PART II: DISCUSSING THE NORMATIVE ELEMENTS OF COMMON GOOD DYNAMICS
Introduction to Part II
© 2022 Book Editors, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0290.05
Aim of the Part II
This second part aims at discussing a matrix of common good dynamics. By ‘matrix’, we understand a model capturing the dynamic equilibrium of systems of common goods. The first part proposed five key drivers as the necessary conditions required to trigger common good dynamics in a social system, namely Agency freedom, Humanity, Justice, Governance, and Stability. In our model, each key driver plays a specific role and answer a specific question: how much freedom does the social system allow to its participants? How human are standard expectations of behaviours created by this institutional framework? Does a basic set of common goods exist? Are they fairly distributed to all members of the social system, and stable over time? And finally: are the basic common goods governed as commons in this social system?
Such a model is quite unheard of in development literature. So, each of these elements was brought into an interdisciplinary discussion with the existing body of research. We asked several leading experts to review how agency freedom, humanity, justice, governance, and stability may indeed trigger common good dynamics. For this purpose, these scholars engaged with and discussed each of these elements on the basis of a discussion paper which included the first version of the matrix and an initial metric of common good dynamics (the revised version of which is now Chapter 2). This second part mirrors the debate we had while discussing the matrix during our research seminars. It will help readers to situate our approach within the existing literature on development. These chapters show both the difficulties and the fascinating aspects brought about by a common good perspective on development processes. They mark the start of a necessary conversation.
To Whom Is it of Interest?
This second part will be of interest to academics and postgraduate students who follow the ongoing debates on development. It will show them how a perspective based on commons sheds light on the importance of social processes to development practice. In the capability approach community, for example, an increasing number of authors calls for the recognition of ‘social or collective capabilities’, which in turns requires an understanding of collective agency freedom itself, not as a given, but as a social process. To take another example, Ostrom’s late understanding of polycentric governance of commons naturally leads to the recognition that governance itself may be a common.
Why Does it Matter?
The shortcomings of political and economic liberalism, the polarisation of societies, and the resurgence of populisms and ideologies around the globe require us to explore new ways to understand our world. While the twentieth century can be seen as defending the value and rights of individuals, the great question of the twenty-first century may well be the following: how can we live together, more specifically, how can we live together as human beings? The urbanism of our cities brutally shows how we have shifted toward an ever more individualistic and economic understanding of our coexistence. Modern cities structure social life around malls and supermarkets (consuming together) and sport and leisure facilities (having fun together). This is in strong contrast to the political and religious centres of social life of the previous centuries (to decide and act together; to pray together). A common good approach shows the need to think about the flimsy definition of society defended by political liberalism. What are the social goods we all value? How do we organise to produce and share them?