EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

The debate on common goods: An economic critique

Pierluigi Montalbano

Economia della Cultura, 2017, issue 1, 37-50

Abstract: This paper aims to clarify the existing differences between the economic analysis of common goods and the everyday use of the term. Despite that the commons are unquestionably an interdisciplinary issue, the economic analysis of the commons is seen as a useful tool to foster a general reflection on the topic. In particular, it allows us to highlight some inconsistencies in the current debate (e.g., the «inclusion paradox») as well as to overcome some key misunderstandings that can generate errors of perspective and, consequently, wrong strategies of economic policy. To this end, the paper reports the experience of normative regulations of the natural and cultural heritage of the Apulia Region. It is seen as a useful paradigm to transform the legitimate aspirations of inclusion and active citizenship for the fruition of the natural and cultural assets expressed by the Regional Authority into effective economic policies and models of sustainable development.

Keywords: Common Goods; Welfare Economics; Social Inclusion; Apulia Region. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2017
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.rivisteweb.it/download/article/10.1446/86581 (application/pdf)
https://www.rivisteweb.it/doi/10.1446/86581 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:mul:jkrece:doi:10.1446/86581:y:2017:i:1:p:37-50

Access Statistics for this article

Economia della Cultura is currently edited by Paolo Leon

More articles in Economia della Cultura from Società editrice il Mulino
Bibliographic data for series maintained by ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:mul:jkrece:doi:10.1446/86581:y:2017:i:1:p:37-50