BEYOND THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

Xavier Basurto*, Elinor Ostrom°

Introduction

In this paper, we intend to demonstrate the feasibility and challenge of mov-

ing beyond “The Tragedy of the Commons” that Garrett Hardin presented in
1968. Hardin portrayed a set of pastoralists – who are inexorably led to overuse
their common pasture – as an allegory for what he thought was typical for com-
mon-pool resources (CPRs) not owned privately or by a government. CPRs are
normally used by multiple individuals and generate finite quantities of resource
units where one person’s use subtracts from the quantity of resource units avail-
able to others (Ostrom and Ostrom 1977). Most CPRs are sufficiently large that
multiple actors can simultaneously use the resource system. Efforts to exclude
potential beneficiaries are costly. Examples of CPRs include both natural and
human-made systems including: Hardin’s grazing lands, groundwater basins,
irrigation systems, forests, fisheries, mainframe computers, government and
corporate treasuries, and the Internet. Examples of resource units derived from
CPRs are fodder, water, timber, computer-processing units, information bits,
and budget allocations (Blomquist and Ostrom 1985).
In an effort to move beyond Hardin’s classic allegory, it is important that
one does not dismiss Hardin’s predictions for some CPRs. The major problem
of his original analysis was that he presented “the tragedy” as a universal phe-
nomenon. No set of users could overcome the tragedy. Thus, CPR users were
trapped needing external interventions to extract them from gross overuse.
Hardin’s presumption of universality is what one needs to move beyond.
Having said this, many field settings exist where Hardin is correct. Over-
harvesting frequently occurs when resource users are totally anonymous, do

* Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University; Duke Marine
Lab, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University.
° Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University.

Economia delle fonti di energia e dell’ambiente n. 1, 2009

35
not have a foundation of trust and reciprocity, cannot communicate, and have
no established rules. Massive overfishing of ocean fisheries and deforestation
in many countries illustrate the destruction of resources that occurs when ap-
propriate institutions have not been designed and implemented (Ostrom
2008a). In an experimental lab, eight subjects presented with a common-pool
resource problem overharvest when they do not know who is in their group, no
feedback is provided on individual actions, and they cannot communicate. In
fact, they overharvest more than predicted by the Nash equilibrium of the re-
lated formal game (Ostrom et al. 1994). They do worse than game theory pre-
dicts and fit the behavior predicted by Hardin.
If the experimental subjects are enabled to sit in a circle talking about the
puzzle in a face-to-face group, they usually develop trust and reciprocity.
Within a few rounds, they reduce overharvesting substantially and do very
well (Ostrom et al. 1992). In traditional, noncooperative game theory, commu-
nication is not supposed to improve the outcomes obtained, but many groups
solve the problem of overharvesting after engaging in face-to-face communi-
cation (Ostrom 2007a). Further, many smaller groups that use CPRs – inshore
fisheries, forests, irrigation systems, and pastures – have developed a diversity
of norms and rules that have enabled them to solve problems of overharvest-
ing. A diversity of studies illustrate that it is not impossible to overcome the
temptation to overharvest (NRC 1986, 2002; McCay and Acheson 1987;
Berkes 1989; Dolšak and Ostrom 2003; Basurto 2005; Ostrom 2005; van Laer-
hoven and Ostrom 2007; Lansing 2008).
We need to build a theoretical foundation for explaining why some re-
source users are able to self-organize and govern the use of a resource over
time in a sustainable manner and why others fail or never make the effort. To
do this, we face core challenges to overcome two scholarly approaches adopt-
ed by many scholars that limit the development of a predictive theory that is
useful in policy analysis. The first problem was stimulated by Hardin’s analy-
sis, and we call it the “panacea analytical trap.” It treats all resources as having
basic similarities. This trap has often led to a recommendation of a preferred
institutional solution as a simplified blueprint. The second challenge is the
“my-case-is-unique” analytical trap. This approach challenges the usefulness
of building theoretical explanations about the fit between diverse types of in-
stitutions and local ecological and social settings. To build theory, it is neces-
sary to move away from both extremes to develop an interdisciplinary diag-
nostic framework that helps to provide a foundation for further empirical re-
search and learning (Bardhan and Ray 2008; Chopra 2008).

Avoiding the Panacea Analytical Trap

Historically, the cure-alls that have been recommended most frequently

promote government ownership (Ophuls 1973; Feeny et al. 1996: 195) or pri-
vatization (Demsetz 1967; Posner 1977; Simmons et al. 1996). Panacea-type

36
solutions can be a by-product of approaches that generate highly abstract mod-
els and use simple empirical studies to illustrate general patterns of social phe-
nomena (Bouchaud 2008). For instance, since the important early studies of
open-access fisheries by Gordon (1954) and Scott (1955), most theoretical
studies by political economists have analyzed simple CPR systems using rela-
tively similar assumptions (Feeny et al. 1996; Ruddle 2007; Ruddle and Hick-
ey 2008). In such systems, it is assumed that the resource generates a highly
predictable, finite supply of one type of resource unit (one species, for exam-
ple) in each relevant time period. Resource users are assumed to be homoge-
neous in terms of their assets, skills, discount rates, and cultural views. Users
are also assumed to be short-term, profit-maximizing actors who possess com-
plete information. As a result, this theory universally assumes that anyone can
enter the resource and harvest resource units. Users are viewed as able to gain
property rights only to what they harvest, which they then sell in an open com-
petitive market. Under this approach, the open-access condition is a given. The
users make no effort to change it. Users act independently and do not commu-
nicate or coordinate their activities in any way. Textbooks in resource econom-
ics, and law and economics, present this conventional theory of a simple CPR
as the only theory needed for understanding CPRs more generally (but, for a
different approach, see Baland and Platteau 1996; Clark 2006).
This approach emphasizes collecting information on a large number of cas-
es to be able to find the correlation of dependent and independent variables
with a statistical degree of significance. This can come at the cost of being
able to develop in-depth knowledge of each of the cases under study. Homog-
enization assumptions about the cases under consideration are often necessary
to conduct quantitative analyses. In the process, the analyst risks losing track
of the importance of context and history and faces challenges to be able to ef-
fectively convey the sense of complexity and diversity that exists in the empir-
ical world. The basic theory discussed above was applied to all CPRs regard-
less of the capacity of resource users to communicate and coordinate their ac-
tivities until the work of the National Academy of Sciences’ Panel on Com-
mon Property (NRC 1986) strongly challenged this approach. The growing ev-
idence from many qualitative studies of CPRs conducted in the field called for
a serious rethinking of the theoretical foundations for the analysis of CPRs
(Berkes 1986, 1989; Berkes et al. 1989; Bromley et al. 1992; McCay and
Acheson 1987).

Avoiding the “My-Case-is-Unique”Analytical Trap

The rich case-study literature has played a prominent role in illustrating the
wide diversity of settings in which appropriators dependent on CPRs have or-
ganized themselves to achieve much higher outcomes than is predicted by the
conventional theory (Cordell 1989; Wade 1994; Ruddle and Johannes 1985;
Sengupta 1991). In being able to tap into the rich case-study literature, howev-

37
er, we also need to move beyond the argument that each resource system, and
the people that use it, is unique. At one level, that assertion is true. All humans
are unique, and all human organizations are unique as well as the ecological
systems to which they relate. The problem comes from assuming that there are
no commonalities across cases that can be the foundation for theoretical analy-
sis, explanations, and diagnosis. Ecologists have long dealt with complex sys-
tems that at one level are unique (e.g., individual species), but are also able to
move outward to larger systems (e.g., populations or ecosystems) and find
commonalities among many different species and their behaviors. Medical di-
agnosis of illness and potential remedies is feasible even though each individ-
ual is unique.
Often, the scholarly treatment of social phenomena as unique is the by-
product of training scholars in a research strategy that focuses first on under-
standing the complexity of social phenomena. Qualitative-oriented scholars,
such as ethnographers and historians, are usually associated with this ap-
proach. Students of this tradition are often interested in understanding how dif-
ferent elements fit together to constitute a case. They examine many parts and
attempt to construct a representation from the interconnections among the as-
pects of each case. In order to be able to do so, it is necessary to acquire in-
depth knowledge about the instances under study. Researchers have developed
appropriate data-gathering methods and analytical tools to do so. As a result,
these scholars are able to uncover complex relationships between causal con-
ditions and outcomes, showing the role that history, context or conjunctural
causation, can play in social phenomena. Often, the goal of this research ap-
proach is to describe how different aspects constitute the case as a whole,
which may then be compared and contrasted with other cases. Given, however,
the depth of data that scholars amass about each aspect of their case, qualita-
tive scholars frequently work with one or a few cases at a time. Because of
their familiarity with the complexity and in-depth understanding of the partic-
ularities of the instances that characterize certain phenomena, qualitative
scholars tend to avoid making generalizations about their findings. In fact,
generalizing statements about social phenomena is usually not the goal of
qualitative research. Sometimes it is precisely the rarity of certain social phe-
nomena, characterized by only one, two, or a handful of instances, that might
attract a scholar’s attention and curiosity to them in the first place (Ragin
2000, 2008).
The sole focus on such an intensive research tradition can also make it dif-
ficult to move beyond a conventional theory of CPRs and toward a more diag-
nostic approach to CPR management. A recent special issue of the respected
Journal of Human Organization is a case in point. Human Organization devot-
ed a full special issue to a critique of common-pool resources theory1 for fail-

1. Mistakenly called common-property theory in the Human Organization issue. See

McCay (1996) and Dietz et al. (2003) for discussions on the differences between common-
property regimes and common-pool resources.

38
ing to capture the complexity and context under which customary property
rights are present in Oceania. In the introductory article, Wagner and Talaki
(2007) suggest2 that a diagnostic theory should be able to capture all the “his-
toric characteristics” and “contemporary patterns of innovations” in which
common-pool resource users in Oceania are embedded3. A diagnostic theory –
to be useful – needs to draw on both general theory related to causal processes
and learning how to identify key variables present or absent in particular set-
tings so as to understand successes and failures (see Bardhan and Ray [2008],
who self-consciously engage the contribution of both general theory and in-
depth case studies).
We agree that to build a diagnostic theory, it is important to better incorpo-
rate contextual factors into policy analyses. We also need to avoid falling into
the presumption that all individual settings are so different from one another
that all we can do is describe the intricate detail of particular settings. Those of
us who study institutions and human behavior, while trying to develop theoret-
ical understanding, do realize that every case, as well as all human beings, is
unique. On the other hand, while we have a unique combination of factors af-
fecting our personalities, behavior, and actions, all humans share some attrib-
utes. It is always a challenge to determine what those attributes or variables
are at any one time. This is what the medical profession has been struggling to
do for many eras. The great contribution that medicine has developed is the
slow development of a diagnostic theory that has enabled medicine to move
beyond panaceas.
That diagnostic theory enables medical practitioners to dig into the very
large number of elements that characterize all humans to determine the specif-
ic combination of common elements that are causing a particular medical
problem.

Toward a Diagnostic Theory of Common-Pool Resources

So, how can we start moving toward a diagnostic theory of common-pool
resources? In the following sections, we provide an overview for how analysts
can go about building a diagnostic theory to address two interrelated theoreti-
cal puzzles: (1) How do resource users self-organize or create the conditions

2. The co-editors state: “What the case studies in this volume make abundantly clear is
that neither the historical characteristics of customary practices throughout the Pacific, nor
contemporary patterns of innovation, are captured by the overly neat, essentialized cate-
gories of private, common, and public property. More specifically, they demonstrate that
common property theory cannot provide applied social scientists, development planners,
conservationists, or corporate executives with ready solutions to the challenges they face in
customary settings” (Wagner and Talaki 2007: 5).
3. Even more worrisome, Wagner and Talaki (2007) also advocate for CPR theory to be
able to provide “ready solutions” to policy analysts, which is what we argue has often led
scholars into the path of panacea-type policy making, such as those promoted by Hardin,
and from which we urgently need to move away from.

39
for institutional change to overcome collective-action dilemmas? and (2) What
are the conditions that enhance the sustainability of resources and the robust-
ness of institutions over time?

A Multitier Diagnostic Framework

As a first point of departure, we draw on the multitier framework presented
in a recent article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on
“A Diagnostic Approach for Going beyond Panaceas” (Ostrom 2007b). We
will illustrate the framework and the two theoretical puzzles we identify above
related to the challenge of overcoming collective-action problems to self-orga-
nize and the fragility or robustness of organization with three cases from the
small-scale fisheries of the Gulf of California in Mexico (see Puerto Peñasco,
Seri village of Punta Chueca, and Kino Bay in Figure 1). In building a diag-
nostic CPR theory, scholars need to be aware of the extremely large potential
set of variables that might be relevant for their studies. A promising way is to
build a conceptual, ontological framework that organizes the relationships
among the many variables, posits how they are causally related across scales
and among themselves, where these variables are embedded within a system,
and how those systems are linked to even larger systems. An ontological sys-
tem is able to address the infinite regress problem, where a linguistic construc-
tion such as a concept is composed of sub-concepts, which are in turn com-
posed of sub-concepts, and further sub-concepts.
Figure 1 – Selected fishing villages in the northern Gulf of California, Mexico

40
 The framework starts with a first tier of variables that scholars studying
CPRs can use in studying any particular focal system, ranging in scale from a
small inshore fishery to the global commons (Figure 2). A scholar would first
identify which Resource System (RS) and its Resource Units (RU) are relevant
for answering a particular question. These then become the focal system for
analysis. In the three cases of the small-scale fisheries discussed below, the
Resource System is the inshore-fishery sector and the Resource Units are the
benthic sessile and semi-sessile mollusks harvested by fishers. The Social,
Economic, and Political Setting (S) is the Gulf of California in northwest
Mexico near to the boundary with the United States. As we will describe, all
three cases involve diverse patterns of interaction among the four highest-level
variables and generate diverse outcomes including both temporary and long-
term reduction of harvesting efforts as well as continued overharvesting by
fishers. All of them also involve patterns of interaction among Users (U) and
Governance Systems (GS) (including the federal and local governments), re-
searchers, nongovernmental organizations, and local and nonlocal fishers in-
terested in gaining access to more profitable fishing areas.
Figure 2 – A multitier framework for analyzing a social-ecological ssystem

Social, Economic, and Political Settings (S)

Resource Governance
System System
(RS) (GS)

Interactions (I) → Outcomes ( O)

Resource Units Users

(RU) (U)
Direct causal link Feedback

Related Ecosystems (ECO)

Source: Ostrom (2007b: 15182).

To diagnose the causal patterns that affect outcomes such as successful for-
mation of self-organization or its sustainability, one needs to incorporate a set
of “second-tier” variables that are contained within the broadest tiers identified
in Figure 2. The list of second-tier variables in Table 1 constitutes an initial ef-
fort to help group and classify important variables in a tiered ontology specific
to the theoretical puzzles related to CPR problems posited above. It is obvi-
ously not “final,” even though many scholars across disciplines have con-
tributed to the design of the framework over the years. As we make progress in
the development of a tiered ontology, and we gain a better understanding of
how concepts are embedded and related with each other, the third, fourth, and
fifth tiers of the framework will be further elucidated.

41
Table 1 – Second-tier variables in framework for analyzing a social-ecological system

Social, Economic, and Political Settings (S)

S1- Economic development. S2- Demographic trends. S3- Political stability.
S4- Government resource policies. S5- Market incentives. S6- Media organization.

Resource System (RS) Governance System (GS)

RS1- Sector (e.g., water, forests, pasture, GS1- Government organizations

fish) GS2- Non-government organizations
RS2- Clarity of system boundaries* GS3- Network structure
RS3- Size of resource system* GS4- Property-rights systems*
RS4- Human-constructed facilities GS5- Operational rules*
RS5- Productivity of system GS6- Collective-choice rules*
RS5a. Indicators of the system* GS7- Constitutional rules*
RS6- Equilibrium properties GS8- Monitoring & sanctioning proces-
RS7- Predictability of system dynamics* ses*
RS8- Storage characteristics
RS9- Location

Resource Units (RU) Users (U)

RU1- Resource unit mobility* U1- Number of users*

RU2- Growth or replacement rate U2- Socioeconomic attributes of users
RU3- Interaction among resource units U3- History of use
RU4- Economic value U4- Location
RU5- Size U5- Leadership/entrepreneurship*
RU6- Distinctive markings U6- Norms/social capital*
RU7- Spatial & temporal distribution U7- Knowledge of SES/mental models*
U8- Dependence on resource*
U9- Technology used*

Interactions (I) Æ Outcomes (O)

I1- Harvesting levels of diverse users * O1- Social performance measures

I2- Information sharing among users (e.g., efficiency, equity, accountability)
I3- Deliberation processes O2- Ecological performance measures *
I4- Conflicts among users * (e.g., overharvested, resilience, diversity)
I5- Investment activities O3- Externalities to other SESs
I6- Lobbying activities

Related Ecosystems (ECO)

ECO1- Climate patterns. ECO2- Pollution patterns. ECO3-
Flows into and out of focal SES.

Source: Adapted from Ostrom (2007b: 15183).

Building ontologies to diagnose policy problems and to design empirical

research is a necessary step toward developing better conceptual language and
theories. It is important to understand, however, that an analyst does not need
to include fifty or more variables when studying CPRs. No one can develop a
theory or do empirical research simultaneously that includes all of the second-

42
tier variables (or the many lower-tier variables) that may be important factors
affecting particular interactions and outcomes. This is definitely not the inten-
tion of this framework. The intention is to enable scholars, officials, and citi-
zens to understand the potential set of variables and their sub-variables that
could be causing a problem or creating a benefit. When we have a medical
problem, a doctor will ask us a number of initial questions and do some regu-
lar measurements. In light of that information, the doctor proceeds down a
medical ontology to ask further and more specific questions (or prescribes
tests) until a reasonable hypothesis regarding the source of the problem can be
found and supported. When we begin to think about a particular problem, we
need to begin to think about which of the attributes of a particular system are
likely to have a major impact on particular patterns of interactions and out-
comes. So let us now focus on using an evolving diagnostic theory to address
theoretical puzzles related to the self-organization and robustness that concern
the three small-scale benthic fisheries in the Gulf of California, Mexico.

Diagnostics for the Analysis of Self-Organization

As an illustration of the development of diagnostic theory, we will utilize a
subset of variables from Table 1 (and some third-tier variables) to analyze
three inshore fishery cases – two of which were able to self-organize to over-
come the costs of collective action involved in developing their own rules and
one was not. Given the extensive work of CPR scholars focused on explaining
collective-action outcomes (McKean 2000; Acheson 2003; Wade 1994;
Schlager 1990; Tang 1992; Ostrom 1990, 1992; Baland and Platteau 1996; Os-
trom et al. 1994), considerable consensus now exists about a number of char-
acteristics of a resource system and of users that can increase the likelihood
that a self-governing association will be constituted, or at least, that users will
develop rules and norms to limit their harvesting or protect their resource in
some manner. Drawing on an earlier theoretical synthesis (Ostrom 2001), the
variables that we will use in our analysis are starred in Table 1.

Toward a Theoretical Integration

The key to further theoretical integration is to understand how a subset of
the second-tier variables – and some third-tier variables – listed below and
starred in Table 1 interact in complex ways in specific settings to affect the ba-
sic benefit-cost calculations of a set of users (U) using a resource system (RS).
We do not posit that any particular number of second- and third-tier variables
discussed here always leads to success or failure in avoiding the tragedy of the
commons. Rather, it is the overall combination of these factors that affects
how participants judge the benefits and costs of new operational rules4. The at-
tributes of resource systems that are potentially relevant include:

4. Researchers who are interested in understanding collective action to overcome CPR

43
- Size of resource system (RS3): The CPR is sufficiently small, given com-
munication and transportation technologies in use, that the users can acqui-
re accurate knowledge about the boundaries and dynamics of the system.
- Productivity of system (RS5): The productivity of the CPR has not been
exhausted nor is it so abundant that there is no need to organize.
- Predictability of system dynamics (RS7): The system dynamics are suffi-
ciently predictable that users can estimate what would happen if they con-
tinued old rules or changed the rules and strategies in use.
- Indicators of the productivity of the system (RS5a): Reliable and valid in-
dicators of CPR conditions are available at a low cost.
The attributes of users that are potentially important include:
- Leadership (U5): Some users of a resource have skills of organizing and lo-
cal leadership as a result of prior organization for other purposes or lear-
ning from neighboring groups.
- Norms/social capital (U6): Users have generally developed trust in one
another so as to keep promises and return reciprocity with reciprocity.
- Knowledge of the social-ecological system (U7): Users share knowledge of
relevant CPR attributes and how their own actions affect each other.
- Dependence on resource (U8): Users are dependent on the CPR for a major
portion of their livelihood.
In analyzing a particular case, a core question is how the above factors af-
fect the potential benefits and costs that users face in continuing present rules
and strategies or changing them. One would posit that each user (i C U) com-
pares the expected net benefits of harvesting, using the old operational rules
(GS5O), with the benefits they expect to achieve using a new set of operational
rules (GS5N). Each user i must ask whether their incentive to change (Di) is
positive or negative.
Di = Bi (GS5N – GS5O) [1]
If Di is negative for all users, no one has an incentive to change and no new
rules will be established. If Di is positive for some users, they then need to es-
timate three types of costs:
- C1: Up-front costs of time and effort spent devising and agreeing upon new
rules;
- C2: The short-term costs of implementing new rules; and
- C3: The long-term costs of monitoring and maintaining a self-governed sy-
stem over time.

dilemmas in the field should try to obtain empirical measures for this set of variables in their
efforts to understand why some groups organize and others do not. In some settings, other
variables will also be important and some of these will play no role, but given the role of this
set of variables in affecting the benefits and costs of collective action, they constitute an im-
portant set of variables potentially able to explain collective action successes and failures.

44
 If the sum of these expected costs for each user exceeds the incentive to
change, no user will invest the time and resources needed to create new insti-
tutions. Thus, if
Di < (C1i + C2i + C3i) [2]
for all (i C U), no change occurs.
Obviously, if one could obtain reliable and valid measures of the perceived
benefits and costs of collective action, one would not need to examine how di-
verse resource systems and user characteristics affect likely organization.
Gaining information about specific benefits and costs perceived by users at the
time of collective-action decisions is, however, next to impossible. Thus, gain-
ing information about the attributes of the resource system and the users, listed
above, is an essential step in increasing our theoretical understanding of why
some groups do overcome the challenge of collective action and others do not.
In field settings, everyone is not likely to expect the same costs and benefits
from a proposed change. Some may perceive positive benefits after all costs
have been taken into account, while others perceive net losses. Consequently,
the collective-choice rules (GS6) used to change the day-to-day operational
rules related to the resource affect whether an institutional change favored by
some and opposed by others will occur. If for the collective-choice rule in use,
such as unanimity, majority, ruling elite, or one-person rule, there is a mini-
mum coalition of users, K C U, such that:
Dk ≤ (C1k + C2k + C3k) [3]
no new rules will be adopted.
And, if for at least one coalition K C U, there is a “winning coalition” such
that:
Dk > (C1k + C2k + C3k) [4]
it is likely that new rules will be chosen.
The collective-choice rule used to change operational rules in field settings
varies from reliance on the decisions made by one or a few leaders, to a formal
reliance on majority or super-majority vote, to reliance on consensus or near
unanimity. If there are substantial differences in the perceived benefits and
costs of users, it is possible that K users will impose a new set of rules that
strongly favors those in the winning coalition and imposes losses or lower ben-
efits on those in the losing coalition (Thompson et al. 1988). If expected bene-
fits from a change in institutional arrangements are not greater than expected
costs for many of the relevant participants, however, the costs of enforcing a
change in institutions will be much higher than when most participants expect
to benefit from a change in rules over time.
If there are several potential winning coalitions, the question of which
coalition will form, and thus which rules will result, is a theoretical issue be-
yond the scope of this article (see Bianco et al. 2006). This analysis is applic-

45
able to a situation where a group starts with an open-access situation and con-
templates adopting its first set of rules limiting access. It is also relevant to the
continuing consideration of changing operational rules over time.

Three Small-Scale Fisheries in the Gulf of California, Mexico: Why Did

Only Two Self-Organize?

The Seri, Kino, and Peñasco fisheries and the species that they target are
not actively regulated by the Mexican government. From an administrative
point of view, these fisheries are too small and far away physically and psy-
chologically to warrant the attention of fisheries government officials, already
understaffed and underbudgeted. As a result, these fisheries enjoy significant
levels of autonomy to determine their own operational access and harvesting
rules and norms (GS5) unless challenged. These fishers harvest sessile and
semi-sessile species of mollusks (mainly sea pen shells – Atrina spp, Pinna ru-
gosa, but also rock scallops – Spondylus calcifer, and murex snails – Hexaples
nigritus). All of these species – except the murex snails, which are semi-sessile
– remain fixed in the same spatial location for life. In all cases, fishers use the
same technology of exploitation common among small-scale divers in the re-
gion (U9): a rudimentary underwater breathing apparatus called hookah adapt-
ed to a small (~8 m) fiberglass outboard motor boat. Given that many of these
mollusks live on sandy bottoms, often buried, divers need to learn how to spot
them and use a hook to detach them from the bottom (Basurto 2006).
The towns of Puerto Peñasco and Kino Bay were first established as totoa-
ba (Totoaba macdonaldi)5 fishing camps around the 1930s (Bahre et al. 2000).
The Seri – a nomadic group at the time – had an active participation in the
highly profitable Totoaba fishery in Kino, which in 1940 would eventually
prompt the Seri to establish their own fishing camp and become a sedentary
group (Smith 1954). Since their establishment, Puerto Peñasco and Kino at-
tracted fishers from all over Mexico, lured to settle by the promise of local
booming fisheries and coastal development-related economic activities. Be-
tween 1945 and 1950, the population of Puerto Peñasco, Kino, and the Seri
was around 2,500 (Ives 1989), 500 (Moreno et al. 2005a), and 300 (Felger and
Moser 1985), respectively. In the early 1970s, fishing of benthic resources
with hookah diving equipment began in these villages and all accounts indi-
cate that before the 1980s, no rules were in use to manage these resource sys-
tems (Basurto 2006; Cudney and Basurto 2008). In other words, they were
“open-access” regimes. It is likely that the abundance of resources and rela-
tively low human population pressure did not create any obvious incentives to
self-organize.

5. The totoaba is endemic to the upper Gulf of California and is the largest member of
the sciaenid family (sea bass), measuring over 2 m long and weighing over 100 kg (Cis-
neros-Mata et al. 1995).

46
 As population increased, however, so did the number of fishers (U1), creat-
ing the need to self-organize to be able to control access and use to their benth-
ic resources. According to Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geogra-
phy, INEGI for its acronym in Spanish (INEGI 2005), in 2005 the population of
Puerto Peñasco, Kino, and Seri stood at about 40,000, 5,000, and 600 inhabi-
tants, respectively. To self-organize, for instance, Kino Bay made frequent ef-
forts to establish local vigilance and enforcement committees to control access
to outsiders. However, some local fishers often found it in their own self-inter-
est to invite outsiders to participate in their fisheries, given that outside fishers
would often bring better fishing gear and boats or access to better market
prices, undermining the committee’s ability to rally all local fishers to monitor
and enforce access to their fishing grounds (Ana Cinti personal communica-
tion).
Unfortunately, Kino Bay fishers failed time after time in their attempts to
self-organize and have eventually overexploited the resource (Moreno et al.
2005a). Statistical data of the Fisheries Office of Bahía de Kino, reported by
Moreno and collaborators (2005b), indicates that in 1992 the production in
Kino Bay was almost 170 tones of sea pen shells (Atrina spp and Pinna ru-
gosa). Production has steadily dropped since 1992. Production averaged only
20 tons per year from 1997 to 2003. Local overexploitation of benthic re-
sources has resulted, in turn, in an increased pressure by Kino fishers to at-
tempt to gain access to still other abundant fishing grounds, like those used by
Peñasco or the Seri, their neighbors to the north.
Since the early 1980s, recognizing the threat of external fishers capturing
“their” benthic resources, the Seri were able to gain sufficient incentives to
face the costs of organizing to protect their resources from intruders from Kino
Bay and continue enjoying the benefits they produced. The Seri have devel-
oped significant knowledge (U7) about their resource system, including a care-
ful “mental map” of the spatial extent of their fishing areas (RS3) (Basurto
2008). This knowledge also enables Seri fishers to make rough predictions
(RS7) about the future productivity of their fishing system (RS5) (Basurto
2005). It is likely that developing a holistic knowledge of the system (U7) was
facilitated by the Seri inhabitance of the same area and interaction with the
same marine species for thousands of years (Felger and Moser 1985). Seri use
of mollusks was first for subsistence purposes. In the last three decades, the
Seri also engaged in commercial exploitation using diving technology for har-
vesting (U9) (Basurto 2006). This technology allows fishers to observe and
learn significant information about target species and their habitat.
In contrast, Kino Bay and Puerto Peñasco fishers have only been present in
the area for about eight decades. Peñasco fishers have specialized in the har-
vesting of benthic resources. Many Kino Bay divers, however, also harvest
other nonbenthic marine resources during the year, requiring the use and
knowledge of a wide set of harvesting technologies. This diversity of harvest-
ing practices could be limiting the ability of Kino Bay fishers to observe and
develop the same in-depth knowledge and sense of place that is generated by

47
the interaction with one resource system and its units in the same place over
time.
Of all three fishing communities, only the Seri have formal property rights
(GS4) to their mollusk fishing areas. In 1975, the Mexican federal government
granted the Seri with a fishing concession. Only those areas where the Seri
most frequently fished, and therefore, developed access controls, became ex-
clusive fishing zones for the Seri community. Over time, these zones were
widely recognized by other fishing communities – like Kino Bay or Puerto
Peñasco – as of undisputed Seri ownership. All other coastal areas formally
granted to the Seri, but not as frequently visited and used or where they could
not find cost-effective ways to control access controls, have been claimed by
other communities and are a constant source of contestation and conflict. As a
result, the Seri are fully aware that if they overexploit their exclusive fishing
areas they will not easily find other uncontested areas in which to fish.
Consequently, the Seri are now locked into fishing areas that they cannot
abandon and that are also valuable as part of their historic heritage and an in-
tegral part of their identity as a distinct ethnic group. All together, their depen-
dence on the resource (U8) for economic and cultural reasons has generated
incentives for the Seri to consider future benefits in the design of communally
accepted operational rules and norms of access and use (GS5) to govern their
exclusive fishing zone. Further, they have been able to find ways to monitor
and enforce (GS8) these rules in a cost-effective manner (Basurto 2005). In
contrast, there is some evidence that Kino fishers are not as highly dependent
on maintaining the productivity of their fishing grounds for their survival.
Many Kino fishers are recent immigrants from elsewhere in Mexico, and in-
formal interviews indicate that some still feel that if fishing becomes scarce in
this region they will pack up what they own and move elsewhere to harvest
(Basurto unpublished data).
It is also important to note that for hundreds of years, the Seri were subject
to invasions by other dominant ethnic groups (i.e., Spaniards and later Mexi-
can mestizos) in attempts to achieve religious and territorial conquest (Sheri-
dan 1999). The Seri were able to defend themselves and the resources on
which they depended for their survival by developing strong relationships
based on trust and reciprocity (U6). Over time, the Seri people have built sig-
nificant experience in organizing collective action and face a wide variety of
external threats successfully (U5) (Wilder 2000). The close-knit sense that ex-
ists within the Seri community is now most easily observed when it is ex-
pressed on the fishing arena. In a way, competition for fishing areas with
neighboring communities is just another form in which the Seri perceive out-
siders attempting to dominate them, effectively bringing them together for suc-
cessful collective action.
In contrast, Kino fishers have had a harder time building strong trust and
reciprocity relationships with their own community members. Kino Bay is a
socially heterogeneous place that experiences the constant arrival and depar-
ture of fishers from different parts of the country, with diverse ethnic, social,

48
and cultural backgrounds, needs, and incentives for collective action. This in-
creases the uncertainty of repetitive interactions with the same individuals in
the future.
Similar to Kino, Puerto Peñasco is a very dynamic and socially heteroge-
neous place since it was home to one of the largest shrimp trawler fleets in the
Gulf of California. This was the main thrust of local and regional development
starting in the 1950s and topping off in the 1990s. More recently, Peñasco has
become a booming real-estate and tourism hub in the Upper Gulf of California
given its proximity to the U.S. border and the increasing seasonal influx of re-
tirees from Arizona and other ocean-loving southwesterners. Within this dy-
namism, a group of family-related fishers formed a fishing cooperative in the
1970s, Sociedad Cooperativa Buzos de Puerto Punta Peñasco, and in effect
transferred many of their previously built trust and reciprocity into the fishing
arena. The fishing co-op specializes in harvesting benthic mollusks and is lo-
cally recognized as the established harvesters of benthic resources. For the last
thirty years, the co-op has been harvesting benthic mollusks from rocky reefs
and adjacent coastal sandy areas. This is about the same time that Kino and
Seri fishers were also developing their commercial fishing activities.
Peñasco divers’ specialization on benthic resources makes them very aware
of the fact that they would be the first to suffer the consequences of overex-
ploiting them. Starting in 2000, they began to experiment with the rotation of
mollusk beds, in the hopes that this would enable them to avoid overexploita-
tion scenarios. That same year, facing the increased competition with fishers
and other stakeholders using the same coastal resources, divers approached re-
searchers and a non-governmental organization (NGO) for support to quantify
changes in one of their most important fishing areas. The diving co-op re-
ceived significant support and leadership from university researchers and fund-
ing organizations that enabled it to afford the costs of self-organizing into a
common-property regime. They implemented a local network of marine re-
serves, designed to protect and enhance stocks of the benthic resources on
which the co-op depended to maintain their livelihood.
Researchers and the NGOs trained divers on safe diving procedures, pro-
vided arenas for the discussion and exchange of ideas, and took on some of the
financial, logistic, scientific, and implementation burdens related to the estab-
lishment of the network of marine reserves. This helped to build important
linkages with environmental and local government fisheries management
agencies and led to the informal recognition among local stakeholders that the
fishing co-op had de facto property rights over the benthic resources being
protected at the reserves. In addition, local divers were fully engaged in bio-
logical monitoring and scientific knowledge development. Within the above
setting, co-op divers were able to design and successfully establish monitoring
and enforcement rules-in-use for the benthic resources held within the reserves
and after two years of limiting fishing in these areas, biological monitoring
confirmed minimal harvesting activity (Cudney and Basurto 2008). Further,
the biological monitoring generated strong evidence for a sharp increase in the

49
Table 2 – Comparison of key variables for three coastal fisheries in the Gulf of California

Kino Peñasco Seri

Users (U)
U1 (number of users) Rapid growth Rapid growth Slow growth
U5 (local leadership) Absent Present Present
U6 (trust and reciprocity) Lacking High levels High levels
U7 (shared local knowledge- Lacking High levels High levels
mental models)
U8 (dependence on resource) Low High High
U9 (technology) Same Same Same

Governance System (G)

GS4 (formal property rights) Absent Absent Present
GS5 (operational rules) Present Present Present
GS8 (monitoring and sanctioning) Mostly Mostly Mostly
absent present present

Resource System (R)

RS3 (resource size) Large Small Small
RS5a (indicators) Least Moderately Mostly
available available available
RS7 (predictability) Least Moderately Moderately
predictable predictable predictable
Resource Units (RU)
RU1 (Resource unit mobility) Low Low Low

Successfully self-organized No Yes Yes

density of benthic resources inside the marine reserves, as compared to before

their establishment. Early positive results allowed divers to link their monitor-
ing and enforcement efforts with an increase in the stock of their benthic re-
source units (Cudney and Basurto 2008).
In sum, consistent with our theoretical model, the Seri and Peñasco fishers
developed positive incentives to change (Di) from an open access to a com-
mon property-rights regime. These two groups of fishers found that developing
a new set of operational rules (GS5N) to control access and use to their fishing
grounds would bring them more benefits than the status quo of open access
(GS5O). Furthermore, in their ability to implement institutional change suc-
cessfully, they also needed to be able to surpass the perceived costs of chang-
ing their rules (C1k + C2k + C3k). As we described above, their ability to do
so was likely a function of the combination of specific second and third tier of
variables starred in Table 1. Peñasco and Seri fisheries showed the presence of
key variables related to their users (U), their governance system (G) and re-
source system (R), while these same variables were mostly absent in the Kino
Bay case. More specifically, Table 2 shows that while the Peñasco and Seri
fisheries had the presence of local leadership (U5), high levels of trust and rec-

50
iprocity (U6), high levels of collective local knowledge about the resource
(U7), and were highly dependent on their benthic fisheries (U8), all these ele-
ments were absent or lacking in the Kino Bay case. Regarding their gover-
nance system (G), Seri and Peñasco fishers had mostly in place a monitoring
and sanctioning system (GS8) to maintain their operational rules, while in the
Kino case such system was mostly absent. In relation to the resource system,
Peñasco and Seri fisheries had similar resource sizes (RS3), availability of in-
dicators (RS5a), and had developed similar levels of predictability (RS7). In
contrast, the size of Kino Bay fishing areas were large, in relation to the com-
munication and transportation technology available to them, and they had been
the least able to develop indicators and predictability of their system dynam-
ics. In sum, the absence of all these factors at Kino Bay likely elevated the
costs of organizing to the extent that surpassed the likely expected benefits of
organizing into a common-property regime. Thus, Kino fishers were not able
to find enough incentives to move away the open access status quo. As a con-
sequence – just as Hardin had predicted – their benthic resources were eventu-
ally overharvested.

Diagnostics for the Sustainability of Self-Organization

Now that we have diagnosed why two local fisheries were able to over-
come collective-action problems and establish effective new rules while the
third was not, let us address the question of the sustainability of such self-or-
ganized systems. While some self-governed CPR systems are capable of sur-
viving long periods of time, others falter and fail. The particular set of rules
used by long-surviving, self-governing systems varies substantially from one
another (Schlager 1994; Tang 1994; Ostrom 2005). After working with
Schlager and Tang on the development of the CPR database, coding an exten-
sive set of case studies of fishery and irrigation systems around the world (de-
scribed in Ostrom et al. 1994), Ostrom tried to identify specific rules associat-
ed with robust systems. She searched a large number of cases to find specific
institutions, such as government, private, or communal ownership, that were
close to universally successful. After an extensive search and study, no specif-
ic set of rules was found to be associated with long-surviving CPR institutions.
Instead, she proposed a set of eight design principles (listed in Table 3). Most
of these principles are present in well-documented, long-lasting systems and
are missing in failed systems6. Long-term sustainable self-organizations tend
to be characterized by the presence of most of these design principles, while

6. Costello et al. (2008) have a new analysis of fisheries that does provide strong sup-
port for a variety of Individual Transferable Quota (ITQ) systems to be associated with re-
duced likelihood of the collapse of valuable commercial fisheries, but the specific ways that
successful ITQ systems have been designed and implemented vary substantially from each
other.

51
fragile institutions tend to be characterized by only some of them, and failed
institutions by few (Ostrom 2008b). For other studies of long-term sustainable
self-organization, see Lam (1998), Weinstein (2000), Acheson (2003), Hilborn
(2006), Frangoudes et al. (2008), Lam and Ostrom (2008), Lansing (2008),
and as well as fragile and failed institutions (Schweik et al. 1997; Morrow and
Hull 1996; Hilborn et al. 2005; Medina et al. 2007).
Let us be clear, a design principle is not a synonym for a “blueprint.” We
borrow the use of the term from architecture. When applied to institutional
arrangements by design principle, we mean an “element or condition that
helps to account for the success of these institutions in sustaining the [com-
mon-pool resources] and gaining the compliance of generation after genera-
tion of appropriators to the rules in use” (Ostrom 1990: 90). The design princi-
ples work to enhance participants’ shared understanding of the structure of the
resource and its users and of the benefits and costs involved in following a set
of agreed-upon rules.

The Robustness of the Seri and Peñasco Fisheries in the Gulf of Califor-
nia, Mexico

We now take a look at the robustness of the self-organized systems of the

Seri and Peñasco fisheries. Examining these cases is useful because the Seri
benthic fishery continues to be able to self-organize to control access and use
to their fishing grounds to current times, while Peñasco fishers were not able
to successfully withstand the external shock of an increased pressure for ac-
cess to their benthic marine reserves. Their self-organized system collapsed in
2004 (Cudney and Basurto 2008).
In 2002, two years after Peñasco fishers stopped harvesting in their marine
reserves, the local co-op fishers started to note the increased abundance of
benthic resources in them. There was also little evidence of poaching by out-
side or co-op fishers. Eventually, however, news about the increased abun-
dance started to spill out to other fishers in the region (Cudney and Basurto
2008). For many fishers facing scarcity in their own fishing grounds, like those
of Kino Bay and other fishing communities shown in Figure 1, it became
worthwhile to travel far and away to seek access and harvest at the co-op’s re-
serves. Also, in 2002, abrupt changes in local government leadership took
place. The informal support provided by local authorities to the co-op’s efforts
to monitor and control access to the reserves ceased. Given that the divers’ ef-
forts to self-organize were not recognized at the regional and federal levels of
the Mexican government, co-op divers found themselves unable to withstand
the increased fishing pressure. Their local monitoring and enforcement mecha-
nisms became increasingly inadequate. As soon as poaching from outsiders
became apparent, it was no longer worthwhile for the Peñasco Cooperative to
abstain from harvesting the product of their own hard-built investment. After
all, those were “their resources.” So, they proceeded to engage in a “free-for-

52
Table 3 – Design principles illustrated by long-enduring common-pool resource institutions

1. Clearly Defined Boundaries

Individuals or households with rights to withdraw resource units from the common-pool re-
source, and the boundaries of the common-pool resource itself, are clearly defined.

2. Congruence
A. The distribution of benefits from appropriation rules is roughly proportionate to the costs
imposed by provision rules.
B. Appropriation rules restricting time, place, technology, and quantity of resource units are
related to local conditions.

3. Collective-Choice Arrangements
Most individuals affected by operational rules can participate in modifying operational rules.

4. Monitoring
Monitors, who actively audit common-pool resource conditions and user behavior, are ac-
countable to the users or are the users themselves.

5. Graduated Sanctions
Users who violate operational rules are likely to receive graduated sanctions (depending on
the seriousness and context of the offense) from other users, from officials accountable to
these users, or from both.

6. Conflict-Resolution Mechanisms
Users and their officials have rapid access to low-cost, local arenas to resolve conflict
among users or between users and officials.

7. Minimal Recognition of Rights to Organize

The rights of users to devise their own institutions are not challenged by external govern-
mental authorities.

For common-pool resources that are parts of larger systems:

8. Nested Enterprises
Appropriation, provision, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance ac-
tivities are organized in multiple layers of nested enterprises.

Source: Adapted from E. Ostrom (1990: 90).

all” race and harvest as many benthic mollusks as they could before other out-
siders would do the same. After a month of intense harvesting, the measured
abundance of the two main species of benthic mollusks monitored in the re-
serves was reduced to half (Cudney and Basurto 2008).
In sum, Peñasco fishers were also unable to nest their fishing system in
multiple layers of governance. Sadly, they were not able to find the support of
the highest levels of governance to formalize their successful self-organization
efforts at the local level. Without the formal recognition of the federal govern-
ment, the Peñasco divers’ governance system was not robust over the longer
term to the external shocks of poaching from regional roving bandits.

53
 The Seri and Peñasco fisheries both had the presence of six of the eight de-
sign principles listed in Table 3. In both cases, the fishers had been able to de-
velop clearly defined boundaries, congruence, collective-choice arrangements,
monitoring, graduated sanctions, and conflict-resolution mechanisms. The
Peñasco self-organized system lacked formal recognition from higher levels of
governance and the integration of their self-governance local regime with mul-
tiple layers of nested enterprises. The Seri system was characterized by both of
these design principles.
Nested enterprises are particularly important for those CPRs that are part of
larger systems, like coastal fisheries, where appropriation, provision, monitor-
ing, enforcement, conflict resolution, and governance activities are organized
in multiple institutional layers (Young 2002). The Seri and Peñasco cases en-
joyed a minimal recognition of rights to organize – at least informally – by the
local government. Unfortunately, the efforts of the Peñasco divers were never
formally recognized at the federal level when the impacts of their activities
scaled up. Local fishers did recognize that Peñasco fishers were the owners of
the local marine reserves. When it became economically feasible for roving
bandits from far-away communities (Berkes et al. 2006) to travel and poach at
the local reserves, however, Peñasco fishers could not do much to protect the
boundaries of their reserves. Under federal law, ocean resources belong to all
Mexicans. Thus, roving bandits from other Mexican fisheries were not formal-
ly breaking the law (Cudney and Basurto 2008).
The importance of building appropriate nested enterprises for the sustain-
ability of self-organization cannot be understated. In larger resources with
many participants, nested enterprises that range in size from small to large en-
able participants to solve diverse problems involving different scale
economies. In base institutions that are quite small, face-to-face communica-
tion can be utilized for solving many of the day-to-day problems in smaller
groups. By nesting each level of organization in a larger level, externalities
from one group to another can be addressed in larger organizational settings
that have a legitimate role to play in relationship to the smaller entities.
Many variables in Table 1 that affect perceived costs and benefits of self-
organization are strongly affected by the type of larger setting in which a re-
source and its users are embedded – particularly the type of resource policies
adopted by the larger political regimes (S4). Larger regimes may facilitate lo-
cal self-organization by providing accurate information about natural resource
systems, arenas in which participants can engage in discovery and conflict-res-
olution processes, and mechanisms to back up local monitoring and sanction-
ing efforts. Perceived benefits of organizing are greater when users have accu-
rate information about the threats facing a resource.
When the authority to make and enforce their own rules is not recognized,
the costs of monitoring and sanctioning those who do not conform to these
rules can be very high. The probability of participants adapting more effective
rules in macro regimes that facilitate their efforts over time is higher than in
regimes that ignore resource problems entirely or, at the other extreme, pre-

54
sume that all decisions about governance and management need to be made by
central authorities. If local authorities are not formally recognized by larger
regimes, it is very costly – if not impossible – for users to establish an en-
forceable set of rules. On the other hand, if external authorities impose rules
without consulting local participants in their design, local users may engage in
a game of “cops and robbers” with outside authorities.

Conclusion

In this paper, we have argued that one way in which we can go beyond
Hardin’s tragedy of the commons is by building a diagnostic theory of CPR
management. We believe that it is fundamental to avoid falling into “panacea”
or “my-case-is-unique” analytical traps. A diagnostic theory needs to be able
to help us understand the complex interrelationship between social and bio-
physical factors at different levels of analysis. This understanding will be aug-
mented if the rich detail produced from case studies is used together with the-
ory to find patterned structures among cases.
When rich detail is to argue that theoretical analysis focusing on more gen-
eral variables is not useful, we will continue to fall into “my-case-is-unique”
analytical traps. This does not enable scholars to move away from merely de-
scribing a particular case or region. Even worse, without a tested diagnostic
theory, policy analysts cannot produce theoretically informed public policy
that can form the basis of adaptive governance. We cannot forget, however,
that uncovering patterns of commonalities and differences among cases with-
out considering the role of context and history can lead to “panacea” analytical
traps, such as those that have prevailed throughout the history of fisheries.
A quick view to such history shows that it is rich with examples of techni-
cal fixes like individual transferable quotas (ITQs), marine protected areas
(MPAs), and community-based management (CBM). As Degnbol and col-
leagues (2006: 537) argue:
each of the fixes may alone, or in combination with other management tools, be
perfectly adequate and justified in specific situations where the context and man-
agement concerns match the assumptions and properties of these tools. But when
they are promoted as universal remedies, they cease to be useful tools and enter
the category of technical fixes, diverting attention away from the full range of po-
tential solutions to a particular management problem. Fixes are not likely to ade-
quately represent the complexity of a problem nor are they likely to solve a range
of problems simultaneously.

Indeed, further development and testing of a diagnostic theory will not be

an easy task. In this paper, we have briefly illustrated important steps for how
we can go about diagnosing the emergence and sustainability of self-organiza-
tion in the fishing context of the Gulf of California, Mexico. By doing so, we
were able to move away from the universality proposed by Hardin and under-

55
stand how two out of three fisheries were able to successfully self-organize,
and why one of them continues to be robust over time. Using the same diag-
nostic approach, we also learned that CBM is not a panacea for sustaining
self-governance arrangements over the long term. Without the presence of
cross-scale linkages with higher levels of governance, the self-organized CBM
effort could not resist exogenous shocks and eventually collapsed (Cudney and
Basurto 2008). This was a detriment to the fishers as well as to the biodiversi-
ty associated with their fishing activities, which also depends on sustainable
human organization to survive.

References

Acheson J.M., 2003, Capturing the Commons: Devising Institutions to Manage the
Maine Lobster Industry, University Press of New England, New Haven, CT.
Bahre C.J., Bourillon L., Torre J., 2000, “The Seri and commercial Totoaba fishing
(1930-1965)”, Journal of the Southwest 42, n. 3: 559-575.
Baland J.-M., Platteau J.-P., 1996, Halting Degradation of Natural Resources: Is
There a Role for Rural Communities?, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Bardhan P., Ray I., 2008, The Contested Commons: Conversations between Econo-
mists and Anthropologists, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Bardhan P., Ray I., 2008, “Economists, anthropologists, and the contested commons”,
in P. Bardhan, I. Ray (eds), The Contested Commons: Conversations between
Economists and Anthropologists, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Basurto X., 2005, “How locally designed access and use controls can prevent the
tragedy of the commons in a Mexican small-scale fishing community”, Journal of
Society and Natural Resources 18: 643-659.
Basurto X., 2006, “Commercial diving and the Callo de Hacha fishery in Seri territo-
ry”, Journal of the Southwest 48, no. 2: 189-209.
Basurto X., 2008, “Biological and ecological mechanisms supporting marine self-gov-
ernance: The Seri Callo de Hacha fishery”, Ecology and Society 13, no. 2: 20. [on-
line] http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art20/.
Berkes F., 1986, “Local-level management and the commons problem: a comparative
study of Turkish coastal fisheries”, Marine Policy 10: 215-229.
Berkes F. (ed), 1989, Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based
Sustainable Development, Belhaven Press, London.
Berkes F., Feeny D., McCay B.J., Acheson J.M., 1989, “The benefits of the com-
mons”, Nature 340, no. 6229: 91-93.
Berkes F., Hughes T.P., Steneck R.S., Wilson J.A., Bellwood D.R., Crona B., Folke
C., Gunderson L.H., Leslie H.M., Norberg J., Nyström M., Olsson P., Österblom
H., Scheffer M., Worm B., 2006, “Globalization, roving bandits, and marine re-
sources”, Science 311, n. 17: 1557-1558.
Bianco W., Lynch M., Miller G., Sened I., 2006, “A theory waiting to be discovered
and used: a reanalysis of canonical experiments on majority-rule decision making”,
Journal of Politics 68, n. 4: 838-851.
Blomquist W., Ostrom E., 1985, “Institutional capacity and the resolution of a com-
mons dilemma”, Policy Studies Review 5, n. 2: 383-393.
Bouchaud J.P., 2008, “Economics needs a scientific revolution”, Nature 455, n. 30:
1181.

56
Bromley D.W., Feeny D., McKean M., Peters P., Gilles J., Oakerson R., Runge C.F.,
Thomson J. (eds), 1992, Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice, and Poli-
cy, ICS Press, San Francisco, CA.
Chopra K., 2008, “Commentary 4: disciplinary perspectives and policy design for
common-pool resources”, in P. Bardhan, I. Ray (eds), The Contested Commons:
Conversations between Economists and Anthropologists, Blackwell Publishing,
Oxford.
Cisneros-Mata M.A., Montemayor-Lopez G., Roman-Rodriguez M.J., 1995, “Life his-
tory and conservation of Totoaba Macdonaldi”, Conservation Biology 9: 806-814.
Clark C.C., 2006, The Worldwide Crisis in Fisheries: Economic Models and Human
Behavior, Cambridge University Press.
Cordell J.C. (ed), 1989, A Sea of Small Boats, Cultural Survival, Inc., Cambridge, MA.
Costello C., Gaines S.D., Lynham, J., 2008, “Can catch shares prevent fisheries col-
lapse?”, Science 321: 1678-1681.
Cudney R., Basurto X., 2008, “Lack of cross-scale linkages reduces robustness of
community-based fishery management”, Working Paper, Indiana University,
Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Bloomington, IN.
Degnbol P., Gislason H., Hanna S., Jentoft S., Raakjær Nielsen J., Sverdrup-Jensen S.,
Wilson D.C., 2006, “Painting the floor with a hammer: technical fixes in fisheries
management”, Marine Policy 30: 534-543.
Demsetz H., 1967, “Toward a theory of property rights”, American Economic Review
57: 347-359.
Dietz T., Ostrom E., Stern P., 2003, “The struggle to govern the commons”, Science
302: 1907-1912.
Dolšak N., Ostrom E. (eds), 2003, The Commons in the New Millennium: Challenges
and Adaptations, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Feeny D., Hanna S.S., McEvoy A.F., 1996, Questioning the assumptions of the
‘tragedy of the commons’ model of fisheries”, Land Economics 72: 187-205.
Felger R.S., Moser M.B., 1985, People of the Desert and Sea: Ethnobotany of the Seri
Indians, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Frangoudes K., Marugán-Pintos B., Pascual-Fernández J.J., 2008, “From open access
to co-governance and conservation: the case of women shellfish collectors in Gali-
cia (Spain)”, Marine Policy 32: 223-232.
Gordon H.S., 1954, “The economic theory of a common property resource: the fishery”,
Journal of Political Economy 62: 124-142.
Hilborn R., 2006, “Fisheries success and failure: the case of the Bristol Bay salmon
fishery”, Bulletin of Marine Science 78: 487-498.
Hilborn R., Orensanz J.M., Parma A.M., 2005, “Institutions, incentives and the future
of fisheries”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 360: 47-57.
Ives R.L., 1989, The Land of Lava, Ash, and Sand: The Pinacate Region of Northwest-
ern Mexico, Arizona Historical Society, Tucson.
Lam W.F., 1998, Governing Irrigation Systems in Nepal: Institutions, Infrastructure,
and Collective Action, ICS Press, Oakland, CA.
Lam W.F., Ostrom E., 2008, “Trying to avoid the ‘best practices’ trap”, Working Pa-
per, Indiana University, Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis,
Bloomington, IN.
Lansing J.S., 2008, Perfect Order: Recognizing Complexity in Bali, Princeton Univer-
sity Press, Princeton, NJ.

57
McCay B.J., 1996, “Common and private concerns”, in S. Hanna, C. Folke, K.-G.
Maler (eds), Rights to Nature: Ecological, Economic, Cultural, and Political Prin-
ciples of Institutions for the Environment, Island Press, Washington, DC.
McCay B.J., Acheson J.M., 1987, The Question of the Commons: The Culture and
Ecology of Communal Resources, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
McKean M.A., 2000, “Common property: what is it, what is it good for, and what
makes it work?”, in C. Gibson, M. McKean, E. Ostrom (eds), People and Forests:
Communities, Institutions, and Governance, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Medina B., Guzman H.M., Mair J.M., 2007, “Failed recovery of a collapsed scallop
(argopecten ventricosus) fishery in las Perlas Archipelago, Panama”, Journal of
Shellfish Research 26, no. 1: 9-15.
Moreno C., Weaver A., Bourillón L., Torre J., Égido J., Rojo M., 2005a, Diagnóstico
Ambiental y Socioeconómico de la Región Marina-Costera de Bahía de Kino, Isla
Tiburón, Sonora México: Documento de trabajo y discusión para promover un de-
sarrollo sustentable, Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C. [online].
www.cobi.org.mx/index.php?pag=publicaciones&idioma=esp
Moreno C., Torre J., Bourillón L., Durazo M., Weaver A.H., Barraza R., Castro R.,
2005b, Estudio y evaluación de la pesquería de callo de hacha (Atrina tubercu-
losa) en la región de Bahía de Kino, Sonora y recomendaciones para su manejo,
Comunidad y Biodiversidad, A.C. [online] www.cobi.org.mx/index.php?pag=pub-
licaciones&idioma=esp.
Morrow C.E., Hull R.W., 1996, “Donor-initiated common pool resource institutions:
the case of the Yanesha forestry cooperative”, World Development 24, no. 10:
1641-1657.
NRC (National Research Council), 1986, Proceedings of the Conference on Common
Property Resource Management, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
NRC (National Research Council), 2002, The Drama of the Commons, Committee on
the Human Dimensions of Global Change, E. Ostrom, T. Dietz, N. Dol_ak, P.
Stern, S. Stonich, E. Weber (eds), National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Ophuls W., 1973, “Leviathan or oblivion”, in: H.E. Daly (ed), Toward a Steady State
Economy, Freeman, San Francisco, CA.
Ostrom E., 1990, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective
Action, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Ostrom E., 1992, Crafting Institutions for Self-Governing Irrigation Systems, ICS
Press, San Francisco, CA.
Ostrom E., 2001, “Reformulating the commons”, in: J. Burger, E. Ostrom, R. Nor-
gaard, D. Policansky, B. Goldstein (eds), Protecting the Commons: A Framework
for Resource Management in the Americas, Island Press, Washington, DC.
Ostrom E., 2005, Understanding Institutional Diversity, Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Ostrom E., 2007a, “Collective action and local development processes”, Sociologica 3:
1-32.
Ostrom E., 2007b, “A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas”, PNAS 104, n.
39: 15181-15187.
Ostrom E., 2008a, “The challenge of common-pool resources”, Environment 50, n. 4:
8-20.
Ostrom E. 2008b, “Design principles of robust property-rights institutions: what have
we learned”, paper presented at the conference on “Land Policies and Property
Rights,” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA, June 2-3, 2008.

58
Ostrom E., Gardner R., Walker J., 1994, Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources,
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Ostrom E., Walker J., Gardner R., 1992, “Covenants with and without a sword: self-
governance is possible”, American Political Science Review 86, n. 2: 404-417.
Ostrom V., Ostrom E., 1977, “Public goods and public choices”, in: E. S. Savas (ed),
Alternatives for Delivering Public Services: Toward Improved Performance, West-
view Press, Boulder, CO. Reprinted in: M. McGinnis (ed), Polycentricity and Lo-
cal Public Economies: Readings from the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy
Analysis, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1999.
Posner R.A., 1977, Economic Analysis of Law, 2nd ed., Little, Brown, Boston, MA.
Ragin C.C., 2000, Fuzzy-Sets Social Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL.
Ragin C.C., 2008, Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
Ruddle K., 2007, “Misconceptions, outright prejudice”, Samudra report no. 48, Samu-
dra: The Triannual Journal of the International Collective in Support of Fishwork-
ers, International Collective in Support of Fishworkers, Chennai, India.
Ruddle K., Hickey F.R., 2008, “Accounting for the mismanagement of tropical
nearshore fisheries”, Environment, Development, and Sustainability 10: 565-589.
Ruddle K., Johannes R.E. (eds), 1985, The Traditional Knowledge and Management of
Coastal Systems in Asia and the Pacific, Unesco, Jakarta.
Schlager E., 1990, “Model specification and policy analysis: the governance of coastal
fisheries”, Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University.
Schlager E., 1994, “Fishers’ institutional responses to common-pool resource dilem-
mas”, in: E. Ostrom, R. Gardner, J. Walker (eds), Rules, Games, and Common-
Pool Resources, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Schweik C.M., Adhikari K., Pandit K.N., 1997, “Land-cover change and forest institu-
tions: a comparison of two sub-basins in the southern Siwalik hills of Nepal”,
Mountain Research and Development 17, no. 2: 99-116.
Scott A.D., 1955, “The fishery: the objectives of sole ownership”, Journal of Political
Economy 63: 116-124.
Sengupta N., 1991, Managing Common Property: Irrigation in India and the Philip-
pines, Sage, New Delhi.
Sheridan T.E., 1999, Empire of Sand: The Seri Indians and the Struggle for Spanish
Sonora, 1645-1803, University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Simmons R.T., Smith Jr. F.L., Georgia P., 1996, The Tragedy of the Commons Revisited:
Politics versus Private Property, Center for Private Conservation, Washington, DC.
Smith W.N., 1954, “The ethno-history of the Seri Indians from 1890 to 1953: a study
in native conservatism and adaptability”, unpublished paper written in 1953; cor-
rected in 1954; filed at the Special Collection Library of the University of Arizona,
Tucson.
Tang S.Y., 1992, Institutions and Collective Action: Self-Governance in Irrigation,
ICS Press, San Francisco, CA.
Tang S.Y., 1994, “Institutions and performance in irrigation systems”, in: E. Ostrom,
R. Gardner, J. Walker (eds), Rules, Games, and Common-Pool Resources, Univer-
sity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Thompson L.L., Mannix E.A., Bazerman M.H., 1988, “Group negotiation: effects of
decision rule, agenda, and aspiration”, Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo-
gy 54, n. 1: 86-95.

59
van Laerhoven F., Ostrom E., 2007, “Traditions and trends in the study of the com-
mons”, International Journal of the Commons 1, n. 1: 3-28.
Wade R., 1994, Village Republics: Economic Conditions for Collective Action in
South India, ICS Press, San Francisco, CA.
Wagner J., Talakai M., 2007, “Customs, commons, property, and ecology: case studies
from Oceania”, Human Organization 66, n. 1: 1-10.
Weinstein M., 2000, “Pieces of the puzzle: solutions for community-based fisheries
management from native Canadians, Japanese cooperatives, and common property
resources”, Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 12, no. 2: 375-
412.
Wilder J. (ed), 2000, “Seri hands”, special issue, Journal of the Southwest 42, no. 3:
385-635.
Young O.R., 2002, The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Inter-
play, and Scale, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

60