The Power of the Commons

Abstract

This article argues that rational self-interest is but one dimension of human behavior. In the context of ‘overshoot’—the excessive consumption of resources beyond the planet’s regenerative capacity—rational self-interest proves detrimental from an evolutionary perspective. This paper provides an alternative to the Tragedy of The Commons, which results from collective action problems when rational, self-interested consumers put their individual welfare over that of the group, and offers the relational consumer, one who balances individual and group interests. Highlighting how ethics play a pivotal role in consumer behavior, we discuss human behavior, resource management, and collective action, then examine these theoretical frameworks in two case studies based in southern Africa. First is a biotic example of The Commons paired with the uMhlathuze Water Stewardship Partnership; second is an abiotic example of The Commons paired with Rotating Savings and Credit Association. These case studies exemplify not only that coordination is the best outcome, but also that institutions promoting self-interested behavior can undermine both collective and individual well-being. Considering intercultural ethics can augment consumer theory, especially in terms of sustainable long-term development.

1. Introduction

Though not yet widely accepted, it is obvious to many that the discipline of economics—a social science— is performative [1,2,3,4] meaning that it can produce the phenomena it is meant to analyze. In Heilbronner’s words, “It is not one of their flaws, but one of their claims to greatness as economists that Smith, Ricardo, Mill, Marx, Marshall, and Keynes were explicit in their use of facts and theories as instruments of advocacy” [5]. These famous economists shaped the economic systems they studied. One critical assumption of the mainstream economic model is that in a world of well-defined private property rights, rational economic agents acting in their own best interest generate an ‘invisible hand’ that advances the interest of society. Numerous studies show that simply studying economics leads students to conform to the economic model of Homo economicus, the perfectly rational and insatiable consumer who thinks only of their own interest [6,7,8,9,10,11].

In this article, our goal is to show that rational self-interest is only one facet of complex human behavior. Through evaluating the foundational normative values of consumer theory, this paper ultimately offers a theoretical basis for the evolution and improvement of economic models to better encompass the multi-faceted nature of human behavior. Given the issues presented by overshoot, defined as the global economy’s—and primarily the global North’s—using up of more resources per year than global ecosystems can regenerate, rational self-interest has paradoxically become highly irrational from an evolutionary perspective. The literature on planetary boundaries suggests human society has shot past several ecological limits, including biosphere integrity, biochemical flows, climate change, novel entities (e.g., toxic wastes), land system change, and freshwater change, and is encroaching on several others [12,13]. Overshoot is an example of a classic social dilemma, defined as a situation in which everyone benefits from cooperation, but individuals benefit from acting in their own self-interest [14]. For example, the benefits of burning fossil fuels flow to the individuals who use them, but the costs are shared with 8 billion others, resulting in climate change. When benefits flow to the individual and costs are collective, an economy based on individual choice is inefficient or even suicidal. Individual choice and private property rights are simply impossible for climate stability, clean air, and many other ecosystem services. Our current situation is one of no rights to these services, and the resulting privilege to degrade them [15]. Market economic theory considers all of these problems to be externalities. If the most important economic challenges society faces are external to our economic calculations, we must change our economic system.

Fortunately, humans have created and continue to create an amazing variety of economic systems [16]. Common property, in which resource ownership and decisions about resource use are collective, can be highly effective for managing social dilemmas [17]. When common property rights are created at the correct scale, those who gain the benefits from resource use are the same as those who suffer the costs, thus internalizing so-called externalities. Social dilemmas have been mislabeled as The Tragedy of The Commons. In reality, the tragedy occurs when rational consumers have the privilege to exploit resources for their own interest, ignoring the interests of others [15]. Fortunately, consumers do consider the interests of others [18,19], and it is possible to create economic institutions that promote collective behavior [14,20].

In the presence of social dilemmas, we must develop economic and cultural institutions that favor the relational consumer, which is to say a consumer that accounts for the impacts of their consumption on other humans and on the rest of nature. A relational consumer considers the total benefit and total cost inclusive of their neighbors. For example, a rational consumer would extract as many fish or as much water from a finite source as personally desired, following formal regulations only to avoid sanctions. A relational consumer would limit their use based on traditional ecological knowledge, community expectations, or cultural respect for the lake, even if they could take more without immediate consequences.

In the following sections, we present our methodology (Section 2: Methodology), which is followed by two sections that present findings. The first outlays interdisciplinary findings from systemic literature review (Section 3: Human Behavior, Resource Management, and Collective Action) and the second details two case studies that exemplify real-world examples of the themes discussed prior (Section 4: Ubuntu Case Studies). Our arguments are synthesized and underscore the role of normative values in addressing economic problems in the final section (Section 5: Conclusions).

2. Methodology

This research employs a scoping review of the literature to provide a basis for a normative analysis of economic thought. This is not a conventional research article in which we empirically test an existing hypothesis. Instead, this paper contributes to the intentional normative reshaping of our economic system [21,22] by outlining an alternative assumption in the framework of consumerism that is better adapted to addressing the social dilemmas.

The scoping literature review identifies, synthesizes, and analyzes existing studies relevant to the normative values of consumerism. Through presenting facts and theories as instruments of advocacy, this paper is a performative effort to apply discursive power, expand the theory of the rational, self-interested consumer [14], and present the relational consumer as a starting point for future research. In the following section (Section 3: Human Behavior, Resource Management, and Collective Action), the paper intentionally highlights three important themes to showcase the scientific literature backing the viability of the normative values. This scoping literature review is complemented by two case studies (Section 4: Ubuntu Case Studies), which amplify perspectives that have historically been overlooked. The case studies challenge dominant paradigms and address critical gaps. Providing a perspective that addresses notable gaps in the existing body of work, the case studies provide insights that are integrated with findings from the literature, creating a layered and interdisciplinary analysis. The existing academic discourse directly related to these case studies is limited, emphasizing that this insight will improve current perspectives in the modern body of economic literature.

Given that this paper accepts the fact that economics is a performative discipline, the methodological approach of a scoping literature review defines important themes and provides naming schemes, ultimately giving a basis for the evolution of consumer theory. By presenting facts and theories as instruments of advocacy, this serves as a basis of economic thought that summarizes normative solutions to overshoot.

3. Human Behavior, Resource Management, and Collective Action

Through examining human behavior, resource management, and collective action, the following three sections show how rational consumer theory is siloed, and in turn offer theoretical frameworks that give the economic discipline space to evolve.

3.1. Power

Power can be perceived through different lenses as structural, instrumental, and discursive [23]. Structural power is demonstrated through legal and contractual frameworks in which power is defined through rules and regulations (e.g., property rights, which can be private or common). Instrumental power “draws attention to the direct influence of an actor on political decision-making by means, e.g., of lobbying or campaign finance” [23]. Discursive power is found in cultural, ethical, and epistemological discourses. All three types of power are required to advance the Commons as an alternative to our current economic system. Hardin’s solutions to problems of overuse focused on structural power, while Ostrom’s eight core principles for managing the commons emphasize instrumental power [24]. Recent scholars, including Bollier, have called for more Commons-based solutions that invoke the amplification of discursive power [25].

In this paper, we use the word power intentionally to extend and explore the aspects of discursive power that lead to the empowerment of all entities in the Commons. We intend for the word to be perceived in the way of empowerment, or the process of becoming fortified by others, to encourage co-creation and collaboration. Our origins of empowerment align with Rodwell’s definition: “empowerment is a helping process, a partnership valuing self and others, mutual decision making, and freedom to make choices and accept responsibility” [26]. The Commons can empower all of those who contribute to it.

Oreskes and Conway (2023) carefully document how American businesses have used instrumental power and discursive power to influence individual behavior and structural power and to promote the market economy over alternative economic systems [27]. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, both politicians and academics have also used their discursive power to convince the populace that “there is no alternative” to neoliberal capitalism [28]. Fisher coined the term “capitalist realism” to describe the widespread sense that we cannot even imagine an alternative to capitalism, a belief that shapes our culture, political economy, and thought to the point where it has become easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism [29].

Increasing the role of the Commons in our economic system will require structural, instrumental, and discursive power, along with the development of new cultural norms and institutions that favor the relational consumer. Just as exposure to mainstream economic theory increases conformity with the rational actor model, as described, we anticipate that exposure to a scientifically and empirically grounded exploration of the Commons can help stimulate conformity with the relational actor model. We present The Power of The Commons as a solution to the issues stated in the ethical underpinning of our current economic framework

3.2. Overshoot and the Relational Consumer

In the 17th century, Locke claimed that people were entitled to private property rights and to any wealth they wrested from nature as long as “there was still enough, and as good left; and more than the yet unprovided could use” [30]. A century later, when Adam Smith first elucidated the theories of mainstream market economics in The Wealth of Nations [31], the global human population was about 10% of today’s, and energy consumption—a useful proxy for economic production—was less than 2.5% of today’s [32]. Vast areas of the planet were sparsely populated and human demands on global ecosystems were still relatively light. The human economy was an open system, meaning that it could receive flows of low entropy energy and matter from nature and return flows of high entropy energy and matter to nature without harming others. Boulding (1966) [33] famously referred to this as a “cowboy economy”, and Daly (2005) as an “empty world” [34].

However, an exponential increase in human populations, resource consumption, and waste emissions—with most of the increase occurring since 1950 [33]—has transitioned us to a “full world” scenario [34], and a “spaceship economy” [35]. Humanity is altering the biogeochemistry of the planet at the scale of geological forces, leading many scientists to claim we have entered a new geological epoch, the Anthropocene. All economic production requires both raw materials and energy. In a world with plunging biodiversity, dwindling resource stocks, and growing stocks of waste, one person’s resource extraction and waste emissions unavoidably have profound impacts on others. Locke’s justification for private property no longer holds. An economic system in which ubiquitous and unavoidable costs of profound importance to humanity’s future are external to economic decisions is obsolete.

It is our obsession with rationality that has led us to this predicament. Descartes famously distinguished the rational mind and the mechanical body. All other species were considered purely mechanical, with no greater moral standing than any other machine [36]. From the enlightenment onwards, Western society has viewed humans and nature as separate, and nature as nothing more than a collection of objects to be exploited as we choose. If human civilization is to persist, we must transition to what Berry (2020) has dubbed the Ecozoic Era [37], characterized by the mutual flourishing of humankind and the rest of the natural world. Our planetary ecosystems must be viewed as a communion of interrelated subjects, of which humans are an integral part, not a collection of objects. Economic decisions must account for both the costs and benefits accruing to all those subjects. In short, our most important economic decisions must be made collectively, based on some form of commoning [25].

Any calls for changing our economic system inevitably face the critique that the magic of the market economy has done more to improve human welfare than any other economic system ever. It is true that humans live longer, more comfortable lives than at any previous time in human history, though we cannot say for sure if this is due to markets, cheap fossil fuels, or the continuous accumulation of collective knowledge. However, Polanyi dates the emergence of the modern market economy to the early 19th century and the elimination of social obligations to meet the economic needs of others. Both labor and nature were transformed into commodities to be sold to the highest bidder, whose value was determined solely by their contribution to market exchange [38]. Monetary exchange replaced reciprocal obligations. In less than two centuries, this economy has greatly disrupted planetary life support systems essential to our survival, posing grave risks to the well-being of future generations.

In contrast, innumerable cultures have survived for millennia while inflicting negligible damage to the ecosystems that sustain them. Many of those cultures viewed themselves as part of an interrelated whole upon which they depended for survival [39,40,41]. First, people depended on their communities. A hunter returning to camp with an elk shared it with the community. With a surplus of meat, the cost to the hunter was negligible, while for those with too little to eat, the gift was of immeasurable value and created a corresponding desire to reciprocate. Each economic exchange therefore deepened social relationships. Second, people depended on nature’s bounty, which was perceived as an invaluable gift for which humans were obliged to reciprocate. They were relational consumers, accounting for the impacts of their consumption on themselves, society, and nature. This article is not calling for something new, but rather for adapting time-tested solutions to the crises created by modern, extractive economies based on the model of the rational consumer.

In accordance with this adaptation, we reframe The Commons as an ideal of collective empowerment. This perspective offers the name of the relational consumer. The relational consumer considers not only the impacts of consumption upon personal well-being, but also the impacts upon others with whom they are socially or ecological connected. Integrating intersubjective relationships into consumer theory is essential for the design of institutions that promote the sustainability and resilience of communities. In mainstream economics, consumption is determined by the individual’s budget and personal utility function, which is completely unaffected by the utility of others [42]. In contrast, the utility function of a relational consumer is deeply affected by the well-being of others. Returning to the previous example of a hunter with an elk, the rational consumer will apportion the elk to whoever is willing to pay the most, regardless of their need. In highly unequal economies, such as those that characterize the modern world, this means the elk meat is likely to go to the wealthiest people with the least need, while the poor go hungry [43]. A reciprocity and gifting economy generates more total utility from the elk and is therefore more efficient than markets. Mainstream economics claims we cannot make intersubjective comparisons of utility and therefore have no way of knowing if the underfed person gains more utility from an additional meal than an overfed person, but this strains credulity. The relational consumer considers the well-being of both the human and natural communities of which they are a part. The collective values-based decision-making in which a relational consumer engages addresses the environmental and social shortcomings of the current economic framework [44].

The idea of the relational consumer is founded on the principles of reciprocity; when we engage in monetary exchange, we strive to get the best deal possible, and when we engage in reciprocity, we strive for fairness [43].

Instead of being motivated by the invisible hand of self-interest, a relational consumer is motivated by the invisible hand of multilevel interest [45]. They make sacrifices because they understand that their community will reciprocate for them and this collective notion results in shared risks and benefits throughout the community.

In the epigraph to Tragedy of the Commons, Hardin (1968) suggests that there are no technological solutions to social dilemmas, which require instead a fundamental extension of morality [46]. A wealth of literature now recognizes that a sustainable economy must be built on ethical foundations [47,48,49].

From an evolutionary perspective, the rational consumer is neither rational—especially considering that a rational consumer’s actions result in the problem of overshoot—nor ethical [50]. The following section explains why relationality has been essential to the evolution of all complex life, and hence why consumer theory must consider a relational consumer.

3.3. The Evolutionary Origins of Reciprocity: Multi-Level Selection Theory (MLS)

Natural selection has long been interpreted as survival of the fittest individuals in a fierce competition of all against all [49], or even as competition between selfish genes [51] but this is an overly simplistic view of evolutionary theory. Darwin recognized that groups with more altruistic and cooperative members would outcompete other groups [52]. Russian naturalist Kropotkin also argued that mutual aid was a major factor in evolution [53]. However, many later evolutionists claimed that any individual that sacrificed their own welfare to enhance the fitness of unrelated group members would leave fewer offspring, thus selecting against any genetic tendency towards altruism. Altruism towards relatives could evolve in a population but cannot be considered altruism from a genetic perspective [54,55,56]. Richard Dawkins famously argued that evolution acts primarily on genes, thus favoring the selfish gene, which might even put its own survival ahead of that of the organism that houses it [51]. Trivers (1971) introduced the idea of reciprocal altruism, which justifies sacrifice for others but only if one expects reciprocity in the future, and hence is a form of enlightened self-interest [57]. These views have had a profound influence on the theory of the rational consumer.

However, more recently, the theories of major evolutionary transitions and multi-level selection have emerged to explain the mechanisms underlying Darwin’s and Kropotkin’s views. A major evolutionary transition occurs when individual organisms become so interdependent that they can no longer survive as individuals, only as a collective [58,59,60]. The eukaryotic cell resulted from a union between two separate domains of life, archaea and bacteria [61,62] and its constituent parts can no longer survive on their own. Some lineages of single eukaryotic cells evolved into multicellular animals, whose cells will die if separated from the body. Some lineages of multi-cellular animals, including humans, evolved into social animals no longer capable of surviving as isolated individuals [20,63].

Multi-level selection theorists have synthesized the evolutionary theories of competition and cooperation by recognizing that natural selection can occur at different levels. While selfish individuals will likely exhibit greater fitness than altruistic individuals within a group, groups with more altruistic individuals will outcompete groups with fewer—even when the individuals are not related [64]. A corollary of this theory is that selfish behavior by the individual undermines the welfare of the group, which is the definition of a social dilemma.

What defines the individual and the group depends on the scale of our analysis. A selfish cell focused only on its own interest is a cancer, undermining the health of the multi-cellular organism. An individual human acting solely in their own self-interest is a sociopath, threatening the well-being of their community. Communities acting in their own self-interest, such as colonialist expansion, can undermine the well-being of humanity. Humanity acting in the self-interest of the species undermines the well-being of the global ecosystem upon which all species depend for their survival [64,65,66]. Natural selection can act at all these levels simultaneously, with the outcome depending on the relative strength of individual versus group selection, as shown in Figure 1.

Natural selection requires only an inheritance mechanism, variation, and differential survival. Cultures are inherited, highly variable, and affect survival. In humans, selection at the individual level is primarily driven by genes, and at the group level by culture. Culture is the result of collective and cumulative knowledge and norms, more than could possibly be developed by a single generation or acquired by a single individual. The knowledge required to produce the last meal you ate presumably included soil science, agronomy, biology, chemistry, metallurgy, engineering, and others, and was cooperatively developed by billions of people over thousands of years. For a group to succeed, the individual must put the interests of the group ahead of their own. Cultures bond us together in groups by creating an evolving set of morals, ethics, and norms favoring the group over the individual. Humanity’s wild success is the result of our ability to cooperate at larger and larger scales [20,21,63,64,67]. Our continued success demands that we evolve the capacity to place humanity above interests of individual culture and global ecosystems above individual species. From an evolutionary perspective, relationality trumps rational self-interest.

The rational consumer is focused solely on the individual, or selfish actions. It is an egocentric approach. Mainstream economics argues that each consumer acting in their own interest maximizes the welfare of the group, which is only true when one person’s consumption decisions have no impact on others. It can never be true in a fossil fueled economy characterized by a proliferation of social dilemmas.

The relational consumer is focused on the individual and the greater whole in a symbiotic relationship. Even as a cooperative species, some self-interest is unavoidable: we take from each other, as we take our food, water, and air from our environment. In a relational, reciprocity-based economy, however, we must learn to take as little as possible from society and from nature to ensure the greater whole survives and reciprocate for what we must take. Individual humans can only survive in relationships with other humans, and all species depend for their survival on the life support functions of intact ecosystems, in which everything is ultimately related to everything else. We must learn to sustain the group or go extinct.

In essence, the relationship between humanity and the rest of nature should be the same relationship as the cell to the body—take no more from the whole than is necessary to help sustain the whole [65]. The market economy focuses on the self-interested individual. The public sector theoretically focuses on the collective welfare of the polis, though it is notoriously influenced by market power [68]. What we lack in modern society is a Commons sector that prioritizes the welfare of the group as a whole, whether a neighborhood, a state, a nation, humanity as a whole, or planetary ecosystems of which humans are a part. These are not novel ideas.

Social dilemmas exist on different scales, from individuals prioritizing self-interest to the detriment of their communities, to entire species jeopardizing the global ecosystem through imprudent growth. Building on this, the next section explores how individuals contribute to and are integral parts of a larger collective through the practical example of the Ubuntu philosophy.

4. Ubuntu Case Studies

The relational consumer, an individual who is swayed by the invisible hand of multi-level interest, is exemplified by the ethic of Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a foundational philosophy that positions the individual as a part of a greater whole, and without that greater whole, the individual would simply not be [69]. This foundational concept exemplifies the instinct of human nature to act collectively and the important elements of group dynamics necessary to achieve relational actions. Ubuntu as a cultural practice enables people to engage in diverse activities and relationships with an underlying agreement to act with each other’s interests in balance, mirroring the concepts previously discussed in multi-level selection theory. Ubuntu utilizes reciprocity as the basis for exchange [70].

The fundamentals of Ubuntu lie in the isiZulu aphorism “umuntu ngumuntu ngabantu”, which means “a person is a person because of his community” [71]. The term ‘ubuntu’ etymologically breaks down into word fragments ‘ubu’, which signifies community, and ‘ntu’, which signifies a sense of vitality [72]. Explained in short, the ethic of Ubuntu is “I am because We are” [70]. For those that practice Ubuntu, a person must consider their neighbor’s outcomes as a sum of their own.

To explore this ethos, we consider Ubuntu in the context of The Commons as a mechanism to encourage the ethos of reciprocity in consumer ethics. Ubuntu has predominantly been a cosmovision and set of ethics recognized and modeled by elders in pre-colonial African villages, yet emerged from orature into mainstream scholarship in the late 20th century. It is presented as the act of being human, founded on the principle of community virtuousness [73]. Critics of Ubuntu highlight that it is limited by a strong focus on humanness and therefore anthropocentric. However, other readings of Ubuntu escape this anthropocentrism, instead evaluating nonhuman animals, ancestors, and ecosystems included within community [74]. Etieyibo (2017) suggests these contributions indicate interdependence and extend the sphere of what counts as ‘community’ beyond the contemporary understanding of human community [74]. Ubuntu is founded on totemic systems, where individuals see themselves in relationship with all communities and the wider environment [41]. Ubuntu is a lifelong intergenerational knowledge system and practice that recognizes that an individual’s well-being comes from the community and the community’s well-being comes from the individual. The collective philosophy results in shared risks and benefits throughout the community. The normative notion requires that the actions of the individual be genuinely aligned with the interests of the collective; the individual recognizes that the collective welfare is synonymous with their own. As summarized in a review article: “ubuntu is an essentially relational ethics, which prizes relationships of interdependence, fellowship, reconciliation, relationality, community friendliness, harmonious relationships, and other-regarding actions such as compassion and actions that are likely to be good for others, in which actions are morally right to the extent that they honor the capacity to relate communally, reduce discord or promote friendly relationships with others, and in which the physical world and the spiritual world are fundamentally united” [41].

Ubuntu is frequently presented as a cultural practice, but in this article, we present it as an alternative to rational consumer theory that, if understood correctly and applied, can redefine the contours of our collective local and global economies [74]. In the following sections, case studies that are exemplary of the Ubuntu cosmovision are analyzed and synthesized in the context of The Commons. Ubuntu has received increased attention as a framework through which to explore unorthodox socio-economic forms of self-management, collective property ownership, and the co-production of social goods and spaces [69].

In an economic framework, the principles of Ubuntu are precedented. They are congruent with many components of collective rationality [75], critiques of the behavior of rational consumers [76], and Ostrom’s insights into group dynamics governing The Commons [17]. The common principles, norms, and values upheld in the Ubuntu philosophy include mutual respect, reciprocity, and shared responsibility [41,77,78,79,80]. These themes overlap with social [81] and ecological frameworks [40,82] underscoring that Ubuntu fits with the worldview of economy embedded in society embedded in Nature. Ubuntu offers the notion that your community is an extension of self, and therefore relational consumer theory is the fundamental assumption.

We offer two case studies that exemplify communities prioritizing collective well-being. The Ubuntu practice of ‘I am because We are’ harps on the idea of multilevel-selection theory [21,22,66] and relational consumerism. We submit that these case studies illustrate how relational consumption is more sustainable, just, and efficient than rational consumption in the context of both natural and cultural commons. As exemplified in the case studies, Ubuntu as an ethic represents a paradigm in which relational consumerism is evident.

4.1. Water as a Commons; The Practice of Ubuntu in UWASP

Water is the binding ingredient that links all beings in the Ecozoic. A watershed represents an interconnected ecological structure where water flows across various terrains, influencing the environment and the organisms that inhabit it. In many regions, the management of watersheds has been delegated to government agencies or private entities. These institutions often control water rights, allocate resources, and determine land use policies, effectively creating systems of regulation and control. This centralized management can lead to a concentration of structural or instrumental power that may favor certain interests over others. In this way, the management of watersheds benefits certain individuals over others and encloses The Commons. Water is non-excludable but rival. This means that anyone can use it, but as one uses it, the resource’s availability to other individuals is reduced. These characteristics therefore lead to a social dilemma of overuse at the expense of the greater community. The case below seeks to explore the tenets of Ubuntu practicing collective rationality in a cross-sector, social partnership watershed management institution.

The uMhlathuze Water Stewardship Partnership (UWASP) is a dynamic collaboration between businesses, government, agricultural entities, and society at large that addresses water security challenges in the uMhlathuze region on the Northeast coast of the province of Kwazulu Natal, South Africa [83] UWASP is an example of an organization that, through internalizing Ubuntu in its practice, considers water as The Commons, and people within the watershed as its stewards. The collaboration is a holistic and inclusive approach to handling The Commons in a way that values the collective, interconnectedness, and reciprocity.

A drought devastated the uMhlathuze Water Catchment Area (UWCA) in 2016, when the Goedertrouw Dam sank to 18% of its capacity [84]. The drought was devastating for all communities of life. UWASP has continued to implement critical water sustainability projects in the UWCA, despite surviving mostly on grant funding, and has improved watershed management drastically since the drought in 2016 [83]. UWASP is now in the second phase of its program development and is involved with important long-term water sustainability projects.

The UWASP governance structure is responsible for establishing buy-in, communicating the shared vision, and maintaining understanding of roles and responsibilities [85]. The participants meet bi-annually and work closely with the implementing project managers, who meet on a monthly basis. The implementing partners work in tandem with knowledge producers who are essential for creating awareness. The ecosystem of knowledge producers includes businesses, government institutions, academics, research institutions, experts, individuals in the community, multilateral organizations, and community-based organizations [85]. Because the ethic of Ubuntu is fundamental, mediating power inequities results in the co-production of an adaptive and resilient watershed stewardship program. By creating a platform where stakeholders meet regularly to discuss and manage shared resources, UWASP has fostered a sense of stewardship that encourages accountability and reciprocity as the mechanism through which the people contribute to the well-being of the watershed.

The uMhlathuze Water Stewardship Partnership (UWASP) has developed detailed mechanisms for measurement and success by integrating ecological management, water-use efficiency, and community development. These initiatives include the Enhanced Coastal Lakes Management and Dam Mentorship Programme, which improves dam operations through mentorship and best practices [86]. They also include the 2019 Bloemfontein workshop, which aimed at addressing dam water release challenges through collective problem-solving and stakeholder engagement. Facilitated by NatuRes, the workshop fostered iterative collaboration by training local communities and leveraging the expertise of a retired dam engineer to enhance water stewardship practices [86]. Through invasive species management and wetland conservation [84], these initiatives ensure ongoing engagement. They are further supported by real-time access to dam level updates, provided through data from the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). A major outcome of UWASP is the development of a hydrological database, which tracks key variables such as water travel time, rainfall impact, and flow duration [86]. This data-driven approach has strengthened water management, contributing to improved dam storage levels and greater regional resilience [87]—all of which is grounded in the collective principles of Ubuntu.

This partnership provides a lens to understand the aspects and interactions required for self-management, collective property ownership, and the co-production of social goods and spaces. There is no one-size-fits-all approach for designing these institutions such as UWASP, but several design principles [88] may facilitate the significant scaling up of collaborative governance and financing mechanisms. These entities are formed and established on the principle of reciprocity and accountability. UWASP’s commitment to collective action within the watershed reflects a shared sense of responsibility and reciprocity. By fostering a sense of stewardship and accountability, this partnership has built a robust system of social cohesion and improved watershed resilience. UWASP transcends fostering a culture of inclusion, trust, and shared success; it provides a blueprint for equitable distribution of resources and risks.

4.2. Money as a Commons; The Practice of Ubuntu in ROSCA

Money, at its core, represents a social agreement [89]. It is a symbolic system where people collectively agree on its value and accept it as a medium of exchange for goods and services. Money is always a collective creation, since its value derives entirely from people’s willingness to accept it. The stock market is an example of a culturally-created, abiotic Commons. However, most modern economies organize money though banks, and banks issue loans, which carry interest. Interest is considered the cost of money. This process, known as “loaning into existence”, can lead to a concentration of financial power. [90]. In essence, privatization of money creation allows the modern financial system to charge people for access to our collective creation, a form of enclosing the commons.

In contrast to this privatized system, Rotating Savings and Credit Associations (ROSCAs), also known as Stokvels in South Africa, offer an alternative approach. ROSCAs operate as informal financial groups where members contribute to a common pool, which is then distributed among them in a specific order [91]. Members collectively pool funds, allowing each participant to access lump-sum capital at predetermined intervals [90]. The process of rotation ensures that each member has access to a significant sum of money at regular intervals. This communal structure allows participants to save, borrow, and lend within a trusted circle without charging interest, reinforcing the social agreement aspect of money. As defined by the National Stokvel Association of South Africa (NASASA), ROSCAs are voluntary groups of members bound by a common cause who pool financial resources for the benefit of the group [92].

ROSCAs generally involve a group of people, often women, who meet regularly and contribute a set amount to a common fund [93]. At each meeting, one member receives the total sum collected, allowing them to meet financial needs such as paying for education, starting a small business, financing reforestation, and recently, pandemic relief from COVID-19. The rotation continues until each member has received their turn. This simple yet effective structure addresses several aspects of cooperation and reciprocity. For example, in 2013, Uganda’s Manafwa district survived a landslide from the Mt Elgon. Both residents of the area and neighboring residents came together for a project aimed at saving money to be used for tree planting, restoration of riverbanks, and community sensitization programs with the intent to mitigate flooding, soil erosion, water logging, and landslides [94]. In the face of gender discrimination and disempowerment, women around the world participate in ROSCAs [95]. Because women have historically been excluded from the formal banking sector and underserved by traditional banks, turning to ROSCAs as a resistance strategy has been plausible for creating greater wealth. Avoiding paying interest on loans is attractive to marginalized groups like women, driving the participation of ROSCAs [95]. Women in ROSCAs create a safe space for themselves that the formal banking system does not offer. Though women-dominated, some men have also started to participate in these non-market, informal money systems, especially in East Africa [94].

ROSCAs rely heavily on trust among members. Collective savings and credit facilities enable the members to fulfill an underlying social agreement. Peer dynamics and cultural ethics are used for accountability. Trust is therefore embedded in these relationships as they allow themselves to be vulnerable and share their needs and goals. Members work together to achieve individual and community goals. This shared commitment ensures that the group stays cohesive and motivated [96] The social fabric holds the group together. Non-payment is seen as a breach of trust. There are cultural taboos against such defective behavior, and if repetitive, it is met with ostracizing. Friends and kin often act as sureties, reinforcing this trust-based system [97].

Empirical research indicates that ROSCAs significantly improve savings behavior, with participants exhibiting higher savings rates compared to those without structured savings mechanisms [98]. ROSCAs serve as a critical tool for income smoothing and investment, as members frequently use payouts for entrepreneurial ventures, household expenses, or emergency needs [99]. Measurement of ROSCA efficiency reveals that repayment rates often exceed 95%, demonstrating the strong social enforcement mechanisms inherent in these systems [100]. Additionally, qualitative studies highlight how ROSCAs foster social cohesion and trust, reinforcing economic resilience within communities [101]. Given their consistent success across diverse cultural and economic contexts, ROSCAs remain a crucial model for sustainable, community-driven financial empowerment, further exemplifying that Ubuntu creates a framework for the collective to be better off.

ROSCAs represent a form of commoning in the financial realm, where money is treated as a collective resource rather than a private commodity created by banks at a price. The success of ROSCAs in various regions, particularly in South Africa, demonstrate that economic transactions can be based on cooperation, trust, and reciprocity, challenging the notion that financial systems must inherently operate on enclosures, competition, and profit motives. Through ROSCAs, the ethic of Ubuntu is fundamental, showcasing how collective well-being is synergetic with individual well-being. ROSCAs provide a framework for building equitable distribution of resources and risks in financial systems, ultimately supporting broader social and economic empowerment.

4.3. Purpose of These Case Studies

The examples of UWASP and ROSCAs show how the concept of relational consumerism can be adapted to modern economies. They illustrate the underlying ethic of individuals contributing to the greater community as an extension of self. More specifically, UWASP exemplifies the application of commons-based approaches to water management, using collective decision-making and shared stewardship to address environmental challenges. It is an example of personal contributions that enrich biotic Commons. ROSCAs demonstrate the concept of social agreements in the realm of finance, where trust and reciprocity form the basis of economic transactions. It is an example of personal contributions that enrich an abiotic Commons. These cases demonstrate that cooperative and inclusive strategies can promote the development of economies.

The Ubuntu ethic is not isolated. Mātauranga Māori, in many ways, resembles the underlying principles of relationality, cooperation, and reciprocity. Mātauranga Māori is the knowledge of indigenous peoples in Aotearoa New Zealand [102], but defining it as knowledge alone is inadequate. Mātauranga Māori is understood within Te Ao Māori, a Māori worldview, that has at its foundation relationships between everything seen and unseen, humans and more-than humans, the natural and spiritual world. For this reason, Mātauranga Māori shapes the way of living and recognizes people as part of a collective [103], shaping economic interactions [104].

Regarding Western thought, in some ways, Ubuntu aligns with Doughnut Economics [105] and solidarity-based economies [106] by emphasizing decisions that balance individual needs with social and environmental considerations, promoting well-being within planetary boundaries. Doughnut Economics seeks to establish an economic framework that ensures a just social foundation while remaining within ecological limits, mirroring the relational ethos found in Ubuntu and Mātauranga Māori. Similarly, solidarity-based economies emphasize cooperation, mutual aid, and collective well-being over profit maximization, reflecting indigenous perspectives that prioritize reciprocity and long-term sustainability [105,106]. These frameworks challenge the individualistic tendencies of mainstream economic thought by reinforcing economic behaviors rooted in relationality, shared responsibility, and ecological stewardship, offering alternative pathways to more inclusive and sustainable economic models [102,103,105,106]. The emphasis on relationality in economic thought aligns with recent research on consumer behavior, which highlights how social relationships shape consumption patterns and decision-making beyond mere transactional exchanges [18,19].

5. Conclusions

The Power of The Commons is presented as a world-building framework that has the potential to catapult societies toward constructive pathways for sustainable development. The impacts of lost resources and basic ecological functions that all species depend upon are felt at national and international levels, and therefore the ecological crisis is an example of a social dilemma. Through this crisis, we are witnessing the complexity of natural ecosystems and their interconnectedness with human life. Transitioning The Commons’ conceptual framework beyond managerial coordination toward socially embedded normative values enables economic systems to evolve into the Ecozoic era.

The present work discusses new insights about such issues and the foundational conditions most likely to favor sustainable uses of The Commons. Some of the most difficult challenges concern the management of large-scale resources that depend on international cooperation. Since culture is a collective phenomenon, cultural evolution must operate through a multifaceted approach [65,67]. The Power of The Commons emerges as a mediating factor for cultural evolution. While the existence of multiple, semi-autonomous decision-making centers may be sufficient to characterize a governance arrangement as polycentric, it does not guarantee that there will be sufficient coordination among the decision centers [107,108]. This paper proposes the Power of The Commons as one of the emerging development frameworks that can guarantee sufficient coordination among decision makers and supports choices, which drive collective action and reciprocity.

On the basis of practical implications, the ideals of the relational consumer can be incorporated into policy and governance, market models, and education. Policies could penalize excessively self-interested behavior while redefining economic success using well-being-based measures like the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) or Social Progress Index (SPI). These approaches could encourage commons-based resource management, empowering communities to collectively govern shared natural resources at various scales. In markets, fostering relational commerce—such as cooperative grocery stores and local exchange systems—can shift the focus from short-term profits to long-term relationships. Most importantly, embedding relational economics in school and university curricula can have a profound impact by emphasizing reciprocity, sustainability, and collective decision-making in economic models.

This paper considers the inherent practice of relational thought, and is ultimately underpinned by evolutionary theory, applying this concept to reframe conventional views of consumerism, which are now associated with warnings of overuse. Instead of traditional perceptions that highlight individualistic behavior, this paper proposes a communal approach, which—as exemplified in the case studies—leads toward cooperative outcomes. Through these examples, we highlight that resource management and financial systems can be built on trust, cooperation, and reciprocity. Moving forward, the present work illustrates that the relational consumer embraces mutual responsibility, ecosystem sustainability, and economic empowerment. Offering the relational consumer as a term to apply to cases where consumers prioritize collective well-being, cooperation, and shared responsibility solidifies this perspective in the evolution of economic theory. These ideas resonate within several cultures and emerging frameworks that challenge traditional economic models, emphasizing the fundamental notion that relationships shape consumption choices.