Reply_The_Complexity_of_Commons.pdf - UNIVERSITY OF...

This preview shows page 1 - 3 out of 13 pages.

UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGLegal Studies Research Paper SeriesPaper No. 2010-19~and~NEW YORK UNIVERSITYPublic Law & Legal Theory Research Paper SeriesPaper No. 10-31Law & Economics Research Paper SeriesPaper No. 10-26Reply: The Complexity of CommonsMichael J. MadisonUniversity of Pittsburgh - School of LawBrett M. FrischmannLoyola University of Chicago - Law SchoolKatherine J. StrandburgNew York University School of Law
REPLY: THE COMPLEXITY OF COMMONSMichael J. Madison, Brett M. Frischmann & Katherine J. StrandburgThis Reply responds briefly to some of the challenges to and criti-ques of our article,Constructing Commons in the Cultural Environment,offered by Professors Thr´ainn Eggertsson,1Wendy Gordon,2GreggMacey,3Robert Merges,4Elinor Ostrom,5and Lawrence Solum.6Weare extremely grateful for the attention these scholars have devoted toour article and find the comments both constructive and complemen-tary to our perspective in ways that substantially contribute to our pro-ject. We appreciate these extensions to our project and find that weagree with many of the commenters’ suggestions, even if we cannotaddress all of them in this Reply. Instead, the Reply captures our re-sponses to the most salient points among their comments. Some ofthose, as noted below, are reflected in modifications to the article it-self. The full measure of others can be taken only in time as the re-search proposed in the article emerges through further commonscase studies.The Reply is organized thematically rather than as a response toeach critique in turn. The Sections below address the following top-ics: First, what are commons? That is, what phenomena do we meanto capture for study? Second, what benefit do we derive from the mul-tidisciplinary character of our framework for studying cultural com-mons—and at what cost? Third, what additional inquiries do thesecritiques suggest? Fourth and finally, what explicit and implicit nor-mative assumptions do we make in offering this framework, and whatquestions about those assumptions do we defer?At the outset, of course, we wish to thank each of these distinguished scholars forcareful review of our article and critical engagement with our ideas and proposedframework.1Thr´ainn Eggertsson, Response,Mapping Social Technologies in the Cultural Commons,95 CORNELLL. REV. 711 (2010).2Wendy J. Gordon, Response,Discipline and Nourish: On Constructing Commons, 95CORNELLL. REV. 733 (2010).3Gregg P. Macey, Response,Cooperative Institutions in Cultural Commons, 95 CORNELLL. REV. 757 (2010).4Robert P. Merges, ResponseIndividual Creators in the Cultural Commons, 95 CORNELLL. REV. 793 (2010).5Elinor Ostrom, Response,The Institutional Analysis and Development Framework andthe Commons, 95 CORNELLL. REV. 807 (2010).

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 13 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
N/A
Tags
Elinor Ostrom, Gregg P Macey, Cooperative Institutions in Cultural Commons

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture