Living Together

The Commons: How One Billion People Cooperate Without Markets or States

In 1968, Hardin theorised that shared resources inevitably get plundered. In 2009, Ostrom won the Nobel Prize for refuting that thesis with 800 real cases. Meanwhile, 10 million volunteers mapped the entire world for free.

Published on 10 min de lecture

The Commons: How One Billion People Cooperate Without Markets or States

TL;DR: In 1968, a biologist named Hardin theorised that shared resources always end up plundered — unless a market or a state manages them. In 2009, Elinor Ostrom won the Nobel Prize by demonstrating, with more than 800 real cases, that this thesis was empirically false. Meanwhile, 10 million volunteers were mapping the entire world for free, 1 billion people were joining cooperatives, and New York taxi drivers were reinventing Uber with 85% of revenues returned to drivers. Here is the story that standard economic theory has yet to fully digest.

Ten million people have never been paid to map the entire world. Voluntarily, in their spare time, with their own equipment, they documented every street, every mountain path, every inhabited city boundary on the globe. These maps now serve Médecins Sans Frontières teams in crisis zones, where proprietary services are inaccurate or unavailable. OpenStreetMap: 10 million registered contributors. Zero market. Zero state. Community governance that works.

How is this possible? And why does this story contradict nearly everything that standard economics has taught us about human nature?

The Tragedy That Wasn’t

In 1968, biologist Garrett Hardin published in Science an article that became canonical: “The Tragedy of the Commons”. His scenario: imagine a pasture shared among herders. Each herder has an individual incentive to add one more animal — the benefit is entirely theirs, while the cost of degrading the pasture is shared by everyone. The inevitable result, according to Hardin: overexploitation, collapse. The solution: privatise the resources, or regulate them from the state. Without one or the other, the “tragedy” is inescapable.

This thesis shaped four decades of economic policy. It justified the privatisation of forests, fishing zones, and water infrastructure across the world. It filtered into our culture as self-evident truth about human nature: left to themselves, humans behave as free-riders.

Only one problem: Hardin was describing commons without rules. Resources open to all, without institutions, without social norms, without mechanisms for collective regulation. He was not describing the commons as they actually exist in human history — with the rules that communities invent precisely to avoid the collapse he feared.

What 800 Real Cases Tell Us About Human Cooperation

In 2009, economist Elinor Ostrom received the Nobel Prize in Economics “for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons.” She was the first woman to receive this prize. Her work represents a direct empirical refutation of Hardin — not philosophical, but grounded in decades of fieldwork.

Ostrom and her team studied irrigation systems in Spain and the Philippines, Swiss and Japanese alpine meadows managed collectively for centuries, fisheries in Nova Scotia and Indonesia. Their finding, documented across more than 800 cases worldwide: communities spontaneously develop local governance rules that work — without shareholders, without central authority.

Swiss villages have been collectively managing their alpine pastures since the 13th century. Japanese fishing communities developed zone rotation systems that have maintained fish stocks for generations. Ostrom’s central discovery was not that the commons always work — it was that they work when certain conditions are met. And she identified those conditions with a precision that was entirely absent from Hardin’s scenario.

Wikipedia, OpenStreetMap: Proof at Two Billion Users

Economist Yochai Benkler named this phenomenon “commons-based peer production”: a model where “large numbers of people work in cooperation, generally via the internet”, and where contributions “are shared in an institutional form that leaves them equally available to all.”

Wikipedia: more than 67 million articles in more than 340 languages, written and maintained by volunteers under evolving community governance rules. OpenStreetMap: the world’s most accurate map in many regions, used by humanitarian teams where proprietary services have gaps. Linux: the operating system running the majority of internet servers, developed since 1991 by thousands of contributors who have mostly never worked in the same room.

These projects share a common architecture: clear rules on who can contribute and how, full transparency on decisions, conflict resolution mechanisms, distributed governance that belongs to no one — and therefore to everyone.

This is not idealism. It is social engineering that produces measurable results used every day by billions of people. And this model is not limited to the digital world.

1 Billion Cooperative Members in the Physical Economy

According to the International Cooperative Alliance, there are today 3 million cooperatives worldwide, with 1 billion members — or 12% of the global population. These structures employ 280 million people, or 10% of the world’s employed population. The top 300 cooperatives generate $2.79 trillion in annual turnover.

These figures do not describe a niche movement. They describe a global economic infrastructure that has existed for generations — and that, under certain conditions, outperforms classical capitalist structures in precisely the areas that matter most: resilience in times of crisis.

Consider Mondragon. Founded in the Basque Country of Spain in 1956, this federation of worker cooperatives today employs 70,085 people and generates €11.2 billion in annual sales. It is the Basque Country’s largest employer and Spain’s fifth largest private group. Of the 103 cooperatives created between 1956 and 1986, only 3 closed: a survival rate of 97% over 30 years. During the 2008 crisis, rather than laying off workers, the corporation organised by lottery the rotation of 20% of workers into one year of paid leave at 80% salary, with voluntary retraining. President Jose Maria Aldecoa put it with a frankness worth quoting: “The cooperative model is absolutely imperfect, but it has proven itself least imperfect in times of crisis.”

European data point in the same direction. A meta-analysis covering 102 samples and 56,984 firms concludes that “firms closely owned by their employees are twice less likely to go bankrupt or shut down over a 12-year period” compared to comparable companies. Lay-off rates are “less than half” those of conventional firms. Mondragon’s figures illustrate this resilience: no collective redundancies despite the 2008 crisis.

Honest perspective: these resilience statistics are averages across long crisis periods. Cooperatives can and do fail. Outside periods of major turbulence, the performance advantage is real but “small and significant” according to the IZA study — not spectacular. This is not a perfect model. It is a model that distributes risk and value differently.

The Platform Cooperative: Reclaiming the Value Algorithms Capture

A contemporary example illustrates the still-untapped potential. In 2021, New York drivers launched The Driver’s Cooperative: a ride-hailing app owned by its drivers. The platform commission: 15%, versus 25 to 40% at Uber and Lyft.

The Driver’s Cooperative remains modest at the scale of the ride-hailing industry. Launched in 2021, it has not yet demonstrated its ability to scale against giants backed by billions in capital. But the model proves, concretely, that a platform can function without massive extraction of value toward distant shareholders — and that ordinary drivers can own it without needing an MBA.

This is not anecdotal. It is a proof of concept that is spreading: Fairbnb, a short-stay rental cooperative, returns 7.5% of each transaction to local community projects chosen by travellers themselves, refuses to collect or sell user data, and limits hosts to one property to prevent speculation.

When the Commons Fail — and How to Avoid It

Ostrom did not only document successes. Her work also identified the conditions for failure. The eight governance principles she derived are not a universal recipe — they are a diagnosis of what separates commons that last from those that collapse.

The most decisive:

  • Clear boundaries: who belongs to the community managing the resource? Without a precise answer, overexploitation becomes possible — and this is where Hardin was partly right, on resources that are truly open to everyone without rules.
  • Rules adapted to local context: “rules are more likely to be respected by people if they have participated in making them.” A solution imported from outside, however well designed, meets a resistance that co-created rules do not.
  • Accessible conflict resolution: “mediation and conflict resolution mechanisms must be informal and affordable.” Commons that function have mechanisms to handle disagreements before they become crises.
  • Recognition by external authorities: the commons do not necessarily oppose the state — but they need it to recognise their right to self-govern, without crushing them under regulations designed for other structures.

The lesson is not that the commons are fragile. It is that they require architecture — like any human organisation. The capitalist firm has its architectures: corporate law, shareholder protection, incentive mechanisms. The commons have theirs. Hardin had simply forgotten the rules when he imagined his pasture.

What This Means for Today

If 1 billion people already participate in cooperatives, if tools like Wikipedia and OpenStreetMap work at a scale that the best companies have not matched in their domains, if taxi drivers can organise to keep 85% of their earnings versus 60 to 75% at Uber and Lyft — then the question is no longer whether the commons work. The question is: in which areas will we decide to extend them?

Digital commons already exist at massive scale. Cooperatives represent 10% of global employment. Deliberative governance — like the Citizens’ Convention on Climate, where 150 randomly selected French citizens produced 149 emission-reduction proposals in nine months — demonstrates that ordinary citizens can tackle complex subjects with remarkable rigour. (To be precise about limits: roughly 20% of proposals were fully translated into public policy, 40% partially. Political implementation remains the weak link — the process worked; the political follow-through less so.)

The Swiss alpine pasture of the 13th century. Wikipedia. OpenStreetMap. Mondragon. The Driver’s Cooperative. These are not utopias. They are different architectures that distribute value, power, and responsibility differently.

Elinor Ostrom demonstrated something that our cultural intuitions about “tragedy” had obscured: humans are not fundamentally selfish. They are fundamentally adaptive. When the rules of the game allow it, they cooperate — at scale, across centuries, with results that neither the market nor the state would have produced alone.

In 2026, we have more evidence of this than Ostrom ever had. What is missing is not the proof. It is the collective ambition to apply it.

Sources

Stay connected

Each month, the best evidence that the future is already being built.
No spam, unsubscribe in one click.