Nonrivalness lowers the cost of sharing; antirivalness raises the benefits of sharing

Context

[[f-xavier-olleros|Olleros]] provides compelling examples showing that neither nonrival nor antirival alone creates truly inclusive commons. Both dimensions must be addressed to achieve full inclusiveness and sustained participation.

Analysis

The Cost Dimension: Nonrivalness

Nonrival goods can be shared without depletion, which lowers or eliminates the marginal cost of sharing:

• Digital files cost nearly nothing to copy and distribute
• Knowledge can be shared without the sharer losing it
• Designs can be replicated without degrading the original

This removes the primary economic barrier to sharing - but doesn't guarantee sharing will happen or create value.

The Benefit Dimension: Antirivalness

Antirival systems generate increasing returns to sharing, creating compelling benefits:

• More participants = more value for everyone
• Network effects compound over time
• Contribution becomes attractive rather than costly

This creates the motivation for sharing - but only if people can afford to participate.

Why Both Are Necessary

[[f-xavier-olleros|Olleros]] provides two key examples:

Example 1: Mp3 files (nonrival but initially non-antirival)

• Mp3s were always nonrival (free to copy)
• But remained niche until platforms like Napster created antirival dynamics
• Low cost alone wasn't sufficient - needed high benefit from network participation

Example 2: English language (antirival but costly to access)

• Strongly antirival (more speakers = more value for all)
• But expensive to learn, especially for non-native speakers in poor countries
• High benefit alone isn't sufficient - learning costs exclude many potential participants

Example 3: Traffic light networks (antirival but costly to deploy)

• More cities adopting = more valuable coordination standard
• But installation costs exclude poor cities
• Network benefits are clear, but cost barriers limit inclusiveness

Supporting Evidence

From [[olleros-antirival-goods-2018|Olleros (2018)]]:

"Thus, only by combining nonrivalness and antirivalness do goods become shareable at any scale and fully inclusive, subject to increasing returns for all the people involved in the sharing."

The paper emphasizes that both dimensions must be addressed:

Nonrivalness alone cannot ensure inclusiveness:

• Mp3 files didn't transform music until antirival platforms emerged
• Free content without network effects remains underutilized
• Low cost doesn't create motivation

Antirivalness alone cannot ensure inclusiveness:

• English is valuable but costly to learn
• Traffic lights are beneficial but expensive to install
• High benefit doesn't eliminate access barriers

Notes

Implications for co-goods design:

We must address both dimensions when designing systems around physical products:

Reduce sharing costs (increase nonrivalness):

• Open source designs and patterns (knowledge components)
• Modular construction that enables reuse and adaptation
• Digital platforms that minimize coordination costs
• Clear documentation and accessible learning resources

Increase sharing benefits (increase antirivalness):

• Community feedback loops that improve products over time
• Reputation systems that reward contribution
• Network effects from collective knowledge building
• Gamification that makes participation compelling

The integration challenge: Physical products are inherently rival (high "sharing cost" for the object itself). The solution is to:

1. Maximize nonrival components (designs, knowledge, data)
2. Design antirival systems around the physical-digital interaction
3. Make the system benefits so compelling that physical costs become secondary

When usage generates valuable feedback, wearing a garment becomes participation in collective improvement - the "cost" of buying/using becomes an investment in system benefit.