When Lewis and Clark explored our region, it was a vast “commons.” Anyone sufficiently skillful and lucky to survive the dangers could exploit its bounty of furs and gold. Without individual incentives to consider the common good, the land was subject to the “Tragedy of the Commons.” Consequently, beaver were trapped out in many areas while miners developed elaborate rules to govern access and reduce conflict.

Few Greens understood the underlying logic of this predictable overuse. In 1968 my mentor, ecologist Garrett Hardin, published “The Tragedy of the Commons” in Science. It became the most reprinted article in the magazine’s history. As a result, environmentalists learned the consequences of unmanaged common ownership.

Yet methods of preventing such profligacy differed, ranging from hectoring admonitions to Stalinesque dictates. In the 1970s, most folks opted for top-down, command-and-control policies. The early U.S. Forest Service model was the archetype -- Green socialism with teeth. Economists, in contrast, usually recommended privatization. They held that granting resource ownership to individuals, with enforceable and transferable property rights, would promote efficiency while minimizing conflict.

For the past century and a half, America has experimented with such privatization in the Great Plains. Despite generations of massive government subsidies, and heroic efforts to support private ownership, the region has largely failed to thrive.

Frank and Deborah Popper of Rutgers University described this depopulation in their 1987 essay, “The Great Plains: From Dust to Dust.” Combining history with environmental and agricultural trends, they prophesized, “over the next generation the Plains will, as a result of the largest, longest-running agricultural and environmental miscalculation in American history, become almost totally depopulated.” The 2000 Census showed that the majority of Great Plains counties claimed fewer inhabitants than in 1990. Remarkably, many counties peaked during World War I.

And it is only getting worse. Wide-ranging media sources from NPR to National Geographic to the New York Times Magazine lament the continuing population decline. Schools close. Local governments falter. Towns deteriorate.

Yet one group thrives in the Great Plains: the Hutterites, a tight-knit community of pacifist agrarians living in isolated colonies of 70-130. Despite a turbulent 478-year history, they flourish in an area suffering from depopulation.

While Hutterite colonies are often wealthy -- especially in relation to neighboring farms struggling in the same economy -- only the most personal of property is privately owned. In some colonies, Hutterites receive a monthly allowance for toothbrushes and handkerchiefs, but toys and pets are discouraged because they can engender selfishness and competition among children.

Hardin notes, “[T]he commons, if justifiable at all, is justifiable only under conditions of low-population density.” As a Hutterite colony nears 130 members, part of the group breaks off into a “daughter” colony. This process enables the Hutterites to maintain their culture and social stability. They need not add new jobs to keep the growing population busy. A Hutterite minister once noted, “One good reason we split is to keep the workforce occupied. Our biggest trouble starts when we can’t keep colony members busy. If there’s no work, there’s mischief.”

Hutterites present a fascinating case study of a commons in a market context. As individuals, they own virtually no private property; as a group, the colony owns the land, the buildings, and the business that trades with the outside world. Receiving no pay from the colony for their work, Hutterites live lives of voluntary austerity. They buffer their culture from materialism, essentially creating a corporation whose only labor cost is feeding, clothing, and housing its members. In the Great Plains, where the price of agricultural commodities continues to fall, the Hutterites’ cheap labor contributes to their survival and growth.

While public ownership by governments and trusts may well replace much of the Great Plains’ private economy, it is unlikely to displace the Hutterites. They have proved sufficiently adaptable and resilient to thrive in the arid ecosystem of the Great Plains.

Here is the important point: no set of institutions fits all settings perfectly. When dealing with the problem of the commons, economists overwhelmingly advocate privatization. The Hutterites’ experience challenges economists’ default solution. Their exception probes the rule. While private ownership is nearly always preferable to political management, we should be alert to variations.