Tragedy of the Starbucks Commons

Starbucks’ new policy turns shared spaces into private goods to combat the overuse problem associated with common resources

Jan 20, 2025

I’ve spent a lot of time working in coffee shops—Starbucks, in particular. There’s something about the hum of quiet conversations and the hiss of the espresso machine that makes it easier to focus. I always buy a drink; after all, I am using their space.

Each time I was there, I couldn’t help but notice that there always seemed to be at least one person camped out at a table with their laptop open, headphones in, deep into a work call. No coffee cup, no pastry bag, not even a napkin. They may have a water bottle with them, but they were there for the free Wi-Fi, the tables, and the cozy atmosphere—but without paying a dime.

It seems Starbucks has noticed, too. The company recently announced a major policy shift: starting this month, only paying customers (and their guests) can use its bathrooms, seating, and other café spaces. It’s a clear attempt to reclaim the atmosphere that made Starbucks appealing in the first place. Economists have a name for the problem Starbucks is trying to solve: the tragedy of the commons.

What Makes Starbucks a "Commons"?

To understand what’s happening at Starbucks, we first need to talk about how economists classify different goods. Two criteria are key:

Rivalry: Does one person’s use of a good reduce its availability for others?
Excludability: Can people be prevented from using the good if they don’t pay for it?

Starbucks bathrooms and tables check the box for rivalry—only one person can occupy a seat or use a restroom at a time. But before the recent policy change, these resources weren’t excludable. You didn’t have to buy a latte or a pastry to use them; they were open to everyone.

This “open door” policy made much of the Starbucks space a common resource, and common resources tend to get overused. Why? Because when there’s no cost to using something, people often take more than their fair share.

The result? What economists call the tragedy of the commons. The tragedy is that overuse leads to degradation. At Starbucks, this meant messy bathrooms, loitering, and, according to baristas, occasional inappropriate behavior. Paying customers were left with a less pleasant experience. The company’s new policy intends to change this dynamic.

Why Paying Changes Everything

By requiring a purchase to access bathrooms, seating, and other spaces, Starbucks has introduced excludability, effectively turning these common resources into private goods (both rival and excludable). This change isn’t so much about fairness, but rather about how people treat resources that come with a cost.

Charging for access serves two key purposes. First, it limits overuse. When resources aren’t free, people are naturally more thoughtful about how they use them. Starbucks can now allocate resources (like restrooms and seating) to paying customers, ensuring they’re maintained and available.

Second, it internalizes the cost of bad behavior. The costs of maintaining these resources (cleaning and repairs) are now paid more directly by users. Paying customers are less likely to misuse the space, and the burden on Starbucks’ staff and infrastructure is reduced.

This shift has been controversial for not being inclusive. Economically, it aligns incentives and reduces the burden on staff that came from an open-access model.

Other Examples of Charging to Prevent Overuse

When resources are free, they’re often treated with less care or used inefficiently. Take parking as an example. In an unpaid public lot with no time limits, cars stay longer than necessary. This leaves fewer spots for others. But when parking comes with a fee (or time restrictions) drivers become more selective and only use what they need. Charging discourages overuse and ensures access for everyone.

Starbucks isn’t the first company to address overuse by reframing its resources as private goods. Not all that long ago, airlines included checked luggage in ticket prices. It seemed like a customer-friendly policy, but it led to overloaded planes, longer boarding times, and higher fuel consumption. By introducing baggage fees, airlines turned luggage space into a private good. The result? Passengers pack more thoughtfully.

Urban streets are often a textbook example of a common resource. When there’s no fee to drive in a city, traffic builds, wasting everyone’s time. Cities like London, Singapore, and, more recently, New York City have implemented congestion fees during peak hours. These fees discourage unnecessary trips and reduce gridlock.

Final Thoughts

Starbucks’ policy change touches on a deeper tension in how we manage shared spaces: balancing inclusivity with sustainability. Turning bathrooms and seating into private goods may solve the problem of overuse, but it comes at a cost—especially for those who rely on Starbucks as more than just a coffee shop.

Public restrooms are almost impossible to find in many cities. When they do exist, they’re often poorly maintained or unsafe. Europeans have long addressed this challenge with nominal fees for clean, well-kept public bathrooms. Asking someone to pay a dollar or two for access feels reasonable. But a $7 latte? That’s hardly a small price for something as basic as using the bathroom.

There’s also the broader question of what we lose when businesses like Starbucks shift policies like this. Over the past decade, we’ve seen a steady decline in “third spaces”—places that aren’t home or work but where people can gather, linger, and connect. For many, coffee shops have filled that role. Starbucks’ inclusivity made it one of the last remaining third spaces in many communities, and while the current policy still allows guests, how long will that remain true?

So next time I settle into a Starbucks—coffee in hand—I’ll appreciate the clean tables and quiet atmosphere. But I’ll also wonder who’s missing from the room.