

            However, despite Malthus’ incorrect prediction of worldwide poverty and disease, he did provide some warning into the future of our environment due to globalization. Each time it seemed the food or oil supply was too small to limit human population, major advances increased both. But can we assume that we will continue to find ways to feed the human population? How will we know when we reach Earth’s carrying capacity? The disparity in population growth between developing and developed nations differentiates in their usage and allocation of resources. While many people may scoff at the idea of climate change, it is, and will continue to have significant environmental and geopolitical impacts on the world. We will, if we have not already, surpass Earth’s resource capacity, a trend accelerating in this era of globalization; the most potent, and prosperous of human progress. So will we peril or prosper with it?