Abstract

Recently, management literature has sought to examine the role of institutional entrepreneurs in the emergence of commons logic and in building consensus around its meaning. While the focus has been on new commons, not all are created ex nihilo. Some types of preexisting commons, known as contested commons, often pose challenges that result in disagreements and conflicts with respect to their ownership, use, and management. These commons are a ubiquitous yet understudied phenomenon. In this paper, we use the case of the Tunisian Oasis of Jemna, pictured against the historical backdrop of the Arab Spring, to look at the institutional struggles that involve institutional entrepreneurs and the opponents of a contested commons. We identify two main strategies used by institutional entrepreneurs to frame the commons as a superior alternative: idealizing the commons and coalescing the community to harness its potential. We also highlight the heretofore neglected role of opponents, who engage in demonizing the commons to restore the competing logics of state or market. Finally, we unravel some of the conditions that allow for a temporary settlement of the contest, leading to what we term de facto commons.