Complexity and the Art of Public Policy Chapter 1 Summary

Open Preview

Encounter a Problem?

We'd dearest your help. Let us know what's incorrect with this preview of Complexity and the Art of Public Policy by David Colander.

Cheers for telling united states of america nigh the trouble.

Friend Reviews

To encounter what your friends thought of this volume, delight sign up.

Reader Q&A

Be the showtime to ask a question about Complication and the Art of Public Policy

Community Reviews

· 72 ratings · 12 reviews

Commencement your review of Complexity and the Art of Public Policy: Solving Lodge's Issues from the Bottom Upwards

Feb 11, 2019 Otto Lehto rated it really liked it

This book is a comprehensive nevertheless attainable introduction to the political and economic ramifications of the scientific discipline(s) of complexity. It does not advocate for any particular policy calendar, such as free markets or more regime intervention, merely a mixed and nuanced arroyo. Its two authors come from rather different ideological backgrounds: one of them is a quasi-Keynesian while the other is a quasi-Hayekian. Instead of ideological purity, information technology advocates for a new kind of "laissez-faire activist This book is a comprehensive yet accessible introduction to the political and economic ramifications of the scientific discipline(s) of complexity. It does not abet for any particular policy calendar, such as free markets or more government intervention, but a mixed and nuanced approach. Its 2 authors come from rather different ideological backgrounds: 1 of them is a quasi-Keynesian while the other is a quasi-Hayekian. Instead of ideological purity, information technology advocates for a new kind of "laissez-faire activist policy." This is an ambiguous position with unspecified and open-concluded implications.

The authors start past laying out the interdisciplinary framework of complexity as developed my mathematicians and physicists in the by decades. They see the economy as a complex adaptive organisation not amenable to top-down prediction or command. They interpret the complexity frame equally a natural continuation of the classical liberal political economy of people like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill, mixed in with some contemporary insights from Hayek and Keynes.

The central insight is that the government should let people be costless to interact in complex and socially beneficial ways - not but to pursue profits and material ends via the market mechanism, but besides to pursue collective organisation, social welfare, new kinds of social norms, etc... Instead of top-down mandates, the authorities should aim to create an evolving "ecostructure" that encourages bottom-upwardly experimentation and sees strength in diversity. The complexity frame criticizes the assumptions of neoclassical economics and favours long-term resilience over short-term economical efficiency. It optimizes for long-term evolutionary dynamism. It sees human beings as fallible and boundedly rational, but likewise evolvable, transformable, and surprisingly creative.

The book is written for a lay audience and information technology is rather readable. It guides the reader by the hand, sometimes to the signal of absurdity. But it works well for someone who is new to the subject. The flip side is a slight superficiality in its treatment of complex questions. Ironically, a volume virtually complication is seemingly enamored with simplicity, both in commitment and in policy framing. Even so, this simplicity serves the double role of popularizing science and summarizing lots of data. So, I cannot fault the book for being accessible for the general public, scientists, and policy makers.

The volume has 3 major shortcomings, nonetheless: 1) The book is 100 pages too long due to excessive repetition. In whatsoever given affiliate, the same thought is often repeated 2 or iii times, in practically the verbal same words. While the sentences themselves flow easily, the LP is stuck in a loop. 2) The constant refrain of how the complexity frame is so novel because it sees markets and governments as co-evolving is somewhat self-aggrandizing. And the effort to be both pro-government and pro-market, while well-intentioned, runs into severe difficulties when put into do. Therefore... iii) The policy recommendations are cryptic and, in the few places where they are more than concrete, only suggestive and therefore easy to ignore or shoot downward. The cryptic nature of the laissez-faire activist policy is presented as a commonsensical and obvious guide to policy making, only it is not clear what conclusions should menses from it. Appropriate public policy should flow from the practical wisdom of policy makers engaged in consultation with the public, which doesn't say much, especially given the range of political ideologies. Although the authors brand some suggestive recommendations, like the development of for-benefit corporations, the precise policy implications are left to the reader to figure out. This, I dare say, is half of the fun.

The hesitation to provide articulate guidelines is in line with the insights of complication theory. Simply it does raise the question of what reason, if any, do policy makers have of adopting the complexity frame it its usefulness is so limited? However, I do not think that the failure to provide clear guidelines is a failure when the alternative is so much worse. It is much more important to acquire to be modest and apprehensive in political blueprint than to overshoot for the stars. The complexity frame does a pretty good job at ELIMINATING many bad policies from the palette of bachelor policy options. Most of summit-down socialism and neoclassical economics is badly flawed.

Furthermore, aside from its negative affect, the complexity frame has a positive side. In articulating the wide outlines of a desirable evolutionary arroyo, it opens up a fruitful enquiry program, both practical and theoretical, that explores ways in which lesser-upwards evolutionary dynamism can be fostered using government and market institutions.

The complication frame is an important add-on to the arsenal of policy making. Although it doesn't necessarily have unambiguous or immediate consequences for policy making (people will still have to fight over whether taxes on inheritance should be lower or higher), it provides a vital way to understand some of the most important challenges of a circuitous guild that can carry public policy to new heights of resilience and creativity.

...more

I actually wanted to like this book, but ultimately establish it more frustrating than enlightening. I was (and remain) enthusiastic that public policy could do good from taking a more than complexity-informed approach, and was interested in seeing what this could hateful fleshed out in more particular. Unfortunately, the first 2/3 of the volume felt similar an extended exercise in just repeating 'complexity frame good, standard arroyo bad' over and again. And when it finally got to what should have been the 's I actually wanted to similar this volume, but ultimately found it more frustrating than enlightening. I was (and remain) enthusiastic that public policy could do good from taking a more complexity-informed approach, and was interested in seeing what this could mean fleshed out in more detail. Unfortunately, the starting time 2/3 of the volume felt like an extended exercise in just repeating 'complication frame good, standard approach bad' over and over again. And when it finally got to what should have been the 'show, don't tell' section in Part 3, it felt more similar a grab-bag of random ideas than a well-considered agenda. I would have loved to see a complexity framework for public policy developed and practical in more depth, but if they weren't going to do that, I retrieve the existing content could easily have been covered in one-half the space or less. Given the take a chance once more, I'd probably merely read the final summary affiliate, as it hits nigh of the primal points in a clearer and less repetitive mode, without actually losing much of the substance. ...more

Mar 19, 2017 Jennings rated it did not like it

I read this for a reading group in my fellowship program and I have to say, as someone who enjoys philosophy, poli sci, and public policy, I constitute this book to be painful to read. Setting aside the fact that the authors simply repackaged a theory that has been around for sometime (run across James Buchanan'southward article) except adding math to it to make it "complex"; the book was simply poorly conceived.

The authors state that their theory is circuitous more than they explain what information technology is. The authors, instead

I read this for a reading group in my fellowship program and I have to say, as someone who enjoys philosophy, poli sci, and public policy, I found this volume to exist painful to read. Setting aside the fact that the authors only repackaged a theory that has been around for onetime (see James Buchanan's article) except adding math to information technology to brand information technology "complex"; the book was simply poorly conceived.

The authors land that their theory is complex more than they explain what it is. The authors, instead of addressing criticisms to their theory, address the opposition solely through strawman arguments challenge out of date and fringe beliefs for "market-fundamentalists" and 'those who support the traditional system'. They often claim that something is "bottom-up" or order driven while calling for a top-downwards government solution; theories and claims are rarely cited and their are multiple misspellings. While I read the volume I was simply baffled that this fabricated information technology to press and counted every bit an academic work.

I don't mean to dismiss the ideas that the authors presented off-hand, I would be interested to engage with their ideas, however, the mode that they were presented is absolutely baffling -- Mayhap if they accept the fourth dimension to mankind out and explain their ideas in a clear and concise mode I tin can have the take a chance to engage with them.

...more

May 09, 2021 S. rated it really liked information technology

The laissez faire activism vs the old bureaucratic top downwardly approaches are thoroughly evaluated in this book which has opened my eyes on many unlike blind spots of public policy.
Reinforced with many readings about complexity frameworks in social sciences I couldn't help but think of the numerous implications that this kind of thinking might entail.
Revising some serious metapolicy debates and reaching to legal frameworks...

I can't deliver a scientific and rather meticulous review hither for obvi

The laissez faire activism vs the old bureaucratic meridian downward approaches are thoroughly evaluated in this book which has opened my optics on many different bullheaded spots of public policy.
Reinforced with many readings almost complexity frameworks in social sciences I couldn't aid but recollect of the numerous implications that this kind of thinking might entail.
Revising some serious metapolicy debates and reaching to legal frameworks...

I can't deliver a scientific and rather meticulous review here for obvious reasons, but I'd love to highlight the contribution of this book in reshaping public policy. Information technology might be but an avant-goût to what could public policy expect like or could at to the lowest degree provide for you a ground for debate.

It was a nice discovery.

...more

October 04, 2014 Keith Swenson rated it really liked it

Colander and Kupers take introduced the scientific discipline of complexity to the fields of economics and public policy and laid down a path to the future.

They say if you enquire 6 economists to predict what will happen, you volition get vii opinions. Both microeconomics and macroeconomics are broken because the fields take what we know to be a complex organization, and attempt to analyze it using simplified models. Those simplified models tin't and don't model the world well. The best evidence is provided by the 2007 finan

Colander and Kupers have introduced the science of complication to the fields of economics and public policy and laid down a path to the future.

They say if yous ask 6 economists to predict what will happen, you will get seven opinions. Both microeconomics and macroeconomics are cleaved because the fields take what we know to be a complex system, and endeavour to analyze it using simplified models. Those simplified models can't and don't model the world well. The best evidence is provided past the 2007 financial crash, which was not predicted by economic models, non even after the fact with 20/twenty hindsight. Since 2007 economists have been challenged to update their field, and one line of reasoning is to bring complication science into use.

Economists have been trapped by way they frame the questions. Colander and Kupers examine the two ascendant philosophical views: the bottom up lassez-faire free market fundamentalist view held typically by the American political right where the free market is considered the only way to achieve an efficient working order. The other view is the top-down government control fundamentalist view typically held by the American political left where government policy is the simply way to reach an effective society. These two views vie to give united states a complete political spectrum, but they are both flawed ways to frame these economical and social questions. They evidence us that Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill never intended that government policy should be excluded from a lassez-faire model of the economy, and the electric current free marketplace fundamentalists take taken such extremist positions that are not justified by the evidence or the theory. Similarly, they show that John Maynard Keynes never believed that authorities lone could simply control the world the manner the control fundamentalists think it can. It seems that the founders of these theories had a lot more appreciation for the natural complication the world.

Colander and Kupers then show how this appreciation for the complication was lost from both microeconomics and macroeconomics because the math was too difficult. Simplifying assumptions were made because there was no other mode to end upwards with usable formulas. The problem with complex systems is that you can't simplify and even so retain the general behavior of the arrangement. People are not 'econs' who brand purchases strictly by their assessment of the value of the utility of the good. There are fad, style, and path dependencies. In that location are lock-in furnishings. Economists have been crossing their fingers and hoping that these don't matter, but they practice.

The suggestion is then to view the economy as a circuitous arrangement that involves both a marketplace and a government. Regime does not run the marketplace, just it can influence information technology. The market influences the authorities also. This Complexity Frame can leverage recently developed mathematical techniques including amanuensis based modeling which requires computing capability not available until recently. Our leaders should leverage the self-controlling behavior of complex systems when that works. Counter-intuitively, complex systems become more stable when you increase the diverseness within the system -- then our goal should never be to find the one right way, but instead a plurality of possibilities. Complex systems will gravitate toward equilibrium states which are not e'er predictable. Government policies can be used to tweak the system, shifting the point of equilibrium, but not replace the basic cocky regulation that occurs.

"A frame is a frame because people don't think about information technology."

The authors explore the complexity frame in quite a flake of detail, how the standard frames fail to account for factors, and how the complexity frame would allow for proper treatment. They spend a couple of chapters exploring how policies might be set to influence the system, just however allow the arrangement to self regulate and address some of the current social bug. What policies might we gear up, what might work, and what traps to avert. These are highly speculative and makes an entertaining reading, bordering on getting a bit dreamy.

The book is concluded with ii powerful chapters: A specific recommendation on how to teach social science. Specifically we need to teach social scientific discipline based on:

i) Statistics and Sociometrics Module
ii) Modern Game Theory Module
iii) Complication and Modeling Module
4) Philosophical and Methodological Module
5) Humanist Module

The future relies on the students of today gaining the skills to use the tools of tomorrow. Finally, a summary of the ideas and what this might mean to the world.

This book makes sense. A lot of sense. I personally have been reading a lot almost Santa Fe Institute and complexity scientific discipline. It will happen, that these newer forms of mathematics, and newer understandings of how complex systems bear, will work their style into other fields. This is an excellent handling, giving a lot of history of the field of economics, showing apparent causes for influences that led economics to where it is today, and showing a path forward.

...more

Before talking well-nigh the central idea here I have to say I actually capeesh this book providing in the middle chapters an Bodily critique of modern economics. Don't become me wrong - I've seen plenty of critiques of economics as a field. Merely well-nigh without exception those critiques seem to have little thought of what mod economic science really is or does. Typically this takes the form of disruptive economics for capitalism, focusing on one tiny problem and pretending it invalidates the unabridged field, or Earlier talking about the central idea hither I have to say I really appreciate this volume providing in the middle chapters an Actual critique of modernistic economics. Don't get me wrong - I've seen plenty of critiques of economics as a field. Just almost without exception those critiques seem to have piddling idea of what modern economics actually is or does. Typically this takes the class of disruptive economics for capitalism, focusing on one tiny problem and pretending it invalidates the unabridged field, or, most commonly, critiquing economics as it was twenty (30, 40, 70, 100) years agone and ignoring the fact that their complaints accept been well-addressed in the meantime. But nope! This book knows exactly what goes on in mod economics and tin identify an actual major systemic trouble with the field relating to the simplicity of its modeling, the lack of attending to feedback mechanisms like endogenous tastes, and difficulty in dealing with more than one thing at a time. Plus the book provides a dainty compact history of postwar economic approaches. I'd quibble with them trotting out the worn half-truth that economic science merely cares about material welfare, only you could really do worse for a short broad-scope survey of the field of academic economics.

So, then, complexity. This book focuses on an emerging complexity science that uses new tools to study people in ways that let for circuitous interactions between different systems, path-dependence, and loftier levels of nonlinearity in assay. Both of these are very hard to account for in standard analysis. Despite the fact that everyone knows they're important, we sort of exit them equally caveats to any results nosotros come up with, or for "later on work." Here'south the later piece of work! This sort of piece of work allows for things similar emergent behavior and lock-in equilibria. There'due south a lot to recollect near here, and the volume managed to address things I've been thinking about for a long fourth dimension. More than than once I went into my "projects to work on someday" file to delete or edit projection plans, finding out that they'd already been done!

This is really fascinating stuff, and I remember information technology's not simply a nifty thought just actually going to form the future of social science. Piece of work is already heading in this management in paying greater attention to these effects, even if the bodily tools they talk about aren't ever the manner it's done. Definitely a worthy read if you desire to call up nigh social beliefs on a deep and comprehensive level without falling into the trap of thinking that "it'due south complicated" is a conclusion rather than a starting bespeak (looking at you lot, low-end sociology papers). There's no reason to exist limited by the traditional approaches to these problems.

The book's not perfect, of course. I could have done with far more examples of this kind of inquiry in activity. Or examples of policies. The authors repeatedly talk about for-benefit (social enterprise) institutions every bit the complexity policy killer app just they don't make clear what exactly is holding them back from being a much bigger force than they are other than the social norm of profit-driven institutions (and how practice you build a choice ecostructure to encourage that to change, exactly?), the long-run examples they come up with depressingly turned into for-profit over time (AT&T, hospitals), and the laser focus on the idea leads to the impression that at that place's a lack of good implementation ideas when you check within the box which I suspect is not truthful. In general the book casts a very wide and optimistic cyberspace for what tin change inside the complexity frame. That may be the best rhetorical approach but sometimes it does get a little silly - I seriously doubt that a complexity frame will have much effect on confused or illogical political disputes, for example. Along those lines I'm not sure I buy the long laundry list of ideas and thinkers that become claimed past the "complexity frame" - Smith, Manufacturing plant, Hayek, Keynes, Kahneman, etc. may have all been thinkers who allowed for complexity merely it's difficult to put them all in the same "frame" without pulling the teeth from the concept.

Simply that'due south just me beingness nitpicky. That's all about the text specifically; the ideas here are very solid and this is a volume that can really make you call up in new ways. A strong recommendation.

...more

Jan 04, 2015 Mark Foden rated it really liked it

This is an important book. If you are a political leader or a senior ceremonious retainer making policy yous absolutely must read information technology.

It says that our world is becoming an increasingly complex, highly-interconnected social organization – ane in which everything affects everything else. Merely the economic and other models on which government bases policy-making do non reflect this; and we are suffering as a event.

The book explains how complexity science – the study of circuitous adaptive systems – is being applied i

This is an important volume. If you lot are a pol or a senior civil servant making policy you lot absolutely must read information technology.

It says that our earth is becoming an increasingly complex, highly-interconnected social organization – one in which everything affects everything else. Simply the economic and other models on which government bases policy-making practice not reflect this; and we are suffering equally a consequence.

The volume explains how complexity scientific discipline – the report of complex adaptive systems – is being applied increasingly to skillful effect in the harder sciences but not much in the social ones. It particularly singles out economics as laggardly, with out-of-date simplistic models and entrenched industrial-historic period mindset.

Its discusses the ineffectiveness of straight policy activeness which is increasingly leading to unintended consequences and often expensive failure. They argue that governments needs to shift their focus towards creating healthy ecosystems that will enable society to solve its own bug and away from fixing those problems directly. Authorities must think of itself more than as an influencer and less equally a controller.

I find discussions of "wicked problems" (another proper name for circuitous bug) cropping up in regime circles more than ofttimes present and last year I even attended a seminar run by i of the departments. I was delighted to bump into a chap at the issue who turned out to exist the department'due south permanent secretary. I quizzed him about how complication thinking was affecting his policy-making. Sadly, I got a very blank look back.

David and Roland are quite correct that complication has piddling visibility at the policy level. Frustratingly, I'd say that the complex bug are the only ones worth fixing. I've written virtually this separately: the bug of the Universal Credit program are much to practice with a failure to sympathize the implications of complexity – meet Universal Credit and the need to retrieve more than 'Grow' (and less 'Build') and Government doesn't get complication.

Complexity is such an important matter for government to become. Read the book.

...more than

Dec 05, 2016 Anne rated it really liked it

Proficient book that clearly outlines the pathway towards a major transformation across all parts of society. Highlights the need for coherent progress between fabric and spiritual or social progress; human welfare cannot be reduced to materialism lonely. Fundamentally, a transformation requires a hopeful formulation of man nature, that sees the private as capable of innovation, collaboration, and brining about change from the lesser-upward.

The authors created a policy framework using complexity theory that combines the gratis market/lesser up and the authorities/meridian-down policies into a holistic one. I call back this is a very important book. The complex policy framework has the potential to change political debate from senseless left vs. right to effective arguments.

Excellent tour de force on the makings of complexity theory.

O comprehensives view of complication, highlights the shortcoming of standard economic theory, and offers a complete guide to understanding the challenge of building a mod lodge

December fifteen, 2014 David rated it liked it

Some proficient points, but in spite of an attempt not to, veers towards the utopian at points. Would be better if it incorporated a little public pick.