 |
 |
Terry - This is also a core theory in economics, namely the Tragedy of the Commons (1968, Garrett Hardin). It is grounded in game theory, and has been the basis for some of the key research in international relations, particularly security. Simply put, how do you achieve international cooperation in the absence of a global power able to enforce cooperative decisions? That brings us directly to Thomas Hobbes and his book Leviathan (which was a metaphor for a powerful ruler able to enforce hegemonic control, thereby providing needed order to an anarchic society.) The question has been answered with "hegemonic stability theory", as well as theories of balance of power, which some attribute to the "long peace" in Europe between 1945 and today. Others entertain different theories, of course. The question of the needs of the one or few vs. the needs of the many is a question well explored in these areas. It certainly encourages intellectual cross-fertilization with designers given shared concern with this phenomenon. _________________ Dr. Derek B. Miller Director The Policy Lab 321 Columbus Ave. Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House Boston, MA 02116 United States of America Phone +1 617 440 4409 Twitter @Policylabtweets Web www.thepolicylag.org On Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 2:09 AM, Terence Love wrote: > Dear Fil and Charlotte, > > Good point you raise. > > Basic introduction to systems design 101 concept is "systems where the > benefit for the individual goes in the opposite direction to > what is good for the whole system" > > This issue is one of the basic intrinsic problems in managing systems. > > It occurs when a subsystem under its own sub-management can arrange things > to create better conditions for itself at the expense of the system as a > whole. > > The technical name for the concept is 'local sub-optimisation'. Typically, > 'local sub-optimisation' must be avoided. > > In general, the best outcomes for a system will result in sub-systems having > sub-optimised outcomes and if the sub-systems are human groups are likely > to be disappointed or unhappy . > > An example of this is 'nimby' behaviour. > > Another example is when designers with a training that does not include > understanding complex systems try to locally sub-optimise their position and > status through trying to convince the world that the non-systemic concepts > they use apply validly to complex systems. > > Best wishes, > Terry >