In partnership with

Think Big, Act Small: Elinor Ostrom’s radical vision for community power

October 21, 2020   By
In partnership with
In this major new piece of work, Dr Simon Kaye unpacks her ideas, and presents their real, urgent lessons for the UK today.

You can read the executive summary below, or download the full report here and read Simon’s blog: “Three Reasons Ostrom is the Thinker for Right Now”.

Elinor Ostrom humanised the study of economics and politics. She discovered what is possible, and the problems that can be solved, when we trust each other. Her work inspires optimism, but she was also a realist, basing her findings on decades of tireless work in the real world.

This quietly revolutionary research led her to become the first woman to win a Nobel prize in economics. She demonstrated that people’s motivation and ability to cooperate, participate, and sustainably control their own resources are far greater than is usually assumed.

Ostrom’s work offers grounds for ambitiously re-imagining the relationship between people and institutions. It should inform and inspire policy debate about community power, devolution, public service reform, and organisational transformation.

This report draws out Ostrom’s insights for the UK in the context of a growing crisis in the relationship between people and institutions. It adapts and contextualises her work into a new set of practical lessons for ‘self-governance’ – where communities take control over the things that matter to them – and connects these with contemporary examples of community-powered projects in the UK.

It offers a new analysis of Ostrom’s key insights: that a different model, “beyond markets and states”, is possible in communities with high levels of autonomy and internal trust. Recognition of these insights could lead to more diverse and creative solutions to our problems.

The experience of mutual aid in response to the Covid-19 pandemic shows the power latent in our communities. Growing and sustaining it will involve learning Ostrom’s lessons for community power, with strong civil society and empowered, facilitative local government in place to safeguard community rights and act as guarantor for three key conditions: locality, autonomy, and diversity.

Ostrom’s Insights and What they Mean Today

This report distils three important, overlapping arguments from across Ostrom’s scholarship to form a case for decentralisation and enhanced community power:

  1. The commons: Communities can manage their own

    Beyond markets and states, there is a third model where communities establish their own systems without the need for regulation or privatisation. These communities can be found all over the world and are demonstrably capable of managing common resources and assets in a more sustainable and productive way than comparable state or market systems.

  2. Self-governance: Democracy is more meaningful at
    a local level.
    Legitimacy and social trust can only flourish when people have a reasonable expectation of influence over the things that affect their lives. Mobilised communities will tend to benefit from having decision making power and control over resources to develop local services and facilities.

  3. Polycentricity: In complex social and environmental
    systems there are no one-size-fits-all solutions.
    What is needed is a dynamic system that permits experimentation, and which can tolerate the existence of diverse and layered institutions of different kinds. The alternative – where top-down, monolithic systems dominate – diminishes resilience. Rather, it centralises risks and quashes creative, adaptive solutions to problems.

Ostrom’s best-known and most celebrated work is her scholarship on self-governance of ‘the commons’ – an asset or resource shared by a community rather than privately or state-owned. Importantly, she set out a series of design principles that the most successful and long-lived self-governing communities tended share. This report rearticulates those principles, distilling them into three core conditions, which correspond with the three key insights above:

  1. Locality: Systems should be designed for specific places.
    Systems – including the way that resources are managed, rules
    are designed, and decisions are made – should be originated
    within, and appropriate for, the particular places where they
    operate. Ostrom’s evidence shows this makes it more likely that
    people will collaborate and cooperate with each other, and that
    overall outcomes can be improved this way.

  2. Autonomy: The rights of communities to create and
    run local systems must be respected.

    Communities will have few incentives to come together without a basic expectation that their decisions and participation will have meaning and impact, and will that their decisions will be respected by external parties.

  3. Diversity: Each community is different – and will
    take different approaches.

    Context-driven, autonomous communities will experiment with different systems. Taking different approaches in different places means people have a range of opportunities to get involved, enriching civil society. This diversity should be promoted, as it may reveal strong new approaches.

Through a series of case studies, this report establishes how incentives are important for communities to continue collaborating beyond whatever situation or crisis first brought them together, and that the relationship with local institutions can be a key determining factor in whether local, autonomous, and diverse self-governance can find space to function at all.

The most important Ostromian conditions for community power in the UK are locality, autonomy, and diversity. Without these, institutions will be too distant from the real needs and preferences of communities,and local-scale action will tend to be ignored – removing the incentives for self-governance.

The best way to realise the goals of locality and autonomy is through reform to the way the state – at both national and local levels – functions, and a rebooted relationship between people and institutions.

This means institutions taking steps to become neither indifferent nor controlling but facilitative.

The only way to realise a more facilitative state is through
an Ostrom-inspired approach to devolution, one that places communities’ rights at its centre and works to a principle of subsidiarity: every system should operate at the most local level consistent with its success. This means that nothing should be done nationally that would best be handled locally, and nothing should be done locally without real engagement and participation from communities.

1. Reimagine devolution in the UK
  • The UK government should move away from deal-makingand consolidation, recognising meaningful community rights, and actively looking for opportunities to disperse power away from the centre.
  • There should be an Ostrom-informed audit of the UK’s balance of power, designed to identify the reasons for the UK’s over-centralisation and make proposals for a new model of devolution built around the principle of subsidiarity.
  • A ‘community right to organise’ should be enshrined in central legislation, incorporating explicit rights to local autonomy, self-determination,and deviation from the norms and systems used elsewhere when localities deem this to be necessary.
  • A community wealth fund should be established to ensure financial viability of much-needed civil society and community groups.
2. Escape the duopoly of markets and states
  • Central government should properly empower local
    authorities, who should in turn lead a culture-shift toward
    less centralised ways of working within services, with more
    openness and horizontal relationships between institutions,
    the social sector, and communities themselves.
  • Specific policy areas would benefit from pilots of Ostromian,
    decentralist reforms to grow a stronger evidence base of
    the value of reforms that do not revolve around finding
    efficiencies and economies of scale.
  • Local government finance should be revolutionised, allowing
    more local control of revenue-raising and ensuring councils
    are resourced to be more autonomous and facilitative –
    convening and supporting communities in their objectives.
3. Galvanise the change within localities
  • Positive change can start to emerge, even without the
    above recommendations being taken on, if localities work to
    facilitate and create stability for nascent community groups,
    and take a whole-place approach when making plans and
    taking decisions.
  • Communities themselves should reach beyond their localities
    to build a new collaborative network for shared learning
    between community-led groups, businesses, and projects in
    the form of an open-access digital commons.
  • Local councils, the social sector, and informal community
    groups can create a stable environment for neighbourhoodlevel
    projects by reviving the idea of local charters.

October 21, 2020
Authored by

Join our mailing list