Common-pool resource theory (CPR theory) emerged to understand the limitations of the tragedy of the commons narrative, and the theory of human behavior underlying it. Over time, diverse critiques of CPR theory have also emerged. Prominent critiques include inattention to power and coercion, assumptions that institutions can be crafted, and analyses that exclude history and context, among others. We label this literature critical commons scholarship. In this review paper, we define a typology of five types of critical commons scholarship. The functionalist critique (type 1) argues that a narrow focus on institutions that excludes history, context, and contingencies causes erroneous conclusions about the causes of resource sustainability. The apolitical management critique (type 2) argues that a focus on resource sustainability causes commons scholars to ignore how power is used to create and maintain inequalities through rules and norms structuring resource access. The methodological critique (type 3) argues that methodological incompatibilities, such as CPR theory’s dependence on general, abstract models, necessarily prevent these scholars from responding to type 1 and type 2 critiques. The project of government critique (type 4) argues that common-pool resource theory is used to support neoliberal and hegemonic practices. Finally, the ethical critique (type 5) argues that common-pool resource theory is premised on problematic north-south relationships where expert scholars in the global north provide information to be consumed by “commoners” in the global south. Mainstream CPR theory has been limited in engaging with critical commons scholarship, but there are new tools (such as the social-ecological systems framework and the critical institutionalism approach) for addressing each type of critique. Our goal in developing this typology is to make critiques of CPR theory legible and potentially actionable, while acknowledging the challenges associated with addressing them.

中文翻译：

---

关键公域奖学金：类型学

共同池资源理论（CPR理论）的出现是为了理解公地叙事悲剧的局限性以及以此为基础的人类行为理论。随着时间的流逝，也出现了对CPR理论的各种批评。突出的批评包括对权力和胁迫的漠不关心，可以建立制度的假设以及排除历史和背景的分析。我们将此文献标记为重要公地奖学金。在这篇综述文章中，我们定义了五种关键公域奖学金的类型。功能主义的批评（类型1）认为，对制度的狭focus关注会排除历史，背景和突发事件，这会导致对资源可持续性成因的错误结论。非政治性的管理批评（类型2）认为，对资源可持续性的关注导致普通学者忽略了如何通过构成资源获取的规则和规范来使用权力来创造和维持不平等。方法论批评（类型3）认为，方法上的不兼容性，例如CPR理论对一般抽象模型的依赖，必然阻止了这些学者对类型1和类型2批评作出回应。政府批判项目（类型4）认为，公共池资源理论用于支持新自由主义和霸权主义实践。最后，道德批判（类型5）认为，公共池资源理论是建立在有问题的南北关系的基础上的，在该关系中，全球北部的专家学者提供了信息，供全球南部的“同胞”消费。主流的心肺复苏理论在与批判性公地奖学金联系方面受到限制，但是有新的工具（例如社会生态系统框架和批判性制度主义方法）来解决每种批评。我们发展这种类型学的目标是，使CPR理论的批评清晰易懂，并可能付诸实践，同时承认与解决这些挑战相关的挑战。