Session 5. 4. B.

Much has been discussed about the governance structure of the Commons further expanded by several scholars (Aligica, 2018; Lewis & Aligica, 2024; Aligica & Boettke, 2010) including its extension to cultural commons (Ostrom, 2009; Hess, 2012; Bertacchinni et al., 2012). Scholarship in cultural commons typically discusses how particular cultural initiatives can be understood as a commons as well as the resource characteristics of the institutional arrangement. There is a lack of studies looking into the micro organisational level implied in managing the commons, while over-focus is given to macro-level inter-party dynamics. This paper is concerned with zooming in towards the micro-organizational characteristics of working with the commons approach through the lens of the “collectivist organisations” (Rotschild-Whitt, 1979; 1986) commonly found in the arts. More rare in typical industries, collectivist organisations abound in the cultural scenes (e.g., associations, collectives, peer groups and flat hierarchies) for their adherence to “value-rationality”. The paper develops a conceptual model for applying the collectivist approach to managing cultural commons. It explores the collectivist incentives and dilemmas encountered in flat hierarchies: the consensus decision-making processes, temporary leadership, excessive homogeneity, and the absence of consistent monetary reward systems. The article argues - in accordance with Williamson’s (1973) views on peer groups and associations - that the cultural commons built on collectivist structures tend to collapse in the long run due to incentive problems, unclear rule enforcement, ephemeral leadership and consensus, different from environmental commons. The benefits of collectivism in cultural commons eventually transform flatter arrangements into a relatively inefficient structure, similar to “peer groups and associations” (Williamson, 1973), which can negatively impact the origin of such organisations rooted in the maintenance of value-rationality and the public good characteristics of culture.

Considering the cultural economic perspectives, this paper studies both the cultural and social dimensions of cultural goods that function as commons–orientated practices.
When we claim to be using a cultural economics perspective, what we are actually embracing is a specific approach within the field of cultural economics known as the value-based approach. Whilst the literature on the cultural commons primarily focuses on the relationships between actors, resources and governance, this approach helps us to deepen the analysis of practices that make up the cultural domain, and their social and cultural qualities. We argue that cultural values and social values within the cultural commons practices are intertwined yet distinct concepts, with each contributing towards the overall ethos and functioning of these shared resources. They differ with respect to their purposes and outcomes. When curators, artists, museum professionals, or other cultural professionals, and scientists, policy makers, and members of local communities collaborate, they thus co-create or co-curate new art works, exhibitions or experiment with new working methods, and make sense of what the art works signify, all of which involve cultural values. They also socialise with people that they otherwise would not meet. By analyzing the differences, we contribute to a better understanding of the ‘culturalness’ of cultural commons and what exactly makes them different from other types of commons, especially in respect to commons governance structures.
Next to this, based on systemic literature review, this paper puts forward a taxonomy of cultural commons–orientated practices, with respect to both the nature of the cultural resources and the dynamics between the cultural and social values that are expressed via the functioning of the cultural goods. In so doing, the paper also identifies gaps in extant research and opens up avenues for further inquiry into these aforementioned relationships.

In 2012, the book Cultural Commons: New Perspectives in the Production and Evolution of Cultures proposed to analyze tangible and intangible cultural expressions under the perspective of the commons and outlined a research agenda aimed at advancing the understanding of these shared resources, their inherent social dilemmas and related community-governance models using the Ostrom’s Workshop analytical tools. A decade later, it is necessary to critically assess whether this agenda has genuinely evolved or remains fragmented and underdeveloped across key areas of inquiry.
This contribution questions how scholars have advanced the discourse in three fundamental areas. First, how has the complexity in defining cultural resources influenced the adoption and application of the cultural commons framework across different disciplines? Second, while some of the literature has adopted a community-based governance perspective, has this approach been adequately tested and expanded empirically, or does it remain conceptually limited? Third, how have collective action and social dilemmas that challenge the sustainability of cultural resources been operationalized and empirically investigated?
To interrogate these questions, we use insights from bibliometric analysis as an instrument to map the intellectual trajectory of the field. By identifying and examining the scholarship produced over the last decade, we aim to uncover whether the original research agenda has been followed, ignored, or redefined. Preliminary results suggest that while specific themes have been explored, the field lacks cohesive theoretical and empirical development.
In conclusion, we identify areas of stagnation and potential future directions, including the need for interdisciplinary approaches and a critical rethinking of the cultural commons research agenda to address the evolving challenges of managing shared cultural resources.

Abstract: The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) challenges norms about technology, the Internet, and data governance. These AI tools rely on datasets or foundation models, often collected by data scraping, a process of sweeping the vast expanse of the Internet for content. A common dispute is that certain AI models use copyrighted materials to train their systems without giving attribution for the copyright holder. The question therefore centers on whether training data itself qualifies for copyright protection and if an AI model’s output crosses into copyright infringement of that data. At its core, the advancement of AI has put the notion of copyright to the test. The Bloomington school’s scholarship on the cultural commons offers theoretical insight into the history of copyright infringement, revolving around the challenge of defining boundaries. The Bloomington School’s understanding of “commons” in general, including the cultural commons specifically, is rooted in two key principles. One is that a commons is a space where people share resources. Second, many different types of institutions can be at work in a commons. These institutions include boundary rules that allow people to share resources and overcome social dilemmas. Foundational scholarship on the cultural commons, which began developing in earnest twenty-five years ago, connects the cultural commons to the public domain and intellectual property. This research was generated by critical conversations about boundaries occurring around the year 2000, particularly how the new digital revolution challenged prevailing notions about intellectual property. In effect, digital technology unleashed the human capacity to share resources, including those considered to be under the protection of the intellectual property regime. This paper argues that the concerns and innovations about sharing and boundaries in foundational texts of cultural commons research remain salient today. Thus, we trace the salient features in this early body of scholarship with our present-day case study, AI, in mind. We’ll first examine recent cases involving AI and copyright protection issues, particularly instances of infringement over the usage of AI. From there, we’ll use the theoretical framework of cultural commons to shed light on the copyright movement and the concept of copyright itself. Primary focus will be placed on how boundaries are defined within the development of copyright protection. Finally, we’ll bring these discussions together to outline a theory of copyright infringement for the AI era.

This research project employs the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, augmented by the Network of Adjacent Action Situations (IAD-NAAS), to examine the empirical applications within the territorial contexts of Italian UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The World Heritage List remains the most effective international instrument for the protection of cultural and natural heritage. However, World Heritage Sites frequently display deficiencies and fail to achieve territorial impacts associated with such a prestigious designation. To illustrate, one of the most frequently debated issues pertains to the governance of the site and the active participation of local stakeholders.

The decomposition of the complex management of the sites into constituent elements provides an innovative perspective through which to represent the problematic dynamics of WHL implementation. The research identifies the IAD framework as an effective interpretative instrument of the conditions that influence the rules within the governance of sites. Furthermore, the framework is enhanced by the Network of Adjacent Action Situations (NAAS), which acknowledges that the observed Action Situations are frequently interconnected and interdependent. Consequently, it is essential to analyse not only their individual components but also the relationships that characterise them. The introduction of the IAD-NAAS also includes the division of AS according to governance tasks, thus enabling this tool to represent common property administration situations within the territorial context.

The study begins from these premises to systematically apply the IAD-NAAS to European UNESCO sites, particularly those in Italy, with the aim of clarifying polycentric governance dynamics and identifying potential development paths that would enhance the impact of heritage on the territory. A cross-analysis of data from the Periodic Report, one of the monitoring systems used by UNESCO, is being conducted with the objective of constructing an analytical model representing the governance dynamics of the sites and the various resources that comprise them. The model will categorise these elements according to the specific governance tasks to which they are relevant and link them to the factors that impact the site. The findings will subsequently inform an innovative representation of the roles and resources associated with cultural heritage.