Abstract
The economic crisis triggered several restrictive policies aimed at reducing public expenses. One of the options pursued in this respect concerns public goods and implies an increased efficiency in the management of such goods through the involvement of private players and the sale of public assets to reduce costs. This intervention line is, however, reductive, limited to a “quantitative” approach, which could weaken public administration’s responsiveness towards public needs. It is thus mandatory to get over the traditional approach aimed at correcting the drawbacks of the past models, largely inspired by the combination of reducing costs and increasing market influence.
Researching solutions to tackle the financial crisis requires new explanations and innovative paradigms that are able to deliver innovation and economic growth, on the one side, and social cohesion, on the other side. In this respect, the correct approach should start from the essential needs of citizens, rather than from the best possible allocation of goods and resources, focusing not only on the individual’s fruition, but on a collective utilization of public goods aimed at reaching an inclusive redistribution of the advantages and values connected to such goods.
In light of the previous explanations, it is possible to observe that commons can be useful to get over the financial crisis not only as resources useful to overcome the crisis in times of hardship. They cannot be considered just as goods feasible to increase production and economic growth and neither as public resources granted to public institutions to deliver services. Moreover, the effectiveness of commons as anti-crisis tools stems from their potential to generate welfare, encouraging a cooperative and collaborative approach, which may in its turn be useful to tackle the crisis. If duly protected, commons allow the development of new social and economic relations between public institution and citizens, triggering beneficial dynamics aimed at satisfying the needs of people thorough “social added value”.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
See Napolitano (2006), pp. 141 ff.
- 2.
- 3.
On the relationship between the economic crisis and the heavy debts of the banks, see for instance: Ricoveri (2013), pp. 269 ff.
- 4.
For an overview of the different paths of reflections on commons, see Nespor (2013), pp. 665 ff.
- 5.
Studies on this point are numerous and we hereby make reference to the bibliography of Bombardelli (2016).
- 6.
The description considers different essential features of the commons, but it cannot cover for all their different characteristics, given the undeniable difficulties, at least in legal theory, of finding a thorough definition of commons. On this point, see Cortese (2016), pp. 37 ff.
- 7.
It is very important, in this respect, the distinction devised by Ostrom (1990), pp. 30 ff.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
The necessity of having an essential set of rules to rely on in order to protect the commons is widely shared. That is confirmed even when the protection of commons can be carried out through self-governing and self-organizing solutions developed by the users. On this point, see Ostrom (1990), pp. 90 ff. On the relationship between commons and law, Lessig (2013), pp. 1279 ff.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13.
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
For the full text, see www.vialiberamc.it/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Carta-europea-dei-beni-comuni.pdf [last accessed on 30th march 2016].
- 17.
For the full text, see www.europeanwater.org/it/notizie/notizie-locali/397-manifesto-per-i-beni-comuni-nell-unione-europea [last accessed on 2th august 2017].
- 18.
For the text, see www.ong.it/per-uneuropa-dei-diritti-e-dei-beni-comuni [last accessed on 2th august 2017].
- 19.
See www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/intergroupes/VIII_LEG_06_Common_goods.pdf [last accessed on 2th august 2017]. The unit that took part in this research had the opportunity to expose the results of its scientific activity to the intergroup on September 15th, 2015 in Brussels.
- 20.
- 21.
- 22.
On the relevance of social cohesion as the legal ground to grant a full protection of commons, see the arguments of Lucarelli (2013), pp. 1513 ff.
- 23.
Giglioni (2016), pp. 155 ff.
- 24.
- 25.
- 26.
- 27.
- 28.
See, Arena (2010).
- 29.
Rodotà Commission—For the amendment of the provisions of the Civil Code relating to public goods, Law proposal, 14 June 2007, in www.giustizia.it.
- 30.
- 31.
- 32.
As it has been demonstrated by the referendum concerning water in 2011; on this issue, see Ciervo (2012), pp. 159 ff.
- 33.
On the specific relevant statutes, see Cortese (2016), p. 46.
- 34.
- 35.
Arena (1997), pp. 29 ff.
- 36.
Arena (2010).
- 37.
Coccoli (2013), pp. 255 ff.
- 38.
As it will be pointed out in the following pages, it seems that rivalry problems may arise not only with regard to “first generation material commons”, but also with reference to “immaterial commons” produced by a collective action, that are usually considered non-rival (see, supra, footnote 2). That is due to the mutual liability among different people that is usually necessary to develop such immaterial commons.
- 39.
For the demonstration that commons satisfy primary and fundamental needs not artificially developed by consumerism, see Pennacchi (2012), pp. 259 ff. and 375 ff.; Maddalena (2013), pp. 142 ff. On the importance of the participation of citizens in singling out the relevant needs, see Mattei (2011); Algostino (2013), par. 3; Lucarelli (2015), par. 6 ff.
- 40.
- 41.
Assuming that, in satisfying needs, individuals can act not only moved by self-interest but also by embracing civil responsibility with a cooperative aim, it becomes possible to find utilization tools that do not harm nor reduce resources through extra utilization, allowing an efficient distribution. See, Ostrom (1990), pp. 38 ff.
- 42.
This makes it difficult to place tout court commons within collective properties, as it has been pointed out by Giannini (1985), pp. 92 ff., which considers commons as “a modern form of collective property”, distinguishing them from the public goods owned by the State. On this specific topic see, with different perspectives, Lucarelli (2015), par. 5 ff.; Caliceti (2016), pp. 74 ff.
- 43.
Donolo (2012), pp. 16 ff.
- 44.
See, for instance, Giannini (1985), pp. 92 ff., which considers fruition by the collectivity as a distinctive feature of the commons, while public powers would be relevant in order “to establish, preserve and manage the connected collective advantages”.
- 45.
See the definitions put forward by the Rodotà Commission (details in footnote 29).
- 46.
- 47.
See Rodotà (2012), pp. 315 ff.
- 48.
The unlimited access to commons may actually generate the negative dynamics described by Hardin (1968), pp. 1243 ff.
- 49.
On the necessity to regulate the access to commons, see Lessig (2013), pp. 1205 ff.
- 50.
The remarks by Giannini (1985), p. 93, do not seem in line with the latest developments. The author, indeed (30 years ago), considered commons to be “so abundant” that it was not necessary to speculate about their ownership and management.
- 51.
On the risk of collectivity taking over the expectations of singles, harming their fundamental rights, see a Vitale (2013), pp. 283 s., p. 689 e p. 1423.
- 52.
Pennacchi (2012), pp. 556 ff.
- 53.
The risk is particularly underlined by Esposito (2006), p. IX. The community, in this respect, is not a common subject or the sum of individuals, but the being of the relationship between individuals in itself, which is something more of the single individualities and can be added to them.
- 54.
On the difficult measurement of the scope of the different kinds of community and on the relevance of the scale of the phenomena related to the common needs to be satisfied, see the critical remarks by Vitale (2013), pp. 283 ff. and 689 ff.
- 55.
Esposito (2006), pp. XIII ff.
- 56.
On the “mutually constructive relationship” between commons and communities, see Marella (2012), pp. 21 ff.
- 57.
- 58.
- 59.
On the value of the munus, as a gift to individuals implying the beneficiary’s duty to give back to the community as a basic rule, see Esposito (2006), pp. X ff.
- 60.
- 61.
See Rodotà (2012), pp. 326 ff.
- 62.
The distinction between the nature of the goods and their ownership has been proposed, inter alia, by the Rodotà Commission (see footnote 2).
- 63.
See Grossi (2012), pp. 1061 ff.
- 64.
In case law, in particular, Court of Cassation, ruling of February 14th, 2011, no. 3665; see also the comment by Cortese (2011), pp. 1170 ff.
- 65.
Caliceti (2016), p. 69.
- 66.
For a careful analysis, see Lucarelli (2015), par. 2 ff.
- 67.
See Boscolo (2015), pp. 69 ff. and 81 ff.
- 68.
- 69.
On the importance of granting rights to users as a crucial step in the management of the commons, see Ostrom (1990), pp. 90 ff.
- 70.
See Simonati (2016), pp. 143 ff.
- 71.
- 72.
On commons as complex and adaptive systems, see Levin, (1999), pp. 39 ff. and 195 ff.
- 73.
On the “immunization” that the traditional right of private property grants to the owner, see Esposito (2004), pp. 61 ff.
- 74.
On the possibility, for communities, to limit the rights of the owner (especially when the owner is a public subject), see Lucarelli (2015), par. 7.
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.
On the new proceedings concerning commons, see Simonati (2016), pp. 103 ff.
- 78.
- 79.
See Franzini (2012), p. 65.
- 80.
See the criticisms of Vitale (2013), pp. 283 ff.
- 81.
Mattei (2013), pp. 332 ff.
- 82.
Arena (1997), pp. 29 ff.
- 83.
For this purpose, public administrations should coordinate the activities pursued by citizens under art. 118 of the Italian Constitution, on the one side, and ensure social and economic cohesion, on the other side, avoiding an excessive localism in the management of commons. Although with different views, see Arena (2011), pp. 101 ff.; Lucarelli (2015), par. 7.
- 84.
On the role of the so called “third sector” in protecting commons, see Pellizzari (2016), pp. 259 ff.
- 85.
Pennacchi (2012), pp. 1262 ff.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
Once again, Pennacchi (2012), pp. 1262 ff.
- 89.
See also Bollier (2013), pp. 3199 ff.
References
Algostino A (2013) Riflessioni sui beni comuni tra il “pubblico” e la Costituzione. Costituzionalismo.it, p 3. http://www.costituzionalismo.it/articoli/460/
Allegretti U (2002) Diritti e Stato nella mondializzazione. Città Aperta, Troina
Arena G (1997) Introduzione all’amministrazione condivisa. Studi parlamentari e di politica costituzionale 117–118:29–65
Arena G (2010) Beni comuni. Un nuovo punto di vista. www.labsus.it: http://www.labsus.org/?s=Beni+comuni.+Un+nuovo+punto+di+vista%2C+
Arena G (2011) Cittadini attivi. Un altro modo di pensare l’Italia, 2nd edn. Laterza, Roma-Bari
Arena G (2014a) All’Italia dei beni comuni piace il nostro regolamento. www.labsus.it: http://www.labsus.org/?s=All%27Italia+dei+beni+comuni+piace
Arena G (2014b) Un regolamento per la cura condivisa dei beni comuni. www.labsus.it: http://www.labsus.org/?s=Un+regolamento+per+la+cura+condivisa
Berti G (1994) La responsabilità pubblica. Cedam, Padova
Bollier D (2013) Una nuova politica dei beni comuni. In: Coccoli L (ed) Commons, beni comuni. Il dibattito internazionale, Kindle edn. goWare, Firenze, pp 3067–3286
Bombardelli M (ed) (2016) Prendersi cura dei beni comuni per uscire dalla crisi. Nuove risorse e nuovi modelli di amministrazione. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli
Boscolo E (2015) Beni comuni e consumo di suolo. Alla ricerca di una disciplina legislativa. In: Urbani P (a cura di) Politiche urbanistiche e gestione del territorio. Tra esigenze del mercato e coesione sociale. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 69–102
Bravo G (2001) Dai pascoli a internet. La teoria delle risorse comuni. Stato e Mercato 3:487–512
Caliceti E (2016) Il regime dei beni comuni: profili dominicali e modelli di gestione. In: Bombardelli M (ed) Prendersi cura dei beni comuni per uscire dalla crisi. Nuove risorse e nuovi modelli di amministrazione. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, pp 63–92
Cassese S (2003) Lo spazio giuridico globale. Laterza, Roma-Bari
Cerulli Irelli V, De Lucia L (2014) Beni comuni e diritti collettivi. Pol dir, pp 3–35
Ciervo A (2012) I beni comuni. Ediesse, Roma
Coccoli L (2013) Ieri, oggi, domani. I beni comuni tra passato e futuro. Introduzione. In: Coccoli L (ed) Commons, beni comuni. Il dibattito internazionale, Kindle edn. goWare, Firenze, pp 109–494
Cornella S (2016) Beni comuni e disciplina europea sugli aiuti di stato. In: Bombardelli M (ed) Prendersi cura dei beni comuni per uscire dalla crisi. Nuove risorse e nuovi modelli di amministrazione. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, pp 219–248
Cortese F (2011) Dalle valli da pesca ai beni comuni: la Cassazione rilegge lo statuto dei beni pubblici? Giornale di diritto amministrativo 11:1170–1178
Cortese F (2016) Che cosa sono i beni comuni? In: Bombardelli M (ed) Prendersi cura dei beni comuni per uscire dalla crisi. Nuove risorse e nuovi modelli di amministrazione. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, pp 37–62
Dani A (2014) Il concetto giuridico di “beni comuni” tra passato e presente. www.historiaetius.eu, p 6. http://www.historiaetius.eu/uploads/5/9/4/8/5948821/dani_6.pdf
Donolo C (2012) I beni comuni presi sul serio. In: Arena G, Iaione C (eds) L’Italia dei beni comuni. Carocci, Roma, pp 13–54
Esposito R (2004) Bios. Einaudi, Torino
Esposito R (2006) Communitas. Origine e destino della comunità, 2nd edn. Einaudi, Torino
Ferrarese MR (2000) Le istituzioni della globalizzazione, Diritto e diritti nella società transnazionali. Il Mulino, Bologna
Foster S, Iaione C (2016) The city as a common. Yale Law Policy Rev 34:281–349
Franzini M (2012) I beni comuni: questioni di efficienza e di equità. In: Arena G, Iaione C (eds) L’Italia dei beni comuni. Carocci, Roma, pp 55–68
Giannini MS (1985) Diritto pubblico dell’economia. Il Mulino, Bologna
Giglioni F (2016) Beni comuni e autonomie nella prospettiva europea: città e cittadinanze. In: Bombardelli M (ed) Prendersi cura dei beni comuni. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli
Grossi P (2000) L’ordine giuridico medievale. Laterza, Roma-Bari
Grossi P (2012) I beni: itinerari tra “moderno” e “pos-moderno”. Riv trim dir proc civ 66(4):1059–1085
Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162(3859):1243–1248
Hardt M (2013) Le due facce dell’Apocalisse. Antinomie del comune e nuove convergenze politiche. In: Coccoli L (ed) Commons, beni comuni. Il dibattito internazionale, Kindle edn. goWare, Firenze, pp 4358–4614
Labsus (2015) Rapporto Labsus 2015. Sull’amministrazione condivisa dei beni comuni. Roma. http://www.labsus.org/wp-content/themes/Labsus/media/Rapporto_Labsus_2015_Amministrazione_con-divisa_dei_beni_comuni.pdf. Last accessed 2 Aug 2017
Lessig L (2013) I beni comuni e il codice. In: Coccoli L (ed) Commons, beni comuni. Il dibattito internazionale, Kindle edn. goWare, Firenze, pp 1199–1542
Levin S (1999) Fragile Dominion. Complexity and the Commons. Perseus, Cambridge
Lindsay J (2014) Legal frameworks and access to common pool resources. Fao Papers Online #39. www.fao.org/legal/pub-e.htm
Lucarelli A (2013) La democrazia dei beni comuni. Nuove frontiere del diritto pubblico, Kindle edn. Laterza, Bari-Roma
Lucarelli A (2015) Beni comuni. Contributo per una teoria giuridica. Costituzionalismo.it, p 4. http://www.costituzionalismo.it/articoli/492/
Maddalena P (2011) I beni comuni nel codice civile, nella tradizione romanistica e nella Costituzione della Repubblica italiana. federalismi.it. http://www.federalismi.it/nv14/articolo-documento.cfm?artid=18948
Maddalena P (2013) I beni comuni nella crisi finanziaria. Il ponte 2(3):142–169
Marella MR (2012) Introduzione. Per un diritto dei beni comuni. In: Marella MR (ed) Oltre il pubblico e il privato. Per un diritto dei beni comuni. Ombre corte, Verona, pp 9–28
Mattei U (2011) Beni comuni. Un Manifesto. Laterza, Roma-Bari
Mattei U (2013) Teoria e prassi costituente nel governo del comune. In: AA. VV (ed) Tempo di beni comuni. Studi multidisciplinari, Annali 2010–2012. Fondazione Lelio e Lisli Basso-Issoco, Ediesse, Roma
Mone D (2012) Servizi di interesse economico generale e beni comuni tra diritto comunitario e Costituzione. Rass dir pubbl eur 2:63–82
Mone D (2014) La categoria dei beni comuni nell’ordinamento giuridico italiano: un paradigma per la lettura del regime dei beni pubblici alla luce della Costituzione. Rass dir pub eur 2:63–126
Napolitano G (2006) I beni pubblici e le “tragedie dell’interesse comune”, Annuario Aipda. Giuffré, Milano, pp 137–152
Nespor S (2013) Tragedie e commedie nel nuovo mondo dei beni comuni. Riv giur ambiente 28(6):665–685
Nonini DM (2013) L’idea globale di “beni comuni”. In: Coccoli L (ed) Commons, beni comuni. Il dibattito internazionale, Kindle edn. goWare, Firenze, pp 2563–3040
Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective actions. Cambridge University Press, New York
Pellizzari S (2016) New commons e servizi sociali. In: Bombardelli M (ed) Prendersi cura dei beni comuni per uscire dalla crisi. Nuove risorse e nuovi modelli di amministrazione. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, pp 249–278
Pennacchi L (2012) Filosofia dei beni comuni. Crisi e primato della sfera pubblica, Kindle edn. Donzelli, Roma
Pradi A, Rossaro A (eds) (2014) I beni comuni digitali. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli
Ricoveri G (2013) Nature for sale. The commons versus commodities, Kindle edn. Plutopress, London
Rodotà S (2012) Postfazione. Beni comuni: una strategia globale contro lo human divide. In: Marella MR (ed) Oltre il pubblico e il privato. Per un diritto dei beni comuni. Ombre corte, Verona, pp 311–332
Rodotà S (2013) Il terribile diritto. Studi sulla proprietà privata e sui beni comuni, 3rd edn. Il Mulino, Bologna
Shiva V (2013) Foreword. In: Ricoveri G (ed) Nature for sale. The commons versus commodities, Kindle edn. Plutopress, London, pp 81–152
Simonati A (2016) Per la gestione “partecipata” dei beni comuni: una procedimentalizzazione di seconda generazione? In: Bombardelli M (ed) Prendersi cura dei beni comuni per uscire dalla crisi. Nuove risorse e nuovi modelli di amministrazione. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, pp 103–142
Vitale E (2013) Contro i beni comuni. Una critica illuminista, Kindle edn. Laterza, Roma-Bari
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing Switzerland and G.Giappichelli Editore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bombardelli, M. (2018). Taking Care of Commons to Tackle the Financial Crisis. In: Merloni, F., Pioggia, A. (eds) European Democratic Institutions and Administrations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72493-5_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72493-5_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-72492-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-72493-5
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)