Homeland Security Watch

Comment by William R. Cumming

October 12, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

A note for the record and could be wrong but believe she shared the Nobel for Economics with a co-winner.
Two Federal agencies (there are many others) the USACOE (US Army Corps of Engineers–DOD) and the National Forest Service-Dept. of Ag. are charged in part with regulation of the commons {water resources in one case and forests in the other) and their statutory mandates encompass multiple users and purposes. If her theory is correct both these agencies current management systems are defective from an economic standpoint and it would of interest to know how many professional economists each employes and how many understand the new NOBEL Prize winners writings. And of course who in Congress could evaluate both of these federal agencies on the basis of economics and whether they can or should follow the advice of Ms. Ostrom. And congrats to her and all the others. Any analysis of regulation and use of the commons is of interest to me although admittedly often beyond by ken. What is of interest of course is that so much of the market theory of the US governance and economic system has allowed capture of the commons for private purposes. By the way the purchase of private US water systems by German nationals has been extensive over the last four decades. The odd thing is that regulation of water resources in Germany (and the forests) is steeped in law and tradition as well as economics. What would be interesting to me would be comparative analysis of how various nation states regulate or don’t regulate or manage or don’t manage their water and forest resources. If you think that water transportation systems and lumbering represent the best of free enterprise just as regulation of the airways always remember that usally those private entities involved have gotten those common resources at bargain rates or even free.

Comment by Mark Chubb

October 12, 2009 @ 3:55 pm

Dr. Ostrom’s essential point seems to be that neither theories of markets nor of government regulation adequately address sustainable solutions to common property resource problems. As she points out, a staggeringly wide array of alternative institutional arrangements from the simple to the complex lie between these two extremes.

I am impressed by your recognition that this work could be taken to be analogous to resilience. However, I am not sure I agree with your conclusion regarding federalism and the current institutional arrangements vis a vis redundancy of government emergency management infrastructure and overlapping interests and influences with the civil sector.

Ostrom seems to be suggesting that a range of options can and do work effectively in spite of or in the absence of government intervention rather than in partnership with it. Ostrom’s work shows us that private and non-governmental arrangements, including some self-organizing and emergent organizational forms, do a more than adequate job of meeting community needs, especially in the aftermath of a focusing event.

That said, I do agree, that this work suggests the importance (at every level of government) of working collaboratively with private, voluntary, and community-based organizations to leverage social capital, self-interest, and altruistic impulses. Seeing government and markets as extensions of these arrangements, rather than replacements for them seems to be the important point.

Comment by Philip J. Palin

October 12, 2009 @ 4:39 pm

Mark Chubb makes an important point — and accurately reflects Dr. Ostrom’s work — in writing, “a range of options can and do work effectively in spite of or in the absence of government intervention.”

A plurality of my readers, often a majority, are employed by or closely related to the federal government. Too often, in my experience, the federal government tends — usually without intention — to diminish the value of other levels of government and, especially, the role of the private sector and individual citizen in “governance” (as meant by Ostrom et al). Even for someone who has never read Edmund Burke, Ostrom encourages respect for the wisdom that may be found in inefficient, community-based decisions and decision-making. As a result, I was attempting to encourage this group of readers to some constructive self-criticism.

Mark has caught me being preachy, not for the first time. That said, I am also very tolerant of redundant governmental structures for emergency management. I have never been a big fan of efficiency per se. An avid pursuit of efficiency seems to easily become an enemy of other Goods to which I give greater value.

Bill is correct that Ms. Ostrom will share the Nobel Prize in Economics with Oliver Williamson.

Comment by William R. Cumming

October 13, 2009 @ 8:05 am

The mechanisms by which the federal government, both Congress and Executive Branch, obtain input in the form of technical information and benefits and costs of federal programs, functions, and activities is extremely primitive and virtually unstudied by the disciplines of Public Administration and Government or those involved in Science and Technology issues. In fact, if you set out to design the worst system, you probably would not be far off from the current set up. Just two examples [and hey there are thousands]! President Ronald Reagans destruction of the Water Resources Council and the non-statutory river basis commissions. The Republican Majority in both houses in the early 90′s destruction of the Office of Technology Assessment. What I find interesting about this administration, and always remember I am a fuzzy headed liberal, usually wanting to vote the In’s Out so they don’t feed too long at the trough, is that this administration seems to be seizing on many of the bad practices of the past. Example, the race to create CZARS and the utilization of political loyalists as opposed to those who “Know.” Oh well I guess our corporate socialist state will run a while longer, perhaps even to the end of the century.

Comment by Philip J. Palin

October 13, 2009 @ 8:27 am

In the early days of homeland security, I proposed organizing the nascent endeavor around a functional model based on the soil conservation system. I was met with the same eye-blinking incredulity that is often prompted by my posts at The Watch. But I persist in thinking it is a promising framework.

Our approach to soil conservation is an interesting mix of federal, state, county, township, and entirely private units cooperating, collaborating, and depending on each other to achieve a common good. As Bill Cumming notes, the soil conservation system, as with so many similar models, has been buffeted by well-intended, but poorly conceived notions of reform. But in many respects soil conservation continues to operate in a manner that Ostrom and others would recognize as a Common Property Resource. It is a messy, complicated, and — at its best — very effective model. It is most effective when Ostrom’s principles of CPR are self-consciously cultivated and applied.

Just a couple of links in case you are interested:

National Association of Conservation Districts (http://www.nacdnet.org)

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/)