Clearly defined boundaries should be in place. Rules in use are well matched to local needs and conditions. Individuals affected by these rules can usually participate in modifying the rules. The right of community members to devise their own rules is respected by external authorities. A system for self-monitoring members' behavior has been established. A graduated system of sanctions is available. Community members have access to low-cost conflict-resolution mechanisms. Nested enterprises--that is, appropriation, provision, monitoring and sanctioning, conflict resolution, and other governance activities--are organized in a nested structure with multiple layers of activities.
And I think my skepticism stems essentially from one of the key ingredients for "self-organized commons" identified in your excerpt:
the inclinations that arise from these networks for people to do things for each other (i.e., the norms of reciprocity) (Putnam 2000)
Norms of reciprocity are delicate things that evolve in fragile ecosystems over long periods of time -- and thus, I think, they are very rare. If so, then how can we propose a policy for managing commons on such a precarious basis?
The authors recognize this to some extent (my bold):
Potential problems in the use, governance, and sustainability of a commons can be caused by some characteristic human behaviors that lead to social dilemmas such as competition for use, free riding, and overharvesting.
But I wonder if they may be overly optimistic about the sufficient abundance and robustness of norms of reciprocity needed to overcome these "potential problems". The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.
Reciprocity is an axiomatic term of physical or natural laws and their formulae. ("inertial" entities notwithstanding)
"Norms of reciprocity" introduces to the discussion unspecified mores, or shared customs, practiced by members of a society to facilitate exchanges. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
I would rather you hadn't said that... En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
Robert Putnam means reciprocity in the sense of generalized reciprocity, which is something quite different (the exact opposite, in fact):
Bill (host): I want to clarify -- and it's in this context -- Paula's been talking about trust, and you've talked about trust: trust is not the same thing as blind faith. Robert Putnam: No. Bill (host): It is more a matter of being able to predict reliably what somebody will do. Robert Putnam: Yeah. Bill (host): And usually we would like that prediction to be something positive rather than something negative. That makes the relationship possible in ways that just blind faith, you know, that you're going to throw yourself on the mercy of a group of individuals or another individual. Robert Putnam: Right. Actually, technically what social scientists who study this have come to the conclusion is the key is something called reciprocity. Reciprocity is kind of a highfalutin term that just means, "I'll do this for you now, without expecting something back immediately from you, Paula, because down the road Bill, Bill will do something for me, and you'll do something for Bill, and anyhow we'll all see each other at choir practice on Thursday." That kind of sense of, you know, what goes around comes around, that's a very powerful basis for trust. <...> We do actually in a way even now practice a kind of reciprocity, but it's a very special kind of reciprocity. It's "I'll do this for you now because you're going to do that for me", so [it's a] favor trading kind of thing. And that's not particularly efficient; that is, where you only do for somebody else when they're doing for you. The more effective kind of reciprocity is generalized reciprocity: "I'll do this for you, I'll pick up this hitchhiker now, not expecting this hitchhiker's going to do something back for me immediately, because down the road somebody else will pick me up when I'm hitchhiking (not this same person). That kind of generalized reciprocity is really what's fallen way off in America. It makes actually harder to live in this society, when you don't have that generalized reciprocity, because you've got to keep constantly keep track of do I owe him a favor or do I not owe them a favor. In a society where you operate on the principle of generalized reciprocity, you just do, and then it will come back around. Robert Putnam on the Paula Gordon Show (Conversation 6), 2003 October 16
Robert Putnam: No.
Bill (host): It is more a matter of being able to predict reliably what somebody will do.
Robert Putnam: Yeah.
Bill (host): And usually we would like that prediction to be something positive rather than something negative. That makes the relationship possible in ways that just blind faith, you know, that you're going to throw yourself on the mercy of a group of individuals or another individual.
Robert Putnam: Right. Actually, technically what social scientists who study this have come to the conclusion is the key is something called reciprocity. Reciprocity is kind of a highfalutin term that just means, "I'll do this for you now, without expecting something back immediately from you, Paula, because down the road Bill, Bill will do something for me, and you'll do something for Bill, and anyhow we'll all see each other at choir practice on Thursday." That kind of sense of, you know, what goes around comes around, that's a very powerful basis for trust.
<...>
We do actually in a way even now practice a kind of reciprocity, but it's a very special kind of reciprocity. It's "I'll do this for you now because you're going to do that for me", so [it's a] favor trading kind of thing. And that's not particularly efficient; that is, where you only do for somebody else when they're doing for you. The more effective kind of reciprocity is generalized reciprocity: "I'll do this for you, I'll pick up this hitchhiker now, not expecting this hitchhiker's going to do something back for me immediately, because down the road somebody else will pick me up when I'm hitchhiking (not this same person). That kind of generalized reciprocity is really what's fallen way off in America. It makes actually harder to live in this society, when you don't have that generalized reciprocity, because you've got to keep constantly keep track of do I owe him a favor or do I not owe them a favor. In a society where you operate on the principle of generalized reciprocity, you just do, and then it will come back around.
Robert Putnam on the Paula Gordon Show (Conversation 6), 2003 October 16
Interestingly, earlier in the interview he describes Rick Warren's congregation as an example of social capital in the social capital desert of Orange County. (Social capital is intimately linked to [generalized] reciprocity].) The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.
Self-organized commons require <...> a high degree of social capital on the part of the stakeholders. <...> Social capital refers to the aggregate value of social networks (i.e., who people know), and the inclinations that arise from these networks for people to do things for each other (i.e., the norms of reciprocity) (Putnam 2000).
We do actually in a way even now practice a kind of reciprocity, but it's a very special kind of reciprocity. It's "I'll do this for you now because you're going to do that for me", so [it's a] favor trading kind of thing.
A distinction without difference of exchange (search "altruism" in ET comments for example, in particular, gift (i.e. exchange that cannot be (plausibly, i.e. mathematically) quantified ergo monetized or "priced") x : 1/x.
"Generalized" signifies deductive reasoning of delta price history: proof of macroeconic hypotheses which attempt to "decompose" microeconomic phenomena into formulaic terms of aggregate "output" into nominal (price) components, perforce quantifiable "value".
Reciprocity is always a condition of exchange. Whether or not the exchange signifies an equality is some thing determined by "norms of reciprocity" or ideology or custom, ergo macroeconomic ideology that dominates ET discussion of "good" and aggreate ("national") political economy metrics. And, AND, tenets of capitalism perforce promote INEQUALITIES a/k/a "asymetrical information" in order to justify surplus (profit) by ARBITRAGE, that is essentially, a difference between parties' exchange customs ("norms of reciprocity" i.e. laws).
As for Rick Warren, he recently managed to collect $2M from parishoners, an oversubscription to debt < $1M. That's "free" money surplus for Mr Warren's enterprise whatever that may be, actually. To that point: I read the Saddleback transcripts of the so-called debate between McCain and Obama at Warren's website. I bookmarked the transcripts. And today discovered these are SCRUBBED. So much for "social capital" and electronic "social networks." Time magazine dupes are here.
Demonstrating reciprocity: Many people do not know to what enterprise they give their money, although they expect a benefit to themselves by doing so. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Hmmm. I think there is a difference. Namely, the generalized sort of reciprocity precisely does not involve conditions, e.g. a condition of exchange. Generalized reciprocity has no strings attached; with special reciprocity, strings are most definitely attached. These differences are the norms that define the latter form of reciprocity from the former.
At least, that is how I read Putnam/Ostrom on this. The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.
Example 1. I live in NYC. I move HH. I leave goods I no longer need curbside, demanding no payment. Anonymous persons take those objects they want or need.
Example 2. I live in MD. I subscribe to a "free-cycle" BB and advertise goods, demanding no payment. Anonymous persons take those objects they want or need.
Example 3. I send flowers to a friend on the occasion of her birthday.
Example 4. City of Vancouver builds housing for persons participating in Olympic meets for which they do not pay.
By "strings attached" (to a transaction), to what terms exactly does Putnam allude that void the essential condition of reciprocity, denoting inequality aO=1/b | O = object value, a=b. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
I think 2 is a form of generalized reciprocity as Putnam construes it. Not so sure about 1, 3 and 4. In 1, there is no way anyone can identify you as the source of the goods/services given away. In 4, the reciprocity is closer to specific than generalized (we build you guys free housing if you come and participate in the Olympics [bringing all the money and cachet that surrounds that event]).
In 3 -- and this is something I started having questions about as soon as I started posting on this diary -- there are two possibilities: You gave that birthday gift to your friend out of pure love, with no expectation of getting something back. In which case, this would not be a case of reciprocity (generalized or specific), because -- as I have come to realize -- even generalized reciprocity involves of receiving "pay back" at some time somehow from some person, though these, by definition, remain undefined and undetermined. However, if you gave that gift with the hope or expectation of getting back something, then it is a case of reciprocity. And it is a hybrid specific-generalized reciprocity, because on the one hand presumably your friend would be the most likely person you would hope/expect to get something in return from, but on the other hand, you may not know or care if that were at your own next birthday (i.e. a specific date) or just general kindness/kind acts in the aftermath of your gift; also, it is possible that others besides your friend would "pay you back", because they were touched by your thoughtfulness or wanted to do something for you so that you would give them a birthday gift when theirs came around. So complicated example.
In 2, you are identifiable/identified as the source of goods and services, but those accepting them are anonymous, but that is not as relevant, I think. In both specific examples I've found from Putnam himself -- picking up a hitchhiker, and members of a town pitching in for an education fund for other people's kids -- the identity of the receivers is not that important or useful. What is important is that the act occurs within a community context, in particular, where members of the community are mutually identifiable, even though the specific givers and receivers in particular transactions are not.
This last point -- the requirement of a community context -- is one I realized after reading further on Ostrom and Putnam's work. And it is a key point that distinguishes generalized reciprocity from "universal love".
There is another point of difference, which forces me go back on the "no strings attached": in fact, there are conditions involved, but they are weaker than those in specified reciprocity, albeit in significant ways (so it still is a distinction with a difference). The condition is that the giver does expect "pay back", but not from a particular person or by a particular time or in any other specific set of circumstances.
These two points -- the need for a community context, and the expectation of "undetermined" pay back" -- distinguish generalized reciprocity from "universal love" (e.g. the Buddhist/Christian sort). The indefiniteness of the pay back distinguishes generalized reciprocity from specific reciprocity. The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.
I'm glad you replied with that reference. It helped me clarify the Putnam "distinction". It is not the comparative or returned value of the object exchanged; it's always the identity per se of the actors to each other.
Specific reciprocity means "You do x for me, I do y for you." You do x for me = I do y for you a - x + y = b + x - y a ≠ b , x = y In other words, who you are to me is of greater value than what we exchange.
Generalized reciprocity means "I'll do x for you with faith that someone, sometime will also do something nice for me, even if you don't directly repay me for what I do.
I'll do [x] for you with faith [y] = someone sometime will also do something nice for me, even if you don't directly repay me for what I do [x/y]
Let y = "someone sometime will also do something nice for me, even if you don't directly repay me for what I do" = the unknown value, innumerable quantity = faith = ∞
a - xy = b + x/y
This value proposition reminds me of Hamilton's Rule to explain eusocial (or perfectly social) behavior observed among insects. That is C < R x B, such that C= cost to the actor, R= genetic relation of actor and recipient, B= benefit to the recipient. wiki relates the solution to inequality implied by exclusive genetic representation as cooperation:
Social behaviours can be categorized according to the fitness consequences they entail for the actor [a] and recipient [b]. A behaviour that increases the direct fitness of the actor is mutually beneficial if the recipient also benefits, and selfish if the recipient suffers a loss. A behaviour that reduces the fitness of the actor is altruistic if the recipient benefits, and spiteful if the recipient suffers a loss.
Sarah Hrdy relates altruistic kinship test to alloparenting or distributed caregiving:
Hamilton's rule provided sociobiologists with a universal truth: it applied to all social organisms, all other things being equal. But when are all other things ever equal? Especially in a formula that has built into it functions like "cost to an organism" and "benefit." It's impossible to consider these without reference to the environment in which organisms develop, the age and condition of the individual, and constraints imposed by others in that environment.... However we define them, alloparents play critical roles in all cooperative-breeding species and in many primate societies where such assistance allows mothers to breed at a much faster rate than would otherwise be possible.... Those who can, breed; kin who can't, help out.[1999: 69-92]
However we define them, alloparents play critical roles in all cooperative-breeding species and in many primate societies where such assistance allows mothers to breed at a much faster rate than would otherwise be possible.... Those who can, breed; kin who can't, help out.[1999: 69-92]
"universal love," agape, these words express one concept, I think. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
Robert D. Putnam | Blog
"Whereas physical capital refers to physical objects and human capital refers to properties of individuals, social capital refers to connections among individuals -- social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them" "...our lives are made more productive by social ties." "...most of us get our jobs because of whom we know, not what we know -- that is, our social capital, not our human capital" "Social connections are also important for the rules of conduct that they sustain", such as reciprocity. There are two kinds of reciprocity -- specific and generalized. Specific reciprocity means "You do x for me, I do y for you". Generalized reciprocity means "I'll do x for you with faith that someone, sometime will also do something nice for me, even if you don't directly repay me for what I do." "A society characterized by generalized reciprocity is more efficient than a distrustful society for the same reason that money is more efficient than barter. If we don't have to balance every exchange instantly, we can get a lot more accomplished. Trustworthiness lubricates social life a society more efficient. Social ties make a society more efficient. Social = more efficient. Business leaders, are you listening?) Social capital is a powerful force as it can enable us to accomplish things we could not have accomplished on our own. Strong social networks = strength. Business leaders, are you listening? The positive consequences of social capital include mutual support, cooperation, trust, institutional effectiveness i> <"Economic sociologist Mark Granovetter has pointed out that when seeking jobs -- or political allies -- the "weak" ties that link me to distant acquaintences who move in different circles from mine are actually more valuable than the "strong" ties tha link me to relatives and intimate friends whose sociological niche is very like my own." For moving an idea or a project forward, the experience of people far from you can often be more valuable than that of the people closest to you. That's an argument for creating social networking tools inside business that connects people across department or functional team lines -- create opportunities for the input of disparate experience.
The bolded sentence is what is most pertinent to our discussion, though the rest of it helps understand Putnam's overall "vision". The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.
(l) firm level strategic planes of trust formation um derived from "cognitive map of contract" in The Economic institutions of Capitalism, Oliver Williams. Click to enlarge.
I've been waiting for Mr Rutherford's article. Since commentators ascribed to the Nobel committee the mysterious wisdom of GOD --contradiction of good-- to justify its peace prize selection, in particular, I've been wondering, Why Olstrom shares a prize with Williams? I tentatively concluded, the committee did so to dramatize complementary theories of political economy: on the one hand, a "natural" model of transaction (business) behaviors or what one wishes; on the other, an "artificial" model of transaction (business) behaviors or what one has. Neither theorist is a macroeconomic expert of the "neoclassic" school, typified by Wayne's World ideology of comparative advantage and deducted (and legal) applications of GAAP. Rather they are inductive reasoners. So by "artificial", I mean to modify purposefully transaction behaviors proscribed by laws --normalizing rules of conduct of members of a society, jurisdiction. Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
I certainly hope she's right and I'm wrong.
She conducted her field studies on the management of pasture by locals in Africa and irrigation systems management in villages of western Nepal. Elinor Ostrom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Elinor Ostrom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Definitely need to read up on this. The march of civilizations is a series of defenses that man has put up against the dread of pure existence.
Every time a voter selects a psychopath to govern, they reduce their chances of "winning." Diversity is the key to economic and political evolution.
I've been waiting for Mr Rutherford's article.
I was mostly just throwing some things together because the conversation I was having on such matters was so rudely cut off {another place}. And as such I knew the members here would help expand my understanding of the issues. I will definitely read through all the thread to digest some of the concepts I am not familiar with including "reciprocity".
Thanks. Ram Jaane, godknows and Ron Rutherford... Rutherfordian ------------------------------ RDRutherford
