EigoPro 1級 読解 — The Commons Reconsidered: Ostrom Against the Pessimists

Garrett Hardin's 1968 parable of the commons crystallised a seductive pessimism: where a resource is held in common and access is unrestricted, each user, acting rationally to maximise private gain, contributes to the collective ruin of the whole. A herder who adds one more animal to a shared pasture pockets the entire benefit while the cost of overgrazing is diffused across all. Multiply that calculus by every self-interested actor and the meadow is inexorably stripped bare. The prescription that followed seemed unassailable: either privatise the resource or subject it to coercive state control, for only externally imposed authority could discipline appetites that voluntary cooperation could never restrain. Elinor Ostrom found this orthodoxy empirically threadbare. Surveying Swiss alpine grazing grounds, Japanese village forests, Spanish irrigation cooperatives and inshore fisheries, she documented communities that had governed shared resources sustainably for centuries, neither privatising them nor surrendering them to distant bureaucrats. Their success was not serendipitous. It rested on identifiable design principles: clearly bounded membership, rules tailored to local conditions, graduated sanctions, accessible arbitration, and the recognised right of users to craft their own regulations. Monitoring, crucially, was reciprocal and mutual rather than hierarchical. Ostrom's intervention did not so much refute Hardin as expose the parochialism of his premises. He had presumed atomised strangers incapable of communication, binding agreement or sanction—conditions describing an open-access free-for-all, not a genuine commons embedded in dense social ties. Where reputation matters and defection is observed, the catastrophe is far from foreordained. Yet her work counsels against facile optimism too: self-governance is fragile, contingent on scale, trust and the absence of predatory outsiders. The lesson is not that commons invariably flourish, but that the binary of market versus state was always a false and impoverishing dichotomy.

5問合格 60%以上普通

新規登録 または ログイン が必要です

この単元の問題を3問、解説つきで公開しています

1級 · 読解 · 全5問

問 1

Which statement best captures the central argument of the passage?

  • Ostrom demonstrated that community self-governance is universally superior to markets and reliably succeeds wherever it is attempted.
  • Ostrom's empirical research undermined the assumption that commons must be privatised or state-controlled, revealing self-governance as a viable but conditional third option.
  • Both Hardin and Ostrom agreed that only coercive state authority can prevent the inevitable destruction of common resources.
  • Hardin's parable was logically incoherent, and Ostrom proved that shared resources never deteriorate when left entirely unregulated.
Phrase

the binary of market versus state was always a false and impoverishing dichotomy

1級読解主旨把握論旨
⚡ひとことで

Ostrom は私有化か国家管理かの二分法を覆し、自治を条件付きの第三の道として示した。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Ostrom's empirical research undermined the assumption that commons must be privatised or state-controlled, revealing self-governance as a viable but conditional third option.」

正解

本文は Hardin の悲観論（私有化か強制的な国家統制かの二択）に対し、Ostrom が実証研究で自治という第三の道があることを示したと論じる。ただし最終段で「self-governance is fragile, contingent on scale, trust」と述べ、自治が万能ではなく条件付きであることも強調している。したがって「実行可能だが条件付きの第三の選択肢」という要約が最も的確。

  • 「Hardin's parable was logically incoherent, and Ostrom proved that shared resources never deteriorate when left entirely unregulated.」

    = Hardin は非論理的で、無規制でも資源は劣化しないと Ostrom が証明した ━ 本文は Hardin の前提が「parochial（偏狭）」だと言うのみで非論理的とは言わず、無規制（open-access）では破局が起こりうると認めている。

  • 「Both Hardin and Ostrom agreed that only coercive state authority can prevent the inevitable destruction of common resources.」

    = 両者とも国家の強制力のみが破壊を防げると合意していた ━ Ostrom はまさにその正統説を「empirically threadbare」と退けており、合意していない。

  • 「Ostrom demonstrated that community self-governance is universally superior to markets and reliably succeeds wherever in the world it is attempted.」

    = 自治は市場や国家に普遍的に優り常に成功すると示した ━ 本文は「commons invariably flourish」を明確に否定し、自治は脆く条件次第だと述べる。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
capture the argument論旨を捉えるHer summary fails to capture the argument's nuance.
undermine an assumption前提を掘り崩すNew data undermined the assumption of universal decline.
a viable option実行可能な選択肢Self-governance proved a viable option in many villages.
a false dichotomy誤った二分法Framing it as market versus state is a false dichotomy.
state control国家統制Critics demanded state control of the fisheries.
❝例文

  • The passage's thesis is that a third path exists.

    本文の主旨は第三の道が存在することだ。

  • She challenged the orthodoxy with field evidence.

    彼女は現地証拠で正統説に挑んだ。

  • Privatisation is not the only remedy for overuse.

    私有化が乱用の唯一の処方箋ではない。

  • Conditional success is still success worth studying.

    条件付きの成功でも研究に値する成功だ。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

GIST 問題では、本文が主張と留保の両方を述べている点を反映する選択肢を選ぶ。極端な断定（universally / never / always）は通常ひっかけ。

問 2

According to the passage, why does an individual herder profit from adding another animal to the shared pasture?

  • Adding animals improves the pasture's productivity, benefiting the whole community equally.
  • The herder keeps the full benefit of the extra animal while the cost of overgrazing is spread across all users.
  • Other users voluntarily compensate the herder for sharing the communal resource.
  • The herder is granted a state subsidy for each additional animal placed on common land.
Phrase

pockets the entire benefit while the cost of overgrazing is diffused across all

1級読解詳細把握
⚡ひとことで

利益は個人が独占し、過放牧のコストは全員に分散されるため得をする。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「The herder keeps the full benefit of the extra animal while the cost of overgrazing is spread across all users.」

正解

本文は「A herder who adds one more animal to a shared pasture pockets the entire benefit while the cost of overgrazing is diffused across all」と明記する。すなわち追加した動物の利益はその牧夫が丸取りし、過放牧による負担は共同体全体に薄く広がる。この非対称性こそが過剰利用を駆動する論理である。

  • 「The herder is granted a state subsidy for each additional animal placed on common land.」

    = 追加した動物ごとに国家補助金が支給される ━ 本文に補助金の記述はなく、むしろ外部権威の不在が問題の出発点である。

  • 「Adding more animals improves the pasture's productivity, benefiting the whole community equally.」

    = 動物を増やすと牧草地の生産性が上がり全員が等しく利益を得る ━ 本文は逆に「overgrazing（過放牧）」による劣化と牧草地が裸にされる(stripped bare)結果を述べる。

  • 「Other users voluntarily compensate the herder for sharing the communal resource.」

    = 他の利用者が資源共有の対価を自発的に補償する ━ そうした補償の仕組みは本文になく、コストは補償されず分散されるだけ。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
pocket the benefit利益を独占するHe pocketed the benefit and ignored the shared loss.
diffuse the costコストを分散させるPollution diffuses the cost across an entire region.
add to a resource資源に負荷を加えるEach user adds one more animal to the pasture.
spread across all全員に広がるThe burden is spread across all members.
maximise private gain私的利益を最大化するActing to maximise private gain, he overgrazed the land.
❝例文

  • He reaped the gain and let others bear the loss.

    彼は利益を得て損失は他人に負わせた。

  • The damage was shared, but the reward was not.

    損害は共有されたが報酬はそうではなかった。

  • Each extra cow degraded the common pasture.

    牛を一頭足すごとに共有牧草地は劣化した。

  • Private incentives clashed with the collective good.

    私的誘因が共同の利益と衝突した。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

DETAIL 問題は本文の該当文を特定して照合する。ここでは「pockets the entire benefit … diffused across all」という利益とコストの非対称が答えの核。

問 3

Which of the following was NOT cited as a design principle behind the successful commons Ostrom studied?

  • Permanent ownership of the resource transferred to a single private proprietor.
  • Clearly bounded membership defining who may use the resource.
  • Reciprocal monitoring among users rather than top-down supervision.
  • Graduated sanctions applied to those who break the rules.
Phrase

clearly bounded membership, rules tailored to local conditions, graduated sanctions

1級読解詳細把握
⚡ひとことで

単一私人への永続的所有移転は設計原則に含まれず、むしろ自治は私有化を避けた。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Permanent ownership of the resource transferred to a single private proprietor.」

正解

本文が列挙する設計原則は「clearly bounded membership, rules tailored to local conditions, graduated sanctions, accessible arbitration」および利用者の自主規制権、そして相互的なモニタリングである。資源を単一の私人に永続的に所有させることは含まれず、むしろ Ostrom が研究した共同体は「neither privatising them nor surrendering them to distant bureaucrats」と明記される通り私有化を回避した。

  • 「Clearly bounded membership defining who may use the resource.」

    = 誰が資源を使えるかを定める明確に区切られた成員資格 ━ 本文に「clearly bounded membership」として明記された設計原則であり、含まれる。

  • 「Graduated sanctions applied to those who break the rules.」

    = 規則違反者に科される段階的な制裁 ━ 本文の「graduated sanctions」に該当し、設計原則に含まれる。

  • 「Reciprocal monitoring among users rather than top-down supervision.」

    = 上意下達ではなく利用者間の相互的監視 ━ 本文の「Monitoring … was reciprocal and mutual rather than hierarchical」に一致し含まれる。

▦Collocation
パターン意味例
design principle設計原則Each design principle reinforced the others.
bounded membership区切られた成員資格Bounded membership kept outsiders from free-riding.
graduated sanctions段階的制裁Graduated sanctions punished repeat offenders more harshly.
tailored to conditions状況に合わせたRules tailored to local conditions worked best.
reciprocal monitoring相互監視Reciprocal monitoring built mutual trust.
❝例文

  • The villagers wrote rules suited to their valley.

    村人は自分たちの谷に合った規則を作った。

  • Minor breaches drew light penalties at first.

    軽微な違反には当初軽い罰が科された。

  • Members watched one another, not a distant overseer.

    成員は遠い監督者ではなく互いを見張った。

  • Outsiders were excluded by clear boundaries.

    部外者は明確な境界で排除された。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

「NOT」問題は本文にある選択肢を消去して残りを選ぶ。三つが本文に明記された原則だと確認できれば、残る一つが答え。

残り2問は、解いて確かめられます

全5問すべてに、この形式の解説が付いています。 間違えた問題は記録され、あとから復習できます。

無料で登録して続きを解く

インストール不要・カード登録なし・いま全機能無料

この単元の講義を見る1級の単元一覧1級の用語集