EigoPro 準1級読解 — The Tragedy of the Commons

In 1968 the ecologist Garrett Hardin popularised a deceptively simple parable. Imagine a pasture open to all, on which each herder is free to graze as many cattle as he wishes. Every additional animal yields a private gain to its owner, yet the cost of the resulting overgrazing—a degraded, exhausted field—is shared by the entire community. Acting rationally in his own interest, each herder keeps adding animals, and the pasture is destroyed. The logic that ruins the commons, Hardin warned, governs any resource that is collectively owned but individually exploited: fisheries, forests, clean air, the atmosphere itself. The parable's force lies in the gap it exposes between individual incentive and collective welfare. No single fisherman who lands one more catch perceptibly empties the ocean; no single driver who idles in traffic perceptibly warms the planet. Because the harm is diffuse and delayed while the benefit is immediate and personal, the rational calculus of each participant points relentlessly toward depletion. Appeals to conscience, Hardin argued, are futile and even counterproductive, since the restrained are merely outcompeted by the unrestrained. Yet Hardin's pessimism was not the final word. The economist Elinor Ostrom, who would win a Nobel Prize for her work, documented hundreds of communities that had managed shared resources sustainably for generations—Swiss alpine meadows, Japanese forests, Spanish irrigation networks—without either privatisation or top-down state control. What these communities possessed were robust local institutions: clear boundaries, rules crafted by the users themselves, graduated penalties for violators, and trusted mechanisms for resolving disputes. The tragedy, Ostrom showed, is not inevitable. It unfolds only where people cannot communicate, cannot make binding agreements, and cannot hold one another to account. Where those conditions are met, the commons can endure.

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

準1級 · 読解 · 全5問

問 1

What is the main idea of the passage?

Appealing to people's conscience is the most effective method of conserving common resources.
Hardin's parable proved that all collectively owned resources are doomed to be destroyed.
Although shared resources are prone to ruin through individual self-interest, well-designed community institutions can prevent that outcome.
Privatisation is the only reliable way to protect a shared pasture or fishery.

Phrase

The tragedy, Ostrom showed, is not inevitable.

準1級読解経済環境主旨把握

⚡ひとことで

本文は「共有資源は個人の利己で破滅しやすいが、優れた共同体の制度がそれを防げる」が論旨。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「Although shared resources are prone to ruin through individual self-interest, well-designed community institutions can prevent that outcome.」

正解

本文は (1) Hardin の寓話で共有資源が利己的行動により破壊されると説明し→ (2) その個人の誘因と共同体の福祉の乖離を論じ→ (3) Ostrom が頑健な地域制度 (robust local institutions) で持続管理した共同体を示し『The tragedy is not inevitable』と結論する。よって「共有資源は利己で破滅しやすいが、優れた制度がそれを防げる」が主旨。

「Hardin's own parable conclusively proved that all collectively owned resources are in the end doomed to be destroyed.」
= 全ての共有資源は破壊される運命だと証明した ━ 本文は Ostrom を引いて『破滅は不可避ではない (not inevitable)』と明言しており、運命づけられているという結論を否定している。
「Privatisation is the only genuinely reliable way there is of protecting any kind of shared pasture or common fishery.」
= 私有化だけが信頼できる唯一の方法 ━ Ostrom の共同体は『私有化も国家統制もなしに (without either privatisation or top-down state control)』成功したと述べられており、唯一の方法ではない。
「Appealing to people's conscience is by far the most effective method there is of conserving any of the common resources.」
= 良心への訴えが最も効果的 ━ Hardin は良心への訴えを『無駄で逆効果 (futile and even counterproductive)』と論じており逆。

▦Collocation

パターン	意味	例
graze cattle	牛を放牧する	free to graze as many cattle as he wishes
yield a gain	利益を生む	Every animal yields a private gain.
be prone to ~	~しがちである	Shared resources are prone to ruin.
be exploited	搾取・利用される	collectively owned but individually exploited
not inevitable	不可避ではない	The tragedy is not inevitable.

❝例文

The pasture is open to all and free to use.
その牧草地は万人に開かれ自由に使える。
Every additional animal yields a private gain.
一頭増えるごとに個人的利益が生じる。
Ostrom showed that the tragedy is not inevitable.
オストロムは悲劇が不可避ではないと示した。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

主旨設問は最終段の結論文 (Yet ... not the final word / not inevitable) に注目。逆接 Yet の後に著者の到達点が来る型。

問 2

According to the passage, why does each herder keep adding cattle to the pasture?

Adding cattle is the only way to repair a field that has already been degraded.
The community legally requires every herder to maximise the size of his herd.
The owner gains the full benefit of each animal while the cost of overgrazing is borne by everyone.
Each herder is unaware that grazing more cattle damages the pasture at all.

Phrase

Every additional animal yields a private gain ... yet the cost ... is shared by the entire community.

準1級読解経済環境詳細把握

⚡ひとことで

利益は個人が独占し、過放牧の損失は共同体全体が負担するから牛を増やし続ける。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「The owner gains the full benefit of each animal while the cost of overgrazing is borne by everyone.」

正解

第1段で『追加した動物の利益は飼い主のもの (a private gain to its owner)』だが『過放牧の損失は共同体全体で共有される (shared by the entire community)』と対比し、Acting rationally in his own interest, each herder keeps adding animals と続く。利益独占・損失分散が増頭の理由なので正解。

「The community legally requires that every herder maximise the total size of his herd.」
= 法律で最大化を義務づける ━ 法的義務の記述はない。各自が『自己利益に合理的に (rationally in his own interest)』行動した結果にすぎない。
「Each one of the herders is unaware that grazing more cattle damages the pasture at all.」
= 損害に気づいていない ━ 損害は認識されており (the cost of the resulting overgrazing)、無知ではなく誘因構造の問題。
「Adding more cattle is the only way to repair a field that has already been degraded.」
= 劣化した畑を修復する唯一の方法 ━ 増頭は修復策ではなく劣化の原因。本文と正反対。

▦Collocation

パターン	意味	例
a private gain	個人的利益	yields a private gain to its owner
be shared by ~	~に共有される	the cost is shared by the community
act in one's own interest	自己の利益のために行動する	acting rationally in his own interest
bear the cost	費用を負担する	the cost is borne by everyone
overgrazing	過放牧	the cost of the resulting overgrazing

❝例文

The benefit is private but the cost is shared.
利益は個人的だが損失は共有される。
He acted rationally in his own interest.
彼は自己の利益のため合理的に行動した。
The whole community bears the cost of overgrazing.
過放牧の損失は共同体全体が負担する。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

detail 設問は対比構造 (yet / while) を探す。本文の private gain → full benefit、shared by community → borne by everyone と同義語置換した選択肢が正解。

問 3

What does the passage say about the communities Elinor Ostrom studied?

They succeeded because they eventually divided the resources into private property.
They managed their resources well but collapsed within a single generation.
They sustained shared resources for generations through local institutions, without relying on private ownership or state control.
They survived only after their governments imposed strict centralised regulation.

Phrase

without either privatisation or top-down state control. What these communities possessed were robust local institutions

準1級読解経済環境詳細把握

⚡ひとことで

Ostrom の共同体は私有化も国家統制もなしに、地域制度で世代を超え持続管理した。

選択肢の解説Choice Analysis

「They sustained shared resources for generations through local institutions, without relying on private ownership or state control.」

正解

第3段で Ostrom が『何世代も持続可能に管理した (managed ... sustainably for generations)』共同体を記録し、『私有化も国家統制もなしに (without either privatisation or top-down state control)』、明確な境界・利用者自身が作る規則・段階的罰則などの robust local institutions を備えていたと述べる。これを言い換えた選択肢が正解。

「They only survived at all after their own national governments had imposed a strict system of centralised regulation.」
= 中央集権的規制の後で初めて生き残った ━ 本文は top-down state control なしと明言しており逆。
「They succeeded only because they eventually divided each and every one of the resources into private property.」
= 最終的に私有財産に分割した ━ privatisation なしと明言。私有化はしていない。
「They managed all of their shared resources well but they nonetheless collapsed within one single human generation.」
= 一世代で崩壊した ━ for generations 持続したと述べており正反対。

▦Collocation

パターン	意味	例
manage ~ sustainably	~を持続可能に管理する	managed shared resources sustainably
for generations	何世代にもわたり	sustainably for generations
top-down control	上意下達の統制	without top-down state control
robust institutions	頑健な制度	robust local institutions
hold one another to account	互いに責任を問う	hold one another to account

❝例文

The village managed its forest sustainably for generations.
その村は森を何世代も持続可能に管理した。
They needed neither privatisation nor state control.
私有化も国家統制も必要としなかった。
Robust local institutions kept the commons alive.
頑健な地域制度が共有地を守った。

💡Tip · 覚えるコツ

detail 設問で『without either A or B』のような二重否定の枠組みを見落とさない。誤答は本文が否定した A や B をあえて肯定する型が多い。

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準1級の単元一覧準1級の用語集

EigoPro 準1級 読解 — The Tragedy of the Commons

この単元の問題を3問、解説つきで公開しています

The tragedy, Ostrom showed, is not inevitable.

Every additional animal yields a private gain ... yet the cost ... is shared by the entire community.

without either privatisation or top-down state control. What these communities possessed were robust local institutions

EigoPro 準1級読解 — The Tragedy of the Commons