Table 1
Comparison of local and global commons.
| Local natural resources | Global commons | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Geographic scale | Local | Global |
| 2 | Number of resource users | Tens to thousands | Millions to billions |
| 3 | Salience: actors’ awareness of degradation | Resource use is conscious purpose: resource provides major portion of livelihood | Resource degradation is unintended byproduct of intentional acts; actions causing degradation are of low importance for most users |
| 4 | Distribution of interests and power | Benefits and costs mainly internal to group of appropriators | Significant externalities between appropriators and others across places and generations; differences of interest and power among classes of appropriators |
| 5 | Cultural and institutional homogeneity | Homogeneous | Heterogeneous |
| 6 | Feasibility of learning: | Good | Limited |
| 6a | Regeneration of degraded resource | Renewable over less than a human generation | Regeneration over more than a human generation |
| 6b | Ease of understanding resource dynamics | Feasible without extensive scientific training | Scientifically complex with limited predictive ability |
| 6c | Stability of resource dynamics | Stable, though variable | Dynamic systems with changing rules |
| 6d | Ability to learn across places | Possible | Difficult |
[i] Source: Stern (2011).
Figure 1
Caspian Sea with oil and gas deposits and claimant countries.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, https://www.eia.gov/beta/international/regions-topics.php?RegionTopicID=CSR.
Table 2
Prisoner’s dilemma.
| Prisoner B (cooperating) | Prisoner B (not cooperating) | |
|---|---|---|
| Prisoner A (cooperating) | Each will serve one year | Prisoner A: serves 3 years in prison Prisoner B: released |
| Prisoner A (not cooperating) | Prisoner A: released Prisoner B: serves 3 years in prison | Each will serve 2 years |
Table 3
Stylized comparison of factors affecting cooperation and non-cooperation in the Caspian Sea.
| Cooperation determinants | North Caspian states (Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan) (successful cooperation) | South Caspian states (Iran, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan) (non-cooperation as of July 2018) |
|---|---|---|
| Economic interest | All three states suffered from severe depression in the mid-1990s; both badly needed hard currency; this motivated them to strike a compromise. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan were motivated to secure a deal with Russia as all their oil export pipelines traversed through Russian territory. All northern states needed political stability in the region to attract investments and reinvigorate their economies. | Sanctions against Iran prevented the neighboring countries to trade with each other and engage in joint investment projects. Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan could not secure investment for building oil export pipelines via Iran. Iran and Turkmenistan were generally known to be hostile towards foreign direct investment. |
| Geopolitics (security interest) | Both Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are landlocked countries that heavily rely on Russia in terms of trade, oil exports, and regional security. For Azerbaijan, the ongoing conflict with Armenia meant that the country attempted to build alliances with Caspian neighbors to maintain their support. | Iran was alienated in the international arena and became an isolated player in the region. In foreign policy, Turkmenistan upholds ‘positive neutrality’ position, according to which the country does not participate in any regional or global security organizations. |
| Cultural distance (historical and personal ties) | All three northern states are Former Soviet Union (FSU) republics as well as members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). Well-established trade links between the North Caspian states. State leaders are former Communist party members | Iran is not an FSU country, nor is it a member of CIS, while Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan are FSU states and members of CIS. No established trade links between South Caspian states. Rivalrous and non-cooperative relations between leaders of states. |