Epistemic Regards on Food as a Commons: Plurality of Schools, Genealogy of Meanings, Confusing Vocabularies

Comment: 1. This article criticizes a strict neoliberal economic perspective in which food is primarily produced and allocated through market mechanisms. It argues that the few exceptions acknowledged under this economic perspective for public goods and externalities, for example have been too narrowly applied. Instead, the author argues for "re-commoning food," giving a much greater role to the commons in the production and allocation of food.
2. The author could clarify whether the severe indictment of the neoliberal economic perspective applies to all economic approaches that appreciate a large role for markets in production and allocation of food, or just to really strict perspectives that assign little role to governments and commons. Elinor Ostrom, whose work heavily influenced this article, is a political scientist who received the Nobel prize in economics and one of the most-cited thinkers in the economics literature. Most economists appreciate the commons, in Ostrom's sense, while also appreciating the contribution of markets. No economic or social system has ever provided adequate food to large urban populations without using markets for key functions -- especially signals to producers about quantities needed and signals to consumers about quantities available. Several high-profile 20th Century attempts to do away with market signals have been disasters. In sum, without subtracting from the article's interest in commons, one could consider for completeness giving more discussion to a suitable role for markets in the food system.

3. The sections defining the commons are exceedingly complex. At times, they follow the tradition of Schelling or Ostrom, and at other times the definition seems more radical or even utopian. It was not clear to me if the multiple definitions were intended to be sufficiently consistent with each other that the author is using them all, or instead if both author and reader must choose from contrasting options the definition that is most correct. One could clarify which definitions ultimately are accepted or rejected, so that it becomes clearer what really is meant by the concluding recommendation for "re-commonizing" the food system.

4. Three important systems for making agriculture and food decisions in society are: markets, governments, and civil society decision-making mechanisms. Broadly, the article is arguing for a greater role for this third option. If this vision is to be practical, not merely utopian, it would be useful to consider multiple diverse concrete examples. In my own view, as you think of the wide variety of real-world conflicts in domestic and international food policy, you will find examples where the remedy is "more markets," others where the remedy is "more government," and other where the remedy is "more principled or ethical behavior enforced by norms in civil society." From this article, I only hear interest in the third of these.

5. For "re-commonizing" the food system, one could decide more firmly whether this involves making use of existing norms in civil society, or creating new ones. The article discusses existing norms in traditional societies, and could give more treatment to the role of norms in modern urbanized societies. To the extent that new norms must be created, the author may find the need to reflect more heavily on democratic government decision-making. For example, how would new norms oriented toward the commons, with reduced role for market-based decision-making in production and consumption of food, be instituted in societies where a large fraction of the public accepts the role of markets in the food system?