Reply to comment:

Anonymous
<div class="content legacycomment"> <p> I&nbsp;have very little insight in the original study, but recently read an article &quot;The travesty of the commons&quot; in the FT ( <a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/425ca4f0-ba9a-11de-9dd7-00144feab49a,_i_email=y.html" target="_blank"> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ <wbr> </wbr> 425ca4f0-ba9a-11de-9dd7- <wbr> </wbr> 00144feab49a,_i_email=y.html </a> ). In particular it says: </p> <p> &quot;Ms Ostrom was honoured for discovering that stakeholders in a commons can sometimes avoid negative collective outcomes without resorting to either privatisation or outside regulation. It is striking that she is being praised not just for developing new paradigms but for exorcising old ones. As the Nobel committee&rsquo;s scientific background paper puts it: &ldquo;Elinor Ostrom objects to the presumption that common property governance necessarily implies a &lsquo;tragedy&rsquo;.&rdquo; She may have succeeded in countering the influence of one of the most bizarre &ndash; but one of the most influential &ndash; social science papers of our time.&quot; </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> <p> &nbsp; </p> </div>