A shared resource is the legitimate domain of government - the commons. The market is irrelevant. If "some members of a community fail to contribute their fair share to the costs of a shared resource" it's the government policy regarding the commons that is failing, not the market.
Which institution do you blame for this failure?
Ten Real-Life Examples of the Tragedy of the Commons - dummies
"The Grand Banks are fishing grounds off the coast of Newfoundland.
"For centuries, explorers and fishermen described this region as home to an endless supply of cod fish. In the 1960s and 1970s, advances in fishing technology allowed huge catches of cod.
"Following a few dramatically large seasons, the fish populations dropped, forcing Canadian fishermen to sail farther to maintain large catch sizes each season.
"By the 1990s, cod populations were so low that the Grand Banks fishing industry collapsed. It was too late for regulation and management; the cod stocks had been irreparably damaged.
"Since then, the cod populations have remained low, and some scientists doubt the Grand Banks ecosystem will ever recover."
Well Socialism of course.
I'm confused. What do you think Tragedy of the Commons is? Commons... or having everything in common... or where we get Communes.... is a socialist system.
When everyone owns something in common, no one has the incentive to maintain the common.
This is why Capitalism, and private ownership, works better.
This picture is of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. Now this isn't to suggest that the DR is a perfect example of successful capitalism, but Haiti is notorious for having terrible property rights.
The result is, the common area, in Haiti, that no one owns, no one maintains.
For example, logging. If you are a logger, logging your own land, you are going to only cut down the largest trees, and leave the smaller trees to grow, so that you can harvest more lumber in the future.
But in Haiti, where it is common ground.... you are not going to do that, because if you don't cut that smaller tree down, someone else will.
And you have no reason to re-seed the ground with new trees, because there is no benefit for you to do so. Someone else will end up harvesting from the work you do.
So you don't.
Thus the ground is empty and barren.
Same is true with cattle grazing. That's why if you have a common ground, they let their cattle eat all the grass completely, until it is nothing but dirt and mud everywhere.
Whereas if you own the property, you will rotate around the area, to allow the grass to recover, before grazing there again. You have an incentive to maintain the value of the land.
Tragedy of the Commons is a socialist problem, that could be solved with capitalism.
If you blocked off an area for fishing and sold the lease to the highest bidder, that company would have an extremely high incentive to make sure the fish population was not wiped out. They would intentionally moderate their fishing, to maintain a healthy population of fish.... because otherwise they would be stuck with a fishing lease, devoid of fish, and go bankrupt.