The Cycle of the Commons: China’s 75-Year Struggle with Shared Resources

 

The Cycle of the Commons: China’s 75-Year Struggle with Shared Resources

Since 1949, China has swung between extreme collective ownership and rapid privatization. While these phases look different on the surface, they share a common thread: the "Tragedy of the Commons," where individuals (or officials) exploit a shared resource until it collapses.

1. The Mao Era: The Tragedy of "No Ownership"

Under Mao Zedong, the state abolished private property, turning the entire nation into a "commons."

• The Great Leap Forward (1958-1962): When villagers were forced into People's Communes, the "Common Mess Halls" became a literal tragedy. Because food was free and "shared," people ate everything immediately. With no individual responsibility for the grain supply, the "commons" was depleted, contributing to the Great Famine.

• Backyard Furnaces: To meet steel quotas, people melted down their own tools and communal resources to produce useless pig iron. The shared environment—forests and timber—was stripped bare to fuel these furnaces, a classic destruction of a common resource for short-term political "gain."

2. The Deng & Jiang Era: The "Contract" Tragedy (承包制)

Deng Xiaoping’s Household Responsibility System (家庭聯產承包責任制) is credited with saving the economy, but it created a new version of the tragedy.

• Short-Termism: Farmers were given land on short-term contracts. Because they did not own the land permanently,they had no incentive to maintain soil health. They used massive amounts of chemical fertilizers to maximize yield before the contract ended, leading to widespread soil acidification and groundwater pollution.

• Village Enterprises (TVEs): In the 1990s, local factories popped up everywhere. Since the rivers were "common" property, every factory dumped toxic waste into them to save costs. The result was the "Cancer Village" phenomenon—the economic gain was private, but the environmental cost was shared by the public.

3. The Hu & Xi Era: The Tragedy of High-Tech and Urban Space

Even as China became a global superpower, the tragedy moved into new sectors.

• The Bike-Sharing Collapse (2017): Under Hu and then Xi, companies like Ofo and Mobike flooded city sidewalks with millions of bikes. Because the "sidewalk" was a common public space and the bikes were "shared," users treated them with no care, and companies over-saturated the market. This led to "Bicycle Graveyards" that choked public squares.

• The Real Estate Bubble: Local governments relied on selling land (a finite common resource) to fund their budgets. This led to "Ghost Cities"—over-exploitation of the land for short-term GDP growth, leaving a massive debt burden for the next generation.

命運的迴轉：為何英國的奴役之路並非必然】

【命運的迴轉：為何英國的奴役之路並非必然】

英國真的「沒救了」嗎？看著創紀錄的高稅負、「保姆國家」式的過度擴張，以及能源與住房日益依賴中央計畫，人們很容易得出結論：我們已經走在海耶克（Friedrich Hayek）所恐懼的道路半途了。然而，海耶克的教導從來不是預言「必然的滅亡」，而是一份旨在激發行動的警告。

通往奴役之路是一種選擇，而非宿命。若要在未來 24 個月內扭轉局面，英國必須實施一套植根於海耶克三大支柱的「大自由化」戰略。

一、 恢復「法治」而非「法令」

海耶克區分了「立法」（政府的任意命令）與「法治」（普遍、可預測的規則）。

• 行動建議： 政府必須停止「以法令治理」或利用法定文書繞過議會審查的行為。在未來 24 個月內，必須廢除那些賦予官僚對企業和私人言論擁有裁量權的模糊法規。

二、 拆解經濟中的「知識之妄」

目前對「工業戰略」和在綠能產業中「挑選贏家」的迷戀，正是海耶克警告過的行為。沒有任何專家委員會能為 6700 萬人預測出最優的能源組合或住房佈局。

• 行動建議： 放棄國家主導的投資計畫。相反，應大幅削減公司稅與個人所得稅，將購買力歸還給人民。讓市場的自發秩序（由數百萬個人的獨立決策驅動）來決定哪些技術和企業能脫穎而出。

三、 將生存從「國家贊助」中解耦

通往奴役之路最危險的一步，是國家成為安全感的唯一提供者。當人們依賴國家發放「每日食糧」時，就失去了異議的能力。

• 行動建議： 深度改革福利與醫療體系，鼓勵私人提供與個人責任。目標是將公民從「國家的客戶」重新轉變為「獨立的行動者」。

希望依然存在，因為自由是一種具備自我修復功能的機制。目前的停滯是「計畫」的結果；而藥方則是恢復「自發秩序」。

---

[The U-Turn of Destiny: Why Britain’s Road to Serfdom is Not Inevitable]

Are we "doomed" in the UK? Looking at the record-high tax burden, the expansion of the "nanny state," and the increasing reliance on central planning for energy and housing, one might conclude that we are already halfway down Hayek’s dreaded path. However, Hayek’s teachings were never meant to be a prophecy of certain doom; they were a warning intended to provoke action.

The road to serfdom is a choice, not a fate. To reverse course within the next 24 months, the UK must implement a "Great Liberalization" strategy rooted in three Hayekian pillars.

1. Restore the Rule of Law (Not Just Legislation)

Hayek distinguished between "Legislation" (arbitrary government commands) and the "Rule of Law" (general, predictable rules).¹

• The Action: The government must cease the practice of "governing by decree" or using statutory instruments to bypass parliamentary scrutiny. In the next 24 months, we must repeal vague regulations that give bureaucrats discretionary power over businesses and private speech.

2. Dismantle the "Pretense of Knowledge" in Economics

The current obsession with "industrial strategy" and "picking winners" in the green energy sector is exactly what Hayek warned against. No committee of experts can predict the optimal energy mix or housing layout for 67 million people.

• The Action: Abandon state-led investment schemes. Instead, slash corporate and personal taxes to return purchasing power to the people. Let the spontaneous order of the market—driven by millions of individual decisions—determine which technologies and businesses thrive.

3. Decouple Survival from State Patronage

The most dangerous step on the road to serfdom is when the state becomes the sole provider of security. When people rely on the state for their "daily bread," they lose the ability to dissent.

• The Action: Deeply reform the welfare and healthcare systems to encourage private provision and personal responsibility. The goal is to transform the citizen from a "client of the state" back into an "independent agent."

There is hope because freedom is a self-correcting mechanism. The current stagnation is the result of planning; the cure is the restoration of the spontaneous order.

---