It occurs to me that cybernetics not only assists understanding but also
provides insights in relation to strategies for societal governance and
control - and a more discriminating approach than the simplistic cry for
"less government".
Where environmental and resource problems are quite specific, and easily
identifiable, there are often groups of concerned citizens who take up the
cause, whether it be the deterioration of Lake Erie, the loss of Atlantic
fisheries, Greenpeace, whales, forests or whatever. The focus of most of
these groups is fairly specific, and they look for concrete results -
tomorrow if possible, or at least the day after.
However, as Jay points out, there is a more generic problem of exploitation
of common resources, even spending the inheritance of our children, which
is sapping our civilization, a true problem of political philosophy and
policy. Governments have sought to devolve responsibilities via "unfunded
mandates" to lower orders of goverment. Governments mandate businesses to
provide minimum wages and perhaps health insurance benefits, and so on, all
good things for which there is much passing the buck. There is much lively
concern over such issues.
Another case in point may be the problems of private and corporate
charitable giving or donations, the expression of a sense of corporate
obligation to assist in relieving inadequate welfare programs and social
distress (as well as PR benefits). I am sure that corporate charitable
givers have their concerns about a fair distribution of such
responsibilities among their competitors and other companies.
Recently I saw a report of a study of various professions with respect to
their charitable giving, as reported in income tax returns, which stated
that economists were notably less charitable and more exploitative of the
system that most other professions, and indeed that they aquired these
values during their education. In general one might surmise that those who
know the loopholes are most likely to exploit the system. Too often this
has in fact characterized the officials of governments in power, most of
whom, I think it is fair to say, are quite cynical in their approach to
such problems.
The tragedy of the common takes many forms. The usual principle at work
seems to be that if an action is not forbidden or the penalities clear then
it will be used, and might even become accepted. Often the strategy is to
give a dubious approach a try, and wait for possible flak. What may be
needed is less trusting in charitable motivation and more systemic use of
dependable flak generators i.e. undesired consequences.
There are a couple of practical questions that might be asked in relation
to this admittedly sensitive but very important issue. (I am not sure if
they belong in PCP but intellectual leadership might come from a group with
this expertise, and alternative suggestions are welcome.)
(1) Have corporate givers considered or developed strategies for comparing
charitable giving, or for providing feedback and putting pressure on peer
organizations to take on fair shares or be penalized in some way? There
are considerations of equity and efficiencies in the spending of many
millions of dollars each year that would be make some strategy worthwhile.
(2) Has any major political party considered including policies with
respect to the monitoring and feedback or publication of information of
comparative performance in relation to the utilization or exploitation of
common public goods, and possibly other incentives ? I know this would be
very controversial, and that any changes would be resisted, but the main
determinants today may well be public perception and political will,
through votes, rather than private interests. Of course, governments tend
not to be supportive of organizations like Greenpeace (gifts to which are
not tax deductible) which may be opposed to government iniatives. Question:
is Common Cause, which has objectives of this kind, a political force in
the U.S.?
(3) Churches of all denominations have moral concerns and practical
interests at stake in charitable operations and public welfare.
Cybernetic principles would confirm the views expressed by Peter Drucker in
the current Atlantic Monthly that, rather than patching and downsizing here
and there, a more thoroughgoing change is required, a reorganization based
upon explicit goals (and values!) and measures of performance.
Governments, business and the churches have truly enormous ongoing common
interests in the health and welfare of communities, but still seem mostly
organized according to principles of power politics and legal constraints
of previous and simpler times, when the possibilities were more limited and
the stakes were lower.
Of course, I am away out of my field - who isn't with truly important big
questions - but it does seem to me that there are common strategic
principles available, as well as new methods and better organization, which
should be utilized. There are economies of scale which may be possible,
and the synergy and positive feedback possibilities which can multiply
effects.
My question: are any high level philosophical, policy and strategic
approaches like these, of a comprehensive kind, now in operation or
underway? In the current search for new political ideas, are there other
alternatives preferable to the status quo?
Cheers and best wishes.
Bruce B.