Yes, politicians steer on the institutional constraints of the self-organizing system. The center of control is dynamic and potentially responsive to the steering. Thus, the steering of a complex and adaptive system mainly generates "unintended consequences". The function of politics, therefore, has changed. It is mainly propelling itself as a political discourse which disturbs other subsystems of society, both in terms of setting conditions and as legitimation. For example, politicians try to be on television in order to legitimate their functions. The political system can only gain in steering power by being more reflexive about its functions. With best wishes, Loet _____
Loet Leydesdorff Amsterdam School of Communications Research (ASCoR) Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam Tel.: +31-20- 525 6598; fax: +31-20- 525 3681 <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; <http://www.leydesdorff.net/> http://www.leydesdorff.net/ _____ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Igor Matutinovic Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:42 AM To: fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: [Fis] Continuing Discussion of Social and Cultural Complexity Dear colleagues I have the impression that there is an agreement about the existence of biological and sociocultural constraints that impact on our ability to understand and manage socioeconomic complexity. These constraints are organized hierarchically, as Stan puts it, {biological {sociocultural }}. As far as I can tell, social science is not much interested to explore the constraints below the biological, and if we take the perspective of evolutionary psychology, than the psychological level may be subsumed in the biological. Perhaps we could address socioeconomic complexity from the minimum of three different perspectives: behavioral, informational or semiotic and material (the latter refereeing to the artifacts and material substances that we pile up in our environment and which impact we cannot fully understand nor control; e.g. products of nanotechnology; toxic chemicals, weaponry). One behavioral and informational aspect of socioeconomic complexity can be identified in unintended consequences of political actions aimed to design an institutional framework in order to achieve certain social or economic purpose. Consider a simple example of the liberalization of electric energy market in the US, UK and more generally in the EU. The aim of policy makers was to unbundle the vertically integrated companies (power generation, transmission, distribution and supply) in order to create a competitive environment which would ensure investments in new capacity and in energy efficiency, and at the same time drive down the prices of electrical energy to the consumers and industry. What happened after nearly twd decades of liberalization (apart the California energy crisis in 2000/01) is that prices were fluctuating quite unpredictably, originally deintegrated firms (like in England and Wells) started to vertically integrate while cross-border mergers and acquisitions created bigger and more powerful energy companies than before (market concentration was one of the thing that lineralization wanted to change). According to some authors none of the original aims (price reductions, energy-efficiency, new investments) was fulfilled. Now, the point for me is not that an unintended consequence did happen but the fact that policy makers in the EU are continuing to push institutional reforms in spite of the fact that it does not seem to work the way they want it. As long as we do not postulate that there is a hidden agenda behind their stated goals, then either the decision makers are not rational (beacasue they push the agenda with full awareness that it will not work) or they do not understand the processes and the constraints they hope to affect. The latter may be the sign of the (social) system inability to achieve certain goals in a complex sociocultural environment. This would not be surprising: the signs that come from the energy market are not fully consistent and thus allow for different interpretations; there are several competing theories that may be used to explain the market dynamics and make predictions; interpretations may be biased by different ideologies and worldviews. The liberalization of the energy market is a complexifying process: from the monopolistic, and state regulated to the competitive, and profit driven industry. In this process institutional constraints are continuously added: markets are composite institutions themselves and to these the policy makers add numerous new rules to achieve their specific goals. The aim to streamline the energy sector by using markets with additional institutional constraints may exceed our capability to handle the process and forsee the consequences. To some extent, it may be a sign of diminishing returns to complexity in problem solving that Joe addressed in his book "The collapse of complex societies". If we cannot manage the energy sector to serve certain social and economic goals, how can we hope to be able to manage more complex situations like the climate change, poverty reduction and population growth in the South? Did we reach the limits (cognitive and cultural) to manage our complex world? (I guess I put another crazy question again...) Best Igor Dr. Igor Matutinovic Managing Director GfK-Center for Market Research Draskoviceva 54 100 00 Zagreb, Croatia Tel: 385 1 48 96 222, 4921 222 Fax: 385 1 49 21 223 <http://www.gfk.hr> www.gfk.hr
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis