Search

The notion of common good has a specific role at the present time of globalisation. The concept of global public good is also used in this context. These terms, close together but also different, bring to the questions of appropriation, production and scarcity. This article first reminds the main anthropological approaches on circulation of goods, exchanges, and appropriation. The notion of common goods makes a reference to a golden age, a lost paradise before property. Then we propose a critical analysis of global public goods which are supposed to sublimate global exploitation and competition.

The urban policies of many Italian cities have been imbued with the concept of “common goods”. Two modalities aimed at framing autonomous initiatives of citizens involved in the management and production of the urban will be studied : the “regulations for the shared management of urban commons goods”, promoted by the association Labsus in about 150 cities, including Bologna ; the framework set up by the public authorities of Naples, instituting a regulation of the commons, different, at least in part, from the practices inspired by Labsus. From the presentation of these policies, this article develops a critical approach to the concept of “common good”, arguing the need to think about common as a political principle rather than as an object.

This article tackles the question of the links between the concepts of common goods and property in the context of globalisation. First we try to define theses different notions in the fields of law and economics. Our aim is to demonstrate the importance of pluridisciplinary approaches to analyse this links. Then we present various conceptions of common goods and public goods, to underline divergences and convergences. Finally we propose some perspectives offered by different heterodox approaches, in particular institutionalism, ethics and political economy.

Notions like “global commons” and “global public goods” do not easily apply to biodiversity because the latter is claimed by the states in the name of sovereignty and apportioned to business companies in the context of a globalised market. Moreover conservation and management policies do not look alike at local, national and international levels. Therefore this coordination between international regimes and national and local levels is the main challenge of a truly transcalar biodiversity governance

In this essay, the author discusses the notion of « lived common goods. » Lived common goods must answer three criteria : non-rivalry, non-exclusion, and third, being several persons is the condition for these goods to be produced and experienced. Further, they are immaterial. The author illustrates the notion through a series of examples, one being conversation. Finally, he shows how the notion can contribute to expand ecological thought to human psychic life.

This article uses the Ostrom’s notion of socio-ecological system in order to characterize agricultural practices generating social and environmental benefits and to identify factors that ease or limit their implementation. The methodology is based on three case studies in France on sustainable agricultural practices in Langres, about preservation of water quality and quantity in Volvic and on agro-pastoralism in the Cévennes National Park. Five main factors could be identified that point to the importance of public intervention when it matches with concerted local governance between public and private actors at different management scales.