In a recent Public Policy Analysis module, a professor presented a brainteaser involving three children—Cora, Jose, and Gloria—disputing ownership of a bamboo flute. Each child offers a different justification: Cora claims the flute because she is the only one who knows how to play it, Jose argues that he deserves it because he has no other toys, and Gloria asserts ownership because she made the flute herself after months of hard work. This situation raises important questions about property rights, fairness, and how resources should be allocated when competing claims exist.
Strongest Claim: Gloria, the Maker
In my personal judgment, Gloria has the strongest claim to the flute because she is its maker, having worked hard on it for several months. This conclusion rests on the premise that without Gloria’s labor, the flute would not exist, and consequently, there would be no object for the three children to dispute. This perspective aligns with the principle that the person who produces or acquires a good holds rightful ownership over it, including the authority to decide how it will be used, shared, or transferred to others.
Second-Strongest Claim: Cora, the Player
If a second-strongest claim must be identified, it would belong to Cora, who argues that she deserves the flute because she is the only one who knows how to play it. However, this criterion is not, in my view, a sufficiently strong basis for ownership. Gloria would likely not have invested time and effort into making the flute without the intention of eventually learning how to play it herself. Moreover, there are several ways through which Gloria can acquire this skill: she could ask Cora to teach her or learn independently. A mutually beneficial arrangement could involve Gloria sharing the flute with Cora in exchange for lessons. In doing so, basic hygiene practices, such as wiping the lip plate with alcohol, should be observed to minimize the risk of germ transmission.
Weakest Claim: Jose, the Needy
Lastly, while I empathize with Jose’s situation of having no other toys to enjoy, I believe his claim to ownership is the weakest among the three. His need, though valid, does not outweigh the claims based on production or skill. Nevertheless, Gloria may still choose to accommodate Jose by lending the flute or exchanging its use for another toy, again ensuring proper hygiene practices are followed.
Applying Economic Theories
Applying the Coase Theorem, Gloria, as the rightful owner, has the opportunity to negotiate with either Cora or Jose in a way that maximizes overall benefit. Although the theorem suggests that the resource may ultimately end up with the individual who values it most, I would advocate for a sharing arrangement that allows all three children to enjoy the flute. Furthermore, drawing on Ostrom’s ideas regarding the management of shared resources, the children could establish agreed-upon rules, such as time slots or rotational use, to ensure responsible and equitable access. This cooperative outcome is ideal, as it promotes fairness and allows Gloria, Cora, and Jose to benefit collectively from the flute.
So, what's your take on this brainteaser?
