The University of Manchester prides itself on world class education, but peek behind this veneer and you might find yourself shocked at the pest-paradise of rats and roaches inhabiting the Alan Gilbert building (Ali G). This issue wasn’t deliberate but arose from collective negligence. Perhaps a wrapper here, or some crumbs there, it doesn’t affect them, why should they care, it’s only the library after all and that bin is just a little too far away for comfort.
This “herd” mentality where everyone
follows each other without considering the consequences, perfectly illustrates
what caused the tragedy of the commons. Simply put, when individuals prioritise
their own self-interest with a public resource, they ultimately damage or
deplete the resource at hand. This is further evidenced around the University
campus with an annual satisfaction survey on toilets pointing out concerns over
cleanliness.
Figure 1
Perhaps you’ve witnessed similar
scenarios; driving down a stunning country road only to see a pile of black bin
bags, broken furniture, knackered tires, and fly tipping in action. Take the
beloved “tuna sweetcorn” sandwich part of nearly every supermarket meal deal;
the over-reliance on tuna has resulted in the population of pacific tuna being overfished
and ‘reduced to roughly 3%’ of its original numbers.
If left unchecked, it’s surely
just a matter of time before every countryside, waterway and library is ruined
by the collective mind of society, so how can we fix this?
The problem lies with
externalities, which is when an action imposes a cost or benefit on third
parties, uninvolved in the economic activity. Students leaving crumbs create
negative external costs impacting everyone. Students who litter aren’t evil
(though perhaps some are given the state of the place at times), they’re doing
so because it’s simply more convenient. Economically, their private benefit (ease
of littering) exceeds the social benefit (cleanliness for all). Hence, students
act rationally for personal convenience but irrationally regarding collective
welfare, causing the library’s deterioration. These negative externalities
have created potential health hazards and an uncomfortable working environment.
Figure 2 aims to demonstrate the overconsumption externality discussed above.
Figure 2
The area of ‘deadweight welfare
loss,’ characterises the extent of over-consumption occurring in Ali G, without
the necessary care. It is clear there is a market failure occurring. Market
failure occurs when there is an inefficient distribution of resources. Students
individually focus on their marginal private benefit (MPB), the convenience
gained from not cleaning. However, the true benefit to all students as seen in
Figure 2, is the marginal social benefit (MSB). This is lower as each act of
negligence, students prioritising MPB, imposes a marginal external cost (MEC)
on the wider community. Therefore, the private equilibrium (Qp) is higher than
the socially optimal level (Q*) demonstrating the market failure. This gap
between Qp and Q* indicates the total social welfare that could be gained if
the cleanliness was improved from the private equilibrium to the socially
optimal equilibrium. It further emphasises the potential benefits lost due to
the overconsumption of negligence.
As a filthy workplace full of
rats and cockroaches isn’t an ideal working environment for, roughly
estimating, 100% of students, ideally student would prioritise the social
benefit, so as many people can use Ali G to its full extent as these negative
externalities damage the library’s usefulness for all the other students. So,
to fix the tragedy and create a workspace worthy of the name Ali G, we must ask
another question, how can we reduce the benefit of littering? Or in other
words, how can we change the behaviour tendencies of the majority of students?
University intervention could
address this market failure. Imposing consequences such as fines and/or
community service on campus would strip the private benefit from littering due
to a new associated private cost, theoretically eliminating the problem
entirely. It would also be rather satisfying to see people who litter get their
comeuppance! This is seen in practise with carbon credits, enforcing polluters to
pay for their environmental damage, and similarly could be implemented by
having members of staff issue bans or fines for litterers, a light punishment
given the scale of littering in Ali G.
There are major issues with
morality arising from this solution, as university students aren’t well known
for their strong financial positions. Furthermore, with AI still being a
relatively new development, it’s probably still cheaper to call an exterminator
than to have a Soviet-style secret police force monitoring students for
littering. So, what else is there to be done?
Perhaps a more informative and
educational approach is in order, appropriate given the university environment.
If students are aware of the damage they cause to Ali G, maybe they will be
more inclined not to litter then they would have previously been, hence keeping
the library clean without need for anything except a few posters and emails.
This has been tried in other circumstances with the “Bin your butts” campaign,
in an attempt to get people to stop littering cigarette ends, a similar goal to
ours, though the efficacy of this is doubtable.
Ultimately, the tragedy of the
commons may have an equally tragic solution in this scenario, that being that
there is no easy solution! BUT ‘nothing worth doing is ever easy’, and there
must be a solution put into place that will bring the prestigious Ali G name
into the limelight where it belongs, whether that be something previously
mentioned, or perhaps a novel solution entirely.
Bibliography
Devonshire-Pay, B. (2024).
Mouse spotted running around inside University of Manchester library building.
Retrieved from The Tab:
https://thetab.com/2024/04/11/mouse-spotted-running-around-inside-university-of-manchester-library-building
HM Revenue & Customs.
(2024, May 09). Policy paper Revenue and Customs Brief — VAT treatment of
voluntary carbon credits. Retrieved from GOV.UK:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/revenue-and-customs-brief-7-2024-vat-treatment-of-voluntary-carbon-credits/revenue-and-customs-brief-vat-treatment-of-voluntary-carbon-credits
Keep Britain Tidy. (2024).
Cigarette Butts are Rubbish. Retrieved from Keep Britain Tidy:
https://www.keepbritaintidy.org/smoking-related-litter
O'Neill, L. (2024, August
30). AI cameras to spot region's drivers on phones. Retrieved from BBC News:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cged890y27wo
Raffegeau, A. (2025, March
20). Dirty bathrooms on campus: ‘I feel bad for the people that have to
clean’. Retrieved from EM TV:
https://www.erasmusmagazine.nl/en/2025/03/20/dirty-bathrooms-on-campus-i-feel-bad-for-the-people-that-have-to-clean/
Spiliakos, A. (2019,
February 06). TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS: WHAT IT IS & 5 EXAMPLES. Retrieved
from Harvard Business School Online:
https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/tragedy-of-the-commons-impact-on-sustainability-issues
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.