Laurel Utterback #4

 A Criticism of Buck: The Covid-19 Pandemic

To say the very least, I am very skeptical of Buck’s argument that there is “No Tragedy of the Commons.” Rather, she advises her reader to take a “dual focus” by looking at parallel historical successes and addressing these issues in a more epistemological way. Buck agrees with the definition of the tragedy of the commons being: “a right which one or more persons have to take or use some portion of that which another’s soil produces…and is a right to part of the profits of the soil, and to part only, the right of the soil lying with another and not with the person who claims common.” This definition, at first, seems to hold true, yet when we take a look at the current social and economic climate of the world, it is much easier to criticize Buck’s work.

At this point, COVID-19 has affected every country in one way or another. With the WHO declaring COVID-19 a pandemic and issuing a “global health emergency,” governments have issued varying guidelines and regulations in order to “stop the spread.” Given the vast differences in types of governments, hospitals, and policymaking strategies across the globe, COVID-19 has illustrated the issues with Buck’s criticism of tragedy of the commons. In order to understand the global pattern that the pandemic has created, we must turn to Hardin, who described a social predicament in which each communal decision-maker is better off acting egotistically.

The current pandemic poses a tragedy of the commons issue when we analyze the differences between individualistic and collectivistic societies. In order to completely “flatten the curve,” we must focus on the common good (collectivistic society) rather than putting our personal interests first. Surprisingly, while rationality suggests that the virus will spread more quickly in collectivist societies because of their closer and more frequent social interactions, the combination of culture and Hardin's theory suggests the opposite: the pandemic's impact will be greater in individualistic societies where people are less concerned about the greater good. And, with recent development and approval of vaccines, we have yet another reason to be skeptical of Buck.

Buck would argue that rather than a tragedy of the commons controlling the controversies of resource allocation, we must work through coordination problems and use the history of epidemics and pandemics to guide our next steps. However, as resources become more and more finite, and countries become greedy over the allocation of research and development materials, the chokehold that the tragedy of the commons holds on the world only increases, aligning with Hardin’s idea. Short, self-interest has been prioritized over the common good, which would entail sharing resources across all countries, especially the developing ones that simply do not have the money or resources to develop their own vaccines. Rather, dominant powers such as the United States have allowed for multiple doses to be given, and have not even thought about how this is a global pandemic.

Sure, Buck’s suggestion to use history may be helpful to guide preparation for another pandemic, but we are too far into this one to suggest that her theory is correct. Yes, we should use history in order to avoid future mistakes, but to say that there is “no tragedy of the commons” is inaccurate. Regardless of your views on the pandemic and how it has been handled thus far, Hardin’s work much more appropriately demonstrates how and why we have not yet persevered through COVID-19.