Wednesday, February 3, 2010
common's dilemma
If we consider a situation where a collective action is initiated with the help of a powerful person and it is not feasible without him. He is able to continue without collective action but commons are not. What he gets is some additional benefits than the neutral situation. But if he starts demanding more and threatens to withdraw, what options are left to the commons? How can this action remain sustainable?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think good leaders are those whose bench strength is equally good,hallmark of a good collective that no one individual is larger than the other.If fruits of labour are not being distributed equally or if some have more voice than others in the daily functioning,then it is doomed..This is however not to say that there should not be any powerful leader,just that he should not be indispensable.
Well, if he is a leader who constantly uses his leadership as a bargaining chip with his followers, why have him as a leader at all?
I believe that if collective action really benefits everyone equally, the action is sustained even if the leader quits! If one leader quits, some other from group rises to take over the reigns. Or, if the commons want to sustain it, they can have a mutual consensus and find a new leader amongst themselves.
i'm not too sure if commons in the context of CAC is "common man".it is more common resources like we see in the readings.anyways,the leader in a collective will fit into one of the 9 types of leaders atleast partially.that said,he would have had some motivation to lead the masses-not necessarily material or tangible. if his "demands" are less than the opportunity losses due to his ousting,he should be allowed to continue.
Crisis and scarcity gives the chance to think about the leaders and also sparks new leadership. In this case it may happen that new leadership emerge out of the commoners itself rather than letting the so called leader to bargain.
Great leaders work on building institutions, so that the collective action becomes sustainable. It has to be person independent. The leader cant live forever. If a leader is more interested in gaining more benefits, he is jeopardizing his own efforts of starting a collective action.
Post a Comment