The Meaning,Prospects, and Future of the Commons: Revisiting the Legacies of Elinor Ostrom and Henry George

Elinor Ostrom's work on the commons has convinced mainstream economists that “collective” governance of the commons can overcome the “tragedy of the commons” and “free‐rider problems.” Yet, a more systematic appraisal of Ostrom's work shows that it contains no concept of justice. Her idea of rights is extremely limited, often tied to the notion of joint, rather than equal, rights. Indeed, for Ostrom, the notion of the commons is socially separatist and not ecological. Ostrom uses historical examples, but without analyzing how common possession historically evolved and was undermined by external forces. Hence her proposed “collective action” to save the commons actually accelerates the real threats to the commons. A strikingly different and more holistic approach to the commons is offered by Henry George, who posits the commons as the most important path to social, economic, and ecological sustainability. Unlike Ostrom, who studied the commons “scientifically” to show that some goods are neither private, public, nor club‐based, George studied the commons to understand and remove injustice at the roots. His approach is more critical and certainly more relevant today in showing that another world is possible. However, George's work too, requires significant changes to update its framing of the meanings, prospects, and future of the commons.     

Henry George and the Classical Scientific Research Program: George's Modification of It and His Real Significance for Future Generations

Abstract . Henry George's revision of classical economics was based on a new “hard core” assumption linking efficiency, equity, and social welfare to a revised concept of property rights in land. However, rather than create new core supporting “protective belt” theories, George either accepted or, when necessary, modified existing classical theories especially those which threatened his new hard core, for example, classical “wages-fund” theory. Consequently, George's adaptation of the Ricardian “stationary state” model was less accurate than mainstream classical economics in its predictions concerning the behavior of the distributive shares of income over time, and the effects of technological change on economic growth and economic welfare. Without its own protective belt, George's classicism became a special case of classical economics whose value, nevertheless, existed in its effective criticism of classical property rights theory.     

Curing Slums: The Jane Jacobs Way and the Henry George Way

Henry George and Jane Jacobs were both self‐taught public figures who shared an appreciation of the density, productivity, diversity, and cultural creativity of big cities. A century separated them, during which architects and planners designed cities according to abstract principles, but George and Jacobs expected the creative potential of a city to emerge from its inhabitants, not from a central planner. Although the interests and concerns of George and Jacobs overlapped on only a few topics, they both believed that slum dwellers could solve their own problems, given the right tools. For Jacobs, the solution to dilapidated housing lay not in bulldozing neighborhoods, but in rehabilitating them through a process she called “unslumming,” a gradual process of self‐improvement that has at times been accused of being gentrification. Henry George offered a different solution, involving taxation of land values, one that did not focus on particular neighborhoods and thus avoided the paradox that local improvements would raise the price of real estate too high for local residents to stay. An example is given of how George's solution actually worked in the Rosslyn neighborhood of Arlington, Virginia. In this case, no change in tax policy was needed to bring about a local economic renaissance in the 1960s, merely the realignment of property assessments that correctly reflected the actual value of land.     

Henry George and the Classical Scientific Research Program: The Economics of Republican Millennialism

Abstract . Henry George's classicism was evident in his acceptance of “hard core” assumptions inherent in classical economic analysis, notably that rational self-interested behavior exercise in competitive markets maximized economic welfare. However, George's “stage theory,” the “Law of Human Progress,” led him to reject the classical nexus between social and economic welfare. The emergence of an exchange economy improved efficiency and economic welfare, but institutional changes lagged behind, particularly the redefinition of property rights. Consequently, economic growth based on land as a private rather than public good widened the gap between economic efficiency and social welfare. Hence George's paradox of poverty amidst progress. George resolved the equity efficiency conflict by treating land as a public good. Then, the sale of monopoly rights to land through the “single tax” on land rents captured the difference between the private and social costs of land use.     

Henry George and the Ethics of Economics

Abstract . Henry George's Progress and Poverty (1879) is a great ethical masterpiece. Its moral tone distinguishes the book. More than an economics test, it is a philosophic quest for justice, an impassioned declaration of the rule of natural law. Indignantly attacking the contention that economics has no place for natural law or ethics, George exclaims: “She [economics] has been degraded and shackled; her truths dislocated; her harmonies ignored.” On the contrary, George stresses, political economy (economics) is a science, and like all sciences, is governed by natural law. Furthermore, it is basically “moral.” Science must, of necessity, always lead to ethics. Natural law must, of necessity, always lead to morality, or justice.“The law of human progress, what is it but the moral law?” George asks. “Unless its foundation be laid in justice the social structure cannot stand.” The social ill that perpetuates poverty and the manifold evils it causes is private ownership of land and the private privilege of collecting its rent. “The fundamental law of nature, that the enjoyment by man shall be consequent upon his exertion, is thus violated.”     

Natural Rights: Henry George and the Economic Fruits of a Good Society

This article examines Henry George's understanding of how natural rights grow out of a just society. His views were influenced by the 17^th‐century proponents of natural rights, but cannot be subsumed under them. The connection of freedom to obligation affirmed by George's classical Protestantism allowed him to overcome tension between theories of natural law and natural rights. Rights and responsibilities were not abstractions for George. His practical solution for restructuring society offers a modern path to a more just society in which rights would abound.     

John Dewey and Henry George: The Socialization of Land as a Prerequisite for a Democratic Public

John Dewey frequently praised Henry George, author of a plan to confiscate land values with a “single tax.” Scholars have failed to account for Dewey's support of George. Some have argued that it should not be taken seriously because it is at odds with their interpretation of Dewey's philosophy. This article demonstrates that Dewey perceived the socialization of land values as an essential step toward creating a true democracy. Furthermore, Dewey's interest in George was not an aberration; it was exemplary of his faith in ideology, theory, and transformative social policy. Despite contentions to the contrary, pragmatists of the early 20^th century never emphasized skepticism, moderation, or rote empiricism. In fact, Dewey embraced the philosophy of Henry George as a general theory of history of society. During the Great Depression, Dewey attacked the piecemeal reformism of the New Deal in favor of the comprehensive vision of Henry George.     

Jane Jacobs on Henry George: Progress or Poverty?

Henry George and Jane Jacobs each have devoted followers today who remain mainly outside the intellectual mainstream, both are iconic American intellectuals largely sympathetic to and quite knowledgeable about how markets work, and they each challenged the prevailing economic orthodoxies of their day. Much has been written, pro and con, on George's single tax and on Jacobs's battles with urban planners, and while I don't directly address either here, what I say does have implications for those controversies. In particular, I show how and why their views on the nature of economic progress, and of cities in that progress, fundamentally differ. I trace the difference to George's essentially classical approach to economics in contrast to Jacobs's subjectivist approach, which more radically transcends the economics of her time.     

Henry George's Thought in Relation to Modern Economics

Abstract . Henry George's influence on economic thought has been neglected although his readers included Clark, Marshall, Hobson, Commons, Lerner and Böhm-Bawerk and his ideas provoked thought and discussion, Clark made clear that George stimulated him to develop his marginal productivity theory. But the 19th century American theorist affected or touched upon the neoclassical concept of capital, the theory of externality, the neoclassical versus the classical concept of monopoly; the entitlements approach to distributive justice; the burden of debt and other transfer incomes and capital formation and the theory of expectations. George's influence is wider than generally recognized. The last of the classical economists, he wrote in high Victorian prose about some very modern problems.     

Henry George's Theory of State's Agenda: The Origins of His Ideas on Economic Policy in Adam Smith's Moral Theory

Abstract . The tension between Henry George's reformism and his laissezfaire liberalism was resolved through a system of natural liberty George derived from the relation between Adam Smith's ethics and economics. Crucial for George's nonutilitarian philosophy of government was the interdependence between the moral sense (sympathy) and the prevailing socioeconomic order. In the appropriate institutional environment, the role of the government was diminished since the pervasive moral sense insured justice by monitoring the individual's pursuit of economic self-interest. In contrast, a defective socio economic order required government intervention. For example, land monopoly and the maldistribution of income undermined the role of sympathy, promoted excessive self interest and the breakdown of the system of natural liberty. Government action through the single tax eliminated the “fear of want,” restored an operative moral sense and guaranteed justice in society. Under these conditions, government can provide additional services for a growing society without being susceptible to “corrupt and tyrannous” behavior.     

Henry George and the Intellectual Foundations of the Open Source Movement

The emergence of a common development platform (either in the form of open source projects or proprietary products) and the corresponding economic communities that emerge to support those platforms is similar in scale and scope to the concept of the city found in Henry George's economics of time and place. A modern counterpart to the 19^th‐century focus on land can be found in the 20^th‐century concern with the establishment of intellectual property rights that fence off a portion of the creative commons in order to construct temporary monopolies. Captured in the open source movement where licenses that specify property rights are adopted in order to provide a great deal of flexibility in terms of how ideas are used and shared, a strong connection can be drawn between this modern movement and the work of Henry George. Building a connection between the two provides greater clarity in terms of understanding how in a modern technology‐based economy, progress can be achieved without poverty.     

Henry George and Immigration

Henry George's opposition to free immigration may be surprising in light of his positions on other aspects of economic theory and policy. This essay reviews George's statements on immigration policy, discusses inconsistencies of these statements with his positions on free trade and Malthusian population theory, compares George's views with the neoclassical economic perspective on immigration, and suggests that implementation of George's policy of taxing land values would share the gains from immigration in a manner that might reduce opposition to open borders.     

Saving the Commons in an Age of Plunder

Land ownership, as commonly understood today, originated with the enclosure movement during the English Tudor era almost four centuries ago. Karl Polanyi referred to this “propertization” of nature as the “great transformation.” That land, water, and air was a social commons is now archaic and forgotten, and with it the classical economic concept of rent, which was, in theory, once paid to royalty as the earth's guardian. Garrett Hardin's article, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” raised alarm about the abuse and loss of this realm, and he recommended constraints and privatization to prevent this. Most people view titles to landed property much as they do their household goods, but Henry George saw that the earth should be seen as a common resource and its value taxed to benefit everyone. This would restore economic equilibrium to market exchanges and pay for government services. The capture of natural resource rents can supplant taxes on wages and capital goods, and it comports with all textbook principles of sound tax theory. This policy can be the modern replacement for the commons, and implementing resource rent capture is both economically and technically feasible.     

Louis F. Post and the Single Tax Movement, 1872–98

Abstract . The career of Louis F. Post (1849–1928), upon his return to New York following a stint as a Carpetbagger in South Carolina, became, for a time, that of publicist. Post first attempted to break into regular Republican politics, then turned to Journalism on the staff of the New York Truth, and finally was converted to the Single Tax philosophy of Henry George in the early 1880s. Thereafter, Post became George's closest confidante and labored hard as a writer, lecturer, and political organizer to elect George and others to make the Single Tax a reality (1). The author's sources include Post's unpublished autobiography, the files of The Public, The Standard and the Cleveland Recorder, as well as material from the Henry George Collection in the New York Public Library.     

The Economics of Henry George: A Review Essay

This is a welcome addition to the literature on Henry George. Bryson seeks to “rehabilitate” George—by highlighting his major achievements, by explaining why academic economists have rejected or neglected him, and by showing how nonetheless George has had a major but little‐acknowledged impact on economic thought.     

Henry George and Europe: As Dissident Economist and Path-breaking Philosopher, He was a Catalyst for British Social Reform

Abstract . Henry George's influence was greater in the United Kingdom than in the United States. The 80s and 90s there were particularly favorable for the reception of his revolutionary ideas. Though, thanks to such thinkers as Alfred Russell Wallace and James and John Stuart Mill, a land reform movement already existed, its sudden rise to national significance was due to George. George's writing and speaking skills and his dedication moved many serious citizens into the political Left and heavily influenced men and women who became leaders of British non-Marxian socialism, at the formation and consolidation of their movement. While George's followers broke with both the Wallace and socialist movements, George's rhetorical talents awakened the broad circles of thinking people to a consciousness of the full range of the social question.     

Human Nature from a Georgist Perspective

George's view of human nature was also deeply rooted in the Judeo‐Christian tradition. Since God's creation was good, so too were humans intended for good—not evil. Through creation, each person was accorded dignity by God and equal status with all other humans, regardless of the accidents of birth. God established people as stewards rather than owners of the world; they were entrusted with the special labor of enacting just and eternal laws that would perpetuate creation itself and dispense God's bounty for all. He intended them to be rational beings, seekers of justice, communitarian and free. By allowing, participating in, and often benefitting from unjust structures regarding land ownership, Christians engaged in theft. It was thus up to George and others in “the movement” to build consensus, to persuade, to become politically involved, and ultimately to inaugurate, practice, and enforce land laws allowing equal opportunity to all.     

The Single Tax Movement and Progressivism, 1880-1920*

Abstract . Henry George's Single Tax movement and the Progressive movement in the United States were inter-related. After the publication of Progress and Poverty a political movement developed around George. It failed, partly because George was a poor politician although he had proved a master-publicist, partly because he aroused a formidable opposition. Nevertheless the single taxers did contribute to progressive reform a specific plan for manipulating the environment in a Social Darwinistic way. George's philosophy also rejected socialism in favor of a reformed and purified capitalism—perhaps the most important theme in 20th century reform thought in America. Moreover, the Single Tax movement contributed to the democratic reform movement such leaders as Tom L. Johnson, Brand Whitlock, Louis F. Post, Frederic C. Howe, George L. Record, Newton D. Baker and Franklin K. Lane.     

The Social,Spatial, and Economic Roots of Urban Inequality in Africa: Contextualizing Jane Jacobs and Henry George

Unravelling the social and economic roots of urban inequality in Africa has remained a thorny issue in African political economy. Stripped to its bare essentials, the critical questions are who causes urban inequality, what causes it, and how it is caused? While all different, the questions are interrelated. Answering the “who causes inequality” question requires a related analysis of what and why, and that is connected to the how question. Indeed, the how question has two parts—how inequality is caused and how it can be addressed. Both are connected to the why question and to its resolution. Unfortunately, while studies about urban inequality abound, they tend to hive off one aspect or another of the tripartite questions on inequality and, even worse, they study the three questions separately. This article tries to overcome the existing atomistic and piecemeal approach to the study of urban inequality in Africa by contextualizing the work of Jane Jacobs and Henry George, who took a holistic view of urban inequality. It argues that Jacobsianism and Georgism have much to offer in terms of understanding urban inequality in Africa, but neither analysis goes far enough to be able to serve as a solid foundation for policy. Ultimately, it is in their approach to urban analysis—the emphasis on context, on actual urban problems, inductivism, and some of their mechanisms for change such as George's land tax and cautious abstraction, in that order, along with their combined vision—which I call “diversity in equality”—that can add to the insights of postcolonialism in understanding and transforming urban inequality in Africa.