The impact of the Commons Systems in Building
Collaborative Capacity through Enhanced Social Learning
Onnuri Kim
Graduate School of Public Policy
University of Tokyo

The Commons systems can facilitate
collaborative capacity through sociallearning
not only for better collaboration
but also for initiation of collaboration
which involves transformative(experiential) learningIn prisoner's dilemma situation, people
cannot realize social optimal and go for thesecond best strategies not the optimal
strategies

Axelrod, Robert (1984), The Evolution ofCooperation.
Axelrod, Robert (1997),
The Complexity of Cooperation:
Agent-Based Models ofCompetition and Collaboration

Elinor Ostrom (1990) Governing theCommons: The Evolution of Institutions forCollective Action

The collaborative resource governing(Ostrom, 1990).
Both theoretically and empirically, it is foundthat they can work as an alternative to themarket or hierarchical resource governanceregime by dealing with social dilemmas withcollective actions or collaboration (Ostrom,1990; Wade, 1994; Gibson et al. (eds.), 2000;
Agrawal & Ostrom, 2001; Ostrom &Nagendra, 2006).

communal grasslands
community forests
community restaurant
diverse forms of cooperatives
a collective resource governance systemthrough which a group of individuals
collaboratively produce, manage, andconsume certain kinds of resources.

Interactions:
Simple discontinuous communication
flows

Relationship:
Loose short-term relationship withweak or moderate interdependency
Input & Output:
Low to medium/
Limited means of input or contribution

Collaboration

Cooperation

Function:
Exchange information// Behavioral Coordination without
shared goals

Function:
Exchange information /Creation & Revision of common visions
and collective actions
Behavioral Coordination with sharedgoals and visions /Sharing Resources in the common-poolform
Interactions:Multiple continuous communication
flows (including informal chatting andinstitutionalized deliberation)/
Active forms of interactions possible(including non materialistic social
exchange like praise , criticism& indirect
reciprocity, and persuasive socialinteractions)
Relationship:
Strongly long term relationship basedon moderate to strong
interdependency
Input & Output:
Medium to High/
Diversified means of input or
contribution is possible* Adapted from Himmelman 2002

Do the commons systems actually facilitate individuals’
capacity to collaborate better?
No comparison of the collaborative capacity commonsgroup and the non-commons group though anexperimental game has been made.
How the institutions for collaboration or collaborative
regime would emerge.
No games were able to describe evolution of theinstitutions & capacity of collaboration because of theabsence of communicative interaction in the gamesettings

YES, Commons systems can facilitate
collaborative capacity

Subject Groups
1)
The commons group:
A group of active members of different grass-root community
organizations in one municipal region2) The non-commons group:
A group of graduate students who belong to the same department ofAgricultural Economics- The Number of Participant1) The commons group: 3 groups with 5 people in each group (15 peopleparticipants in total)
2) The non-commons group: 4 groups with 4 people in each group (16people participants in total)- The Number of Rounds per Game: 3 rounds- Duration: 35 minutes or so (5 minutes per round)1) Participants who manage to make someone (including her or himself) standin front or behind of their chairs through communication can get $ 100 perperson. No irrational or violent measures such as threatening are allowed.
2) Except changing the location of table and chairs, any creative trials are allow
ed and encouraged--> Give more control and freedom on game dynamics and results3) Each group should report the resulted process & outcome briefly to other groups after each round--> Accelerate learning by allowing more information input on possible strategies

Better game results of the Commons Group (CG)as a group
The sub-groups of the CG will show morecreative and diverse ways to maximize the groupresults
The sub-groups of the Non CG will show more
smart ways to maximize the individual results& set competitive games to determine andlegitimize creation of losers and winners

500

Pay off ($)

450

The Non-commons

The Commons

400350

Pay off ($)

300
250
200
150200Round 1150

Round 2Round 3

1001005050Round 30Group1 Group2Round 1Group3Round 1Round 2Round 3Round 2Round 10Group1Round 3

Group2Group3Group4Round 1

Group1100

Group2100

Group3100Group4100Round 1

Group1200

Group2100

Group3100

Round 2100

100

100100Round 2500

200500Round 3100200100100Round 3500

500500600
500

Pay off ($)

400
300
2001000Non-commons
Commons

Round 1Round 2

Round 3100100

125133.3333

400500. Homo-economicus Paradigm: The total payoff of the group = $ 500

Each individual earns $ 200 by standing in front of their own chair and counting the otherperson who is standing on the opposite side towards them

In Collaborative Paradigm, more extensive informal institutional building andinteractions can be observed e.g. The creation of common fundIn this extended circle version, people become more creative players by counting allother members in the circle as standing behind their chair allowing $ 5,000 payoff foreach.

The non-commons group were not really selfish
or competitive. In fact, they were very
cooperative but could not be collaborative.
The results of the two groups in the first roundwas not dramatically different(especially in terms of individual pay-offs)
but the difference got huge in the next rounds
Why??? 3 differences

1) whether they perceived the game as zero-sum
or non zero-sum
N-C: zero-sum game - Winners & Losers
C: non zero-sum game - Collaborators
2) whether they pooled resources or not
N-C: Did not pooled $ --> No common-poolresource to work together
C: -> Pooled $ --> A common pool-resource system
3) whether they interacted actively with eachother (Deliberation and Collective experiment)3) whether they interacted actively with eachother (Deliberation and Collective experiment)
N-C: Few agents actively Communicating &No Deliberation
C : Agents are actively communicating& Deliberation - setting simple collaborativeframework through deliberation
N-C did not get to learn how to establish
institutions of collaboration3) whether they interacted actively with eachother (Deliberation and Collective experiment)
N-C: No collaborative frameworkNo experimental collective actions
C : Players Engaged in the proposing options &experimenting themN-C did not get to learn how to develop
institutions of collaboration

CGs :1) perceiving the game as zero-sum or nonzero-sum2) pooling pooled resources or not3) interacting actively with each other(Deliberation and Collective experiment)* Qualitative differences resulting in
Quantitative difference (Higher group pay-offs)
through different level of social learning

Commons group tend to show higher collaborative
capacity AND social learning for better collaborative
capacity.
Perceptions play a very important role in decision making
process determining the possibility of pooling resources
and thus of creating a commons system
The Commons group could collaborate in the newenvironment from the very beginning while the noncommons group couldn't even though they intended.
Therefore, the triple-loop (experiential) learning by thecommons systems

The Commons systems can facilitate
collaborative capacity through sociallearning
not only for better collaboration
but also for initiation of collaboration
which involves transformative(experiential) learning

One need to go through experiential(transformative) learning in order to startcollaborating and become better at it
The commons systems enable people to havebetter collaborative capacity even outside of
the particular community

Your questions and comments are very muchappreciated(Hargrove, 2003)

•

Mutually Reinforcing Relationship•Social learning occurs“when people engage one another, sharing diverse perspectives andexperiences to develop a common framework of understanding andbasis for joint action” (Schusler et al., 2003, p311, emphasis added).

•through “the collective action and reflection” (Keen et al. , 2005, p 4,emphasis added).
Collaborative framework is required for social learning as sociallearning is the learning through collaborative engagements (such ascollective action and reflection)

The concept of “the communities of practice”: The capacity of social learning units or “the communities of practice”
develops based on1) members bounded by the jointly formed understanding of the group
identityin terms of vision and function, and accountability of individuals in terms ofboth responsibility and rights;
2) proactive participation of members in establishing the learning units
through collective engagement;3) the common pool of resources(Wenger, 2000)
For collaborative systems like the commons 2.0s, enhanced social
learning enables further development of collaborative capacity of thesystems.
Positive feedback loop of social learning and collaborative capacity

The Means of Social Learning
Interactions & Actions (Wenger, 1998)
1) Communication and collective action;2) Innovation and collective action(Ostrom, 1998, p 6)
Collective reflection and action(Keen et al. , 2005, p 4)
1) Deliberation via Collaborative Process2) Experiment via Collaborative Process

Whether the non-commons systems candevelop collaborative capacity through social
learning given more time? What can facilitateor hinder the process ?
What would be the impact of heterogeneity
on collaboration capacity