Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Managing the Commons [was Who pays the maintenance costs of common washers and dryers?

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

> On Apr 7, 2019, at 2:16 PM, Brian Bartholomew via Cohousing-L <cohousing-l 
> [at] cohousing.org> wrote:

> There is no given reason why 100% of geographic neighbors should all
> commit to these rules.

She derived the rules from studying successful cooperatives. These are the 
factors she found worked.

Only the people who participate in the cooperative participate in making the 
rules for a group. It means everyone is part of the decision-making. The 
surrounding community needs to recognize or respect the existence of the coop 
and its agreements. If they don’t the boundaries will be permeable and 
ineffective.

> I speculate about more fundamental causes:
> Religious uniformity, do it or God punishes you?  Genetic uniformity,
> they are all extended family?

She looked at many coops all over the world. These rules were more fundamental 
than religious conformity—which if it is a cooperative and not autocratic 
community will follow as well. Many religious groups operate successful coops, 
these are the factors that make those work as well.

Remember that she is looking at groups that share a limited resource — one that 
would be depleted without the practices that maintain sustainability. If a 
fishing community follows practices that assure the fish will always be able to 
multiply for the next fishing season, those rules will not be effective when an 
outside group begins fishing without respect for them. Some fishing communities 
have been able to go to court and enforce boundaries but others are destroyed.

Another rule is that cooperators have the same relative dependence or need for 
the resource. A corporate agricultural business  doesn’t have the same 
interests as a group of family farmers sharing hay baling equipment. They don’t 
need the coop to work, and in fact have interests that encourage them to push 
for rules that are not in the interests of other members.

> Why would the agreement fall apart in 1990?  Some aspect of improved
> communication or travel or wealth which broke/evaded the more
> fundamental rules?

I don’t have this example at hand but I assume one of the conditions was no 
longer true. Something changed so the resource became unsustainable or it was 
no longer sufficient. 

I’m fascinated by the example of the village that worked out the rule that the 
green worked as long as members only grazed the number of cows they could feed 
during the winter. The effect of overgrazing was immediately obvious. Cows died.

The other side of this is enforcement. The members have to observe and object 
to other members violating the rules. The violation or straying can’t be 
allowed to the extent that it infringes on the ability of other members to 
share equally, or as equally as necessary. Transparency is one very effortless 
way to monitor cooperation. No shielding. No backroom deals. The precondition 
of abuse is the assurance of secrecy.

In an interview she talks about the refrigerator in her office. Everyone uses 
it and everyone cleans it. The list of names is on the wall with the dates 
responsible. If the refrigerator hasn’t been cleaned, everyone knows who is 
responsible. It's a transparent method that keeps everyone honest.

She uses