公共資源的悲劇(hardin-英漢對(duì)照)(編輯修改稿)
2024-08-31 13:59 本頁面
【文章內(nèi)容簡介】 之前得到他們?cè)谶@個(gè)公共資源中的份額。換句話說，每一種可行的收入分配體制都必須接受人類的私利挑戰(zhàn)。在物質(zhì)財(cái)富有限和人的欲望無限的世界上，一個(gè)沒有管理的公社必然逐步走向毀滅。這個(gè)必然性說明我在1968年提出的悲劇這個(gè)稱呼是恰當(dāng)?shù)?。Whenever a distribution system malfunctions, we should be on the lookout for some sort of mons. Fish populations in the oceans have been decimated because people have interpreted the freedom of the seas to include an unlimited right to fish them. The fish were, in effect, a mons. In the seventies, nations began to assert their sole right to fish out to two hundred miles from shore (instead of the traditional three miles). But these exclusive rights did not eliminate the problem of the mons. They merely restricted the mons to individual nations. Each nation still has the problem of allocating fishing rights among its own people on a nonmonized basis. If each government allowed ownership of fish within a given area, so that an owner could sue those who encroach on his fish, owners would have an incentive to refrain from overfishing. But governments do not do that. Instead, they often estimate the maximum sustainable yield and then restrict fishing either to a fixed number of days or to a fixed aggregate catch. Both systems result in a vast overinvestment in fishing boats and equipment as individual fishermen pete to catch fish quickly.每當(dāng)收入分配體制出故障時(shí)，我們就應(yīng)該警惕某種類型的公共資源。海洋中的魚群被大批捕殺，原因是人們把“公海自由”解釋為不受限制的捕魚權(quán)。事實(shí)上，魚是公共資源。在70年代，一些國家開始宣布距海岸線200海里（而不是傳統(tǒng)的3海里）以內(nèi)的專屬捕撈權(quán)。但是，這些專有權(quán)并沒有消除公共資源問題。它們只不過把公共資源問題限制在個(gè)別國家之內(nèi)。每個(gè)國家仍舊有在其人民中分配捕魚權(quán)的問題。如果每個(gè)政府允許私人擁有一定水域內(nèi)的魚，從而所有者能夠控告那些侵犯者，那么，所有者就會(huì)有動(dòng)機(jī)避免過分捕撈。但是，政府并不這么做。相反，政府通常估計(jì)最大可持續(xù)產(chǎn)量，然后限制捕撈，固定捕魚的天數(shù)或固定捕撈總量。由于漁民們比的是捕魚的速度，這兩個(gè)體制都造成在漁船和設(shè)備方面的過多投資。Some of the mon pastures of old England were protected from ruin by the tradition of stinting, the limitation of each herdsman to a fixed number of animals (not necessarily the same for all). Such cases are spoken of as managed mons, which is the logical equivalent of socialism. Viewed this way, socialism may be good or bad, depending on the quality of the management. As with all things human, there is no guarantee of permanent excellence. The old Roman warning must be kept constantly in mind: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who shall watch the watchers themselves?古代英格蘭有限制每個(gè)牧民的牲畜數(shù)量（不一定每個(gè)人的牧群都相同）的傳統(tǒng)，這一傳統(tǒng)保護(hù)了有些公共草場(chǎng)。此類情況被稱為 “有管理的公共資源，”邏輯上等于社會(huì)主義。從這個(gè)角度看，社會(huì)主義可以是好的，也可以是壞的，視管理質(zhì)量而定。像所有人類事務(wù)那樣，永久的優(yōu)點(diǎn)是沒有保證的。必須時(shí)刻牢記古羅馬人的警告：Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?“誰來監(jiān)督監(jiān)督者本人呢？”Under special circumstances even an unmanaged mons may work
數(shù)學(xué)相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1