A preliminary study on urban commons and social governance theories in comparison

The following is a theoretical work aimed at delving into the commons and social governance perspectives, in the attempt to find points of divergence and convergence. The study attempts to answer the question of whether the social governance perspective is a useful tool of comparison for a deeper understanding of the commons theory. In South Korean academia commons-related research expanded since the 2000s, reaching a peak around the 2010s, giving rise to various interpretations culminating in different translations such as gongyuji (common property land); gongdongji (common land) and gongyujae (commong goods). On the one hand, it testifies to the great interest drawn by the debate around commons, on the other hand, it shows that there is still a lack of clarity that leads to blurry definitions. The need to find an answer, at least a preliminary one, to this question stems from the need for an unambiguous translation of the concept of commons. In an attempt to contribute to the literature in this sense, the social governance perspective is taken as a term of comparison for two reasons. Firstly, although the commons theory covers a wide range of fields of study, it shares with social governance the analysis of current forms of collective action and civic mobilization in urban spaces aimed at promoting alternative templates of communal social life. Secondly, social governance is a theoretical reference embedded in the East Asian context, resulting in being a familiar and immediate concept for South Korean literature, ductile for the interpretation of commons from an East Asian perspective. For the understanding of the theoretical traditions, the concepts of institution and movement play a key role. The two perspectives find convergence when focused on the analysis of governance institutions and relations of conflict or cooperation with the local state. On the other hand, divergence can be found in the political discourse constructed by and on mobilizations.