Hardin defined "Tragedy" as dramatic outcome that is the inevitable but unplanned result of a character’s actions. He called the destruction of the commons due to overuse a tragedy because it is inevitably the result of shared use. Hardin stated "Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all." Hardin offered two solution to the tragedy of the commons. He stated, "Mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon" was one approach; the other, greater reliance on property rights. Today environmentalists argue that issues such as global warming and endangered species make the tragedy more relevant than ever before. Environmentalists advocate for government intervention and regulation in order to prevent individuals from depleting the community's resources entirely.
…show more content…
One thing Hardin overlooked is the ability to capture concentrated benefits while dispersing the costs. While, each interest group has every incentive to seek special benefits and disperse the costs of providing those benefits to the public, no interest group has enough incentive to forgo their opportunity to obtain benefits at the public expense. While administrative regulations has produced some gains it has also produced many failures. Federal environmental regulation for example has actually ceased further progress. An instance of this is the imposition of the land-use controls under the Endangered Species Act, it discourages the effective conservation on private land. In addition, while central regulation and taxes can eliminate externalities and ultimately the tragedy of the commons, in order for the regulation and taxes to be effective politicians and regulators are required to have information on social costs and optimal levels of productions as well as private production and compliance costs to individual users. This information is difficult to retain and as a result regulators and politicians make their decisions in the absence of information regarding the opportunity cost, resulting in wasteful misallocation. Government regulation typically relies upon standards that do not reflect differences in production or compliance costs. They also are unlikely to align the …show more content…
However, while government regulation has shown to fail because of high costs, " A series of studies over the past several decades find that the value of the benefits of regulations has consistently and significantly exceeded their costs; cost estimates typically made by the government and industry representatives have tended to be significantly overstated. When regulations are implemented they tend to be much less costly and more efficient than expected"(http://www.epi.org/publication/the_economic_-_and_other_-_benefits_of_regulations/). The decision to partake in government regulation is the difference between appropriate regulations to make our air cleaner, and elimination of the abuse of the financial industry, as well as health reforms that will benefit millions of people. These changes will be implemented through regulation and the government's ability to enforce these regulations will reveal the ultimate
One thing Hardin overlooked is the ability to capture concentrated benefits while dispersing the costs. While, each interest group has every incentive to seek special benefits and disperse the costs of providing those benefits to the public, no interest group has enough incentive to forgo their opportunity to obtain benefits at the public expense. While administrative regulations has produced some gains it has also produced many failures. Federal environmental regulation for example has actually ceased further progress. An instance of this is the imposition of the land-use controls under the Endangered Species Act, it discourages the effective conservation on private land. In addition, while central regulation and taxes can eliminate externalities and ultimately the tragedy of the commons, in order for the regulation and taxes to be effective politicians and regulators are required to have information on social costs and optimal levels of productions as well as private production and compliance costs to individual users. This information is difficult to retain and as a result regulators and politicians make their decisions in the absence of information regarding the opportunity cost, resulting in wasteful misallocation. Government regulation typically relies upon standards that do not reflect differences in production or compliance costs. They also are unlikely to align the …show more content…
However, while government regulation has shown to fail because of high costs, " A series of studies over the past several decades find that the value of the benefits of regulations has consistently and significantly exceeded their costs; cost estimates typically made by the government and industry representatives have tended to be significantly overstated. When regulations are implemented they tend to be much less costly and more efficient than expected"(http://www.epi.org/publication/the_economic_-_and_other_-_benefits_of_regulations/). The decision to partake in government regulation is the difference between appropriate regulations to make our air cleaner, and elimination of the abuse of the financial industry, as well as health reforms that will benefit millions of people. These changes will be implemented through regulation and the government's ability to enforce these regulations will reveal the ultimate