The Tragedy of the Commons Revisited
“Umumiy mulk fojiasi” qayta ko‘rib chiqilganda
Sarlavha va pastdagi so‘zlarga qarang. Matn nima haqida bo‘lishi mumkin? Bir daqiqa o‘ylab ko‘ring — bu miyani o‘qishga tayyorlaydi.
Umumiy resurslarni boshqarish: Hardin nazariyasi va Elinor Ostromning javobi.
Kalit so‘zlar
Bu so‘zlar matnda uchraydi va matnda ajratib ko‘rsatiladi. Bosing — talaffuzini eshitasiz.
⏱ O‘qish boshlanganda vaqt o‘lchanadi — oxirida tezligingizni ko‘rasiz.
👆 Istalgan so‘zni bosing — tarjimasi yoki lug‘atga havola chiqadi.
In 1968, the American ecologist Garrett Hardin published an essay that would become one of the most cited in the history of science. Titled “The Tragedy of the Commons”, it described a pasture open to all herders. Each herder, Hardin reasoned, gains the full benefit of adding one more animal to the pasture, while the cost of overgrazing is shared among everyone. Rational individuals will therefore keep adding animals until the pasture is destroyed. “Freedom in a commons,” he concluded grimly, “brings ruin to all.”
1968-yilda amerikalik ekolog Garret Hardin fan tarixida eng ko‘p iqtibos keltirilganlardan biriga aylanadigan esse nashr etdi. “Umumiy mulk fojiasi” deb nomlangan bu esse barcha cho‘ponlar uchun ochiq yaylovni tasvirlagan. Hardinning mulohazasiga ko‘ra, har bir cho‘pon yaylovga yana bitta hayvon qo‘shishdan to‘liq foyda oladi, ortiqcha boqishning zarari esa hamma o‘rtasida taqsimlanadi. Shuning uchun aqlli shaxslar yaylov vayron bo‘lgunga qadar hayvon qo‘shishda davom etadi. “Umumiy mulkdagi erkinlik, — degan xulosaga kelgan u qovog‘ini solib, — hammani halokatga olib keladi.”
The logic seemed to explain a great deal. Fisheries around the world have been depleted by fleets each trying to catch as much as possible before others do; the collapse of the cod population off the coast of Newfoundland in the early 1990s, which forced the Canadian government to close the fishery and cost tens of thousands of jobs, became a textbook example. The atmosphere itself can be seen as a commons into which every country and company is tempted to release greenhouse gases, since the benefits of burning fossil fuels are local while the costs are global.
Bu mantiq ko‘p narsani tushuntirgandek tuyulgan. Butun dunyodagi baliq ovlash joylari har biri boshqalardan oldin imkon qadar ko‘proq tutishga harakat qilgan flotlar tomonidan qashshoqlashtirilgan; 1990-yillarning boshida Nyufaundlend qirg‘oqlarida treska populyatsiyasining qulashi, bu Kanada hukumatini baliq ovini yopishga majbur qilgan va o‘n minglab ish o‘rinlarini yo‘qotishga sabab bo‘lgan, darslik misoliga aylandi. Atmosferaning o‘zini ham har bir mamlakat va kompaniya issiqxona gazlarini chiqarishga vasvasaga tushadigan umumiy mulk deb ko‘rish mumkin, chunki qazilma yoqilg‘ilarni yoqishning foydasi mahalliy, zarari esa global.
Hardin believed there were only two solutions: either the commons must be divided into private property, so that each owner bears the costs of their own decisions, or it must be controlled by a strong central government. For decades, this dichotomy shaped policy, often leading to the privatisation or nationalisation of land, forests and water that had previously been managed by local communities.
Hardin faqat ikkita yechim bor deb hisoblagan: yoki umumiy mulk xususiy mulkka bo‘linishi kerak, shunda har bir egasi o‘z qarorlarining xarajatlarini o‘zi ko‘taradi, yoki uni kuchli markaziy hukumat nazorat qilishi kerak. O‘nlab yillar davomida bu ikkilik siyosatni shakllantirdi va ko‘pincha ilgari mahalliy jamoalar tomonidan boshqarilgan yerlar, o‘rmonlar va suvlarni xususiylashtirish yoki milliylashtirishga olib keldi.
The most powerful challenge to Hardin came from the political scientist Elinor Ostrom, who in 2009 became the first woman to receive the Nobel Prize in Economics. Ostrom spent decades studying real communities that shared resources: Swiss villages that had managed common alpine meadows for centuries, Japanese villages with shared forests, irrigation systems in Spain and Nepal, and fishing communities in Turkey. Many of these arrangements had survived for hundreds of years without either privatisation or central control. Hardin’s tragedy, she concluded, was not inevitable.
Hardinga eng kuchli e’tiroz siyosatshunos Elinor Ostromdan keldi, u 2009-yilda iqtisodiyot bo‘yicha Nobel mukofotini olgan birinchi ayol bo‘ldi. Ostrom o‘nlab yillar davomida resurslarni baham ko‘radigan haqiqiy jamoalarni o‘rgangan: asrlar davomida umumiy alp o‘tloqlarini boshqarib kelgan Shveytsariya qishloqlari, umumiy o‘rmonlarga ega Yaponiya qishloqlari, Ispaniya va Nepaldagi sug‘orish tizimlari hamda Turkiyadagi baliqchi jamoalar. Bu tartiblarning ko‘pi xususiylashtirish ham, markaziy nazorat ham bo‘lmasdan yuzlab yillar davomida saqlanib qolgan. Hardinning fojiasi, degan xulosaga kelgan u, muqarrar emas edi.
Ostrom identified a set of conditions that successful commons tend to share. The boundaries of the resource and the community entitled to use it are clearly defined. The people affected by the rules have a say in making them. Use is monitored, often by the users themselves, and those who break the rules face penalties that begin mildly and increase with repeated offences. Conflicts can be resolved quickly and cheaply, and external authorities respect the community’s right to organise itself. Crucially, Hardin’s herders had been imagined as isolated individuals who never spoke to one another; real people, Ostrom observed, communicate, build trust and develop norms.
Ostrom muvaffaqiyatli umumiy mulklarda odatda uchraydigan shartlar to‘plamini aniqlagan. Resurs va undan foydalanish huquqiga ega jamoaning chegaralari aniq belgilangan. Qoidalardan ta’sirlanadigan odamlar ularni ishlab chiqishda ovozga ega. Foydalanish ko‘pincha foydalanuvchilarning o‘zlari tomonidan nazorat qilinadi va qoidalarni buzganlar yengildan boshlanib, takroriy qoidabuzarliklar bilan ortib boradigan jazolarga duch keladi. Nizolar tez va arzon hal qilinishi mumkin, tashqi hokimiyat esa jamoaning o‘zini o‘zi tashkil etish huquqini hurmat qiladi. Eng muhimi, Hardinning cho‘ponlari bir-biri bilan hech qachon gaplashmaydigan yakka shaxslar sifatida tasavvur qilingan edi; haqiqiy odamlar esa, deb kuzatgan Ostrom, muloqot qiladi, ishonch quradi va me’yorlar ishlab chiqadi.
Ostrom’s work does not mean that every commons can be managed locally. Her principles work best for resources used by relatively small, stable communities who know one another and expect to interact in the future. Global problems such as climate change, involving billions of people and nearly two hundred countries, are far harder. Yet even here her insights are relevant: Ostrom argued for a “polycentric” approach, in which action at many levels, from cities and regions to companies and international agreements, reinforces itself, rather than waiting for a single global solution.
Ostromning ishi har qanday umumiy mulkni mahalliy darajada boshqarish mumkin degani emas. Uning tamoyillari bir-birini taniydigan va kelajakda o‘zaro munosabatda bo‘lishni kutadigan nisbatan kichik, barqaror jamoalar foydalanadigan resurslar uchun eng yaxshi ishlaydi. Milliardlab odamlar va qariyb ikki yuz mamlakatni qamrab oladigan iqlim o‘zgarishi kabi global muammolar ancha qiyinroq. Biroq bu yerda ham uning tushunchalari dolzarb: Ostrom yagona global yechimni kutish o‘rniga, shaharlar va mintaqalardan tortib kompaniyalar va xalqaro kelishuvlargacha ko‘plab darajalardagi harakatlar bir-birini mustahkamlaydigan “ko‘p markazli” yondashuvni yoqlagan.
The lesson of this debate extends beyond economics. Hardin’s essay rested on a pessimistic assumption about human nature; Ostrom’s research rested on observation of what people actually do. The tragedy of the commons is real, but it is a risk, not a destiny, and communities that are trusted to govern themselves have often proved wiser than theory predicted.
Bu bahsning saboqi iqtisodiyotdan tashqariga chiqadi. Hardinning essesi inson tabiati haqidagi pessimistik taxminga asoslangan edi; Ostromning tadqiqoti esa odamlar haqiqatda nima qilishini kuzatishga asoslangan. Umumiy mulk fojiasi haqiqiy, lekin u taqdir emas, balki xavf va o‘zini o‘zi boshqarishga ishonib topshirilgan jamoalar ko‘pincha nazariya bashorat qilganidan donoroq bo‘lib chiqqan.
Tushundingizmi?
Javob topa olmasangiz, «O‘qish» bosqichiga qaytib, matnga qarang — bu ham mashq.
-
Asosiy g‘oya
1 What is the main point of the essay?
-
2 According to Hardin, why would herders destroy the pasture?
-
3 Why is the Newfoundland cod collapse mentioned?
-
4 What did Ostrom find in her studies of real communities?
-
5 What is a “polycentric” approach?
True / False / Not Given
True — matnda aynan shunday deyilgan. False — matn aksini aytadi. Not Given — matnda bu haqda ma’lumot yo‘q.
-
1 The writer suggests Hardin’s view of human nature was pessimistic.
-
2 Hardin believed communities could manage shared resources by themselves.
-
3 Hardin’s essay has been cited very widely.
-
4 Ostrom was the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics.
-
5 Ostrom believed her principles could easily solve climate change.
-
6 The cod population near Newfoundland has now fully recovered.
-
7 Ostrom’s research included villages in Uzbekistan.
-
8 Ostrom and Hardin met to discuss their ideas.
-
9 Ostrom studied only communities in the United States.
-
10 Penalties in successful commons usually start mild.
-
11 In successful commons, users often take part in making the rules.
-
12 The cod fishery near Newfoundland was closed by the Canadian government.
So‘zni ma’nosi bilan juftlang
Chapdan so‘zni, o‘ngdan uning ma’nosini tanlang. Hammasi juftlansa, natija chiqadi.