Elinor Ostrom vs Milton Friedman: Governing the Commons or Trusting Markets and Property?
Comparing Elinor Ostrom's research on community governance of shared resources with Milton Friedman's market and property-rights arguments: how a third way between state and market was documented, and where the two views differ. General education.
Elinor Ostrom and Milton Friedman are rarely paired, but the comparison is useful. Friedman made the most influential twentieth-century case for markets and private property. Ostrom showed, through fieldwork, that communities can govern shared resources effectively in ways that fit neither market nor state. People compare them to see where each argument holds and where it needs a third option.
What is the core difference?
Friedman begins with a general presumption: that individuals acting in markets with secure property rights generally produce good outcomes, and that government interventions tend to have unintended consequences. Problems are usually best addressed by strengthening property rights and competition.
Ostrom begins with cases. She observed that people often solve collective problems through rules and norms they develop themselves, and she asked what features made such arrangements work. Her answer is that many institutional forms can succeed under the right conditions.
One argues from a principle. The other builds from comparative case studies.
What did Ostrom find?
Elinor Ostrom, an American political economist at Indiana University, studied irrigation systems in Nepal and Spain, fisheries and forests, and groundwater basins in California. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (1990) summarized the findings and set out eight design principles associated with durable commons.
She co-founded the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis with her husband, Vincent Ostrom. She received the Nobel Memorial Prize in 2009 and died in 2012. Her work is a foundation for research on community resource management.
What did Friedman argue?
Milton Friedman, an American economist at the University of Chicago, argued in Capitalism and Freedom (1962) and Free to Choose (1980), with Rose Friedman, that economic freedom is linked to political freedom, and that markets coordinate information and incentives better than central planning. He also wrote on monetary policy and won the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize.
Friedman recognized externalities such as pollution, and favored market-based approaches where possible. His views on the limits of government were influential, and also contested by scholars who emphasize market failures.
How do they compare?
| Dimension | Ostrom | Friedman |
|---|---|---|
| Starting point | Empirical study of how communities manage shared resources | A general case for markets and private property |
| Key work | Governing the Commons (1990) | Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Free to Choose (1980) |
| Typical question | What rules make a commons durable? | How can property rights and competition solve this? |
| View of institutions | Many forms can work; polycentric governance | Prefers markets; limited, rule-bound government |
| Method | Fieldwork, comparative cases, and experiments | Theory, economic history, and public argument |
| Prize | Nobel Memorial Prize, 2009 | Nobel Memorial Prize, 1976 |
| Main criticism | Findings may not scale to global problems | Underestimates market failures and collective action |
When does each one fit?
Ostrom's work fits when a group shares a resource, such as water, a fishery, a forest, or even a digital resource, and needs rules that people will follow. Her design principles provide a checklist for such arrangements.
Friedman's fits when the question is how incentives and property rights shape behavior, and where they might offer a simpler solution than regulation. His emphasis on the unintended effects of policy is a caution.
Neither answers every question. Problems of scale, like global climate, differ from local commons, and economists continue to debate both.
What does this look like in practice?
A village shares a well and the water level is falling. A Friedman-style analysis would ask whether private ownership or a priced allocation of water could align incentives, so that those who use more pay more, and whether property rights are clearly defined. It would look for a market-based solution.
An Ostrom-style analysis would ask who the users are and what rules they could agree on: who may draw water, how much, and when, how it will be monitored, and what the penalties will be. It would test the proposal against her design principles. The two are not mutually exclusive: a community could adopt rules and a price. The point is to fit the arrangement to the situation.
"Our group shares [resource]. First, using Ostrom's design principles (clear boundaries, rules matched to local conditions, participation in rule-making, monitoring, graduated sanctions, conflict resolution, recognized rights to organize, and nested governance), tell me which are present and which are missing. Then, in a market spirit, suggest whether clearer property rights or pricing could help, and what risks they raise. Do not recommend a policy beyond these questions."
Why it works: a checklist shows what an arrangement lacks, and the market lens suggests alternatives to test.
Can you use both together?
Yes. Practitioners often combine community rules with market elements, such as tradable quotas in fisheries governed by local communities. The documented combinations show that the choice is rarely pure.
Both approaches depend on enforcement and trust. Without them, neither rules nor property rights work.
"For the rule or market mechanism proposed in [situation], tell me how it would be monitored, who would enforce it, what the penalty for breaking it would be, and why people would comply. Use Ostrom's findings on monitoring and graduated sanctions, and Friedman's attention to incentives."
Why it works: rules without monitoring and incentives do not last.
Where to go next
Elinor Ostrom and Milton Friedman both sit in the Economist category. For the originals, read Governing the Commons by Ostrom and Capitalism and Freedom by Friedman. This guide is general education and not policy advice. To work through a major decision in a structured way, Decision Brief is a $79 tool built for it.
Frequently asked questions
Is this policy advice?
No. This guide compares two economists' documented work for general education. It recommends no policy, and the questions about how to manage shared resources are contested and depend on context. Anyone making decisions about a real resource should consult local evidence, relevant professionals, and the people affected. Her work suggests that those who use a resource often hold knowledge that outside planners lack.
What is the tragedy of the commons?
The phrase comes from an essay by Garrett Hardin in 1968, which argued that users of a shared resource, such as a pasture, will overuse it because each gains from additional use while the cost is shared, and that the answer must be either privatization or government control. Ostrom's research challenged the claim that these were the only solutions. Hardin himself later qualified his argument, noting that his essay had been about an unmanaged commons.
What did Ostrom find?
In Governing the Commons (1990), she examined real cases of communities that managed shared resources such as irrigation systems, fisheries, forests, and grazing land, often for centuries, without privatization or central control. She identified design principles that tended to characterize successful cases, including clearly defined boundaries, rules fitted to local conditions, monitoring, graduated sanctions, and accessible conflict resolution. These principles have been tested and refined by later researchers, including at the Ostrom Workshop at Indiana University.
How does Friedman's work relate to this?
Friedman argued that private property and competitive markets generally allocate resources efficiently and protect freedom, and that government intervention often fails. He wrote about externalities and the role of property rights, and favored market-based solutions to problems like pollution in some of his writing. He did not write a theory of commons governance, so the contrast is between schools of thought.
Did Ostrom reject markets?
No. Her work showed that neither markets nor central states are the only effective institutions, and she studied polycentric governance, in which many overlapping units operate at different scales. She shared the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences with Oliver Williamson, and was the first woman to win it. She died in 2012. Her fieldwork covered communities in Switzerland, Japan, Spain, the Philippines, and elsewhere, which gives the claims breadth.
Can AI help me apply Ostrom's principles?
It can help check a shared-resource arrangement against her design principles and suggest questions for a community. It cannot judge local conditions. Use it as a checklist, and base decisions on conversations with the people who use the resource. A community can use her principles as a conversation starter, and it should adapt them to local circumstances. Treat its output as a prompt for discussion.
Written by Gareth Hoyle. Last updated 8 October 2026. Part of the authority.md guides library.
More guides.
Daron Acemoglu vs Ha-Joon Chang: Do Good Institutions Cause Growth, or Follow It?
Comparing Daron Acemoglu's institutions-first account of national prosperity in Why Nations Fail with Ha-Joon Chang's historical critique of the institutions literature: two views of development, with the main point of disagreement. General education.
Bill Ackman vs Carl Icahn: Two Styles of Activist Investing. Not Investment Advice
Comparing Bill Ackman's public, thesis-driven activism with Carl Icahn's decades of corporate pressure campaigns: how each approaches companies, boards, and the public. Not investment advice.
Adam Grant vs Simon Sinek: Evidence and Rethinking or Purpose and Why
Comparing Adam Grant's research-based work on giving, originality, and rethinking with Simon Sinek's purpose-driven Start With Why and Infinite Game: two popular voices on leadership, with different relationships to evidence.