Of Observations and Dreams
People grow tired of brutish regimes. Barbarism, reactionary forms of traditionalism, xenophobia, ethno-centrism, and generally conservative regimes likely last shorter periods of time, are more susceptible to successful invasion, and prove to be less stable over long periods of time than those that are honestly compassionate, aware, wise, and effective at delivering necessary public goods and services. An example of this was the Taliban in Afghanistan, who were quickly defeated in part because they were an unpopular and corrupt regime. Now the American-backed government in Kabul is in the same position the Taliban were in 2001, and are wondering how they are losing territory defacto to the Taliban.
The problem in researching this, is that there are so very few cases of societies' public institutions honestly jumping up to this level of enlightened self-interest in history. More often than not, anti-social patterns emerge and get out of control to the point where the society changes, or tries to ossify itself from the external or internal changes that are taking place. The dreams of the Soviet Union bore more of the same fruit as the Tsarist regime, but with better propaganda and arguably equal pomp. It is theoretically possible to do forensic case studies on those few moments where governments were able to positively influence their society's standing in the world as models of domestic and international policy to see if there were any common features in their policies and administrative structures, and then compare them to those societies which didn't have pro-social and effective government.
Statistically speaking, this research would be looking at within group similarities of both pro-social/effective and anti-social/ineffective public institutions (are there any, if so, what are they?), and between group similarities between pro-social/effective and anti-social/ineffective public institutions. "Pro-social", "effective", and their opposites would have to be defined (likely from psychology or anthropology) and regimes would have to be rated on an index of effectiveness and pro-sociability (which, again, would have to be defined according to different sets of conditions and traits present in the society and public institutions). Once these differences and similarities have been assessed, and the regimes and societies rated and explored, the data can be combined with economic and social indices to see if there are associations between a government's pro-sociability and effectiveness.
From this research, it should be possible to understand how to better operate and organize human organizations and public institutions relative to societies by explicitly testing it in multiple societies across multiple times, at different levels of social organization. Consistency in methodology is key, as is testing at multiple levels, in multiple places, in multiple times to get robust results. This would increase the pool of evidence that is present to determine the probability that we fail to reject the null hypothesis in the meta analysis of the different studies. By chipping away at what proves to be false, we are then more likely left with the facts that we need and can use to improve our public and private organizations' effectiveness in our world at making a sustainable and healthy living in this world for all life. That, at least, is the dream.
The problem in researching this, is that there are so very few cases of societies' public institutions honestly jumping up to this level of enlightened self-interest in history. More often than not, anti-social patterns emerge and get out of control to the point where the society changes, or tries to ossify itself from the external or internal changes that are taking place. The dreams of the Soviet Union bore more of the same fruit as the Tsarist regime, but with better propaganda and arguably equal pomp. It is theoretically possible to do forensic case studies on those few moments where governments were able to positively influence their society's standing in the world as models of domestic and international policy to see if there were any common features in their policies and administrative structures, and then compare them to those societies which didn't have pro-social and effective government.
Statistically speaking, this research would be looking at within group similarities of both pro-social/effective and anti-social/ineffective public institutions (are there any, if so, what are they?), and between group similarities between pro-social/effective and anti-social/ineffective public institutions. "Pro-social", "effective", and their opposites would have to be defined (likely from psychology or anthropology) and regimes would have to be rated on an index of effectiveness and pro-sociability (which, again, would have to be defined according to different sets of conditions and traits present in the society and public institutions). Once these differences and similarities have been assessed, and the regimes and societies rated and explored, the data can be combined with economic and social indices to see if there are associations between a government's pro-sociability and effectiveness.
From this research, it should be possible to understand how to better operate and organize human organizations and public institutions relative to societies by explicitly testing it in multiple societies across multiple times, at different levels of social organization. Consistency in methodology is key, as is testing at multiple levels, in multiple places, in multiple times to get robust results. This would increase the pool of evidence that is present to determine the probability that we fail to reject the null hypothesis in the meta analysis of the different studies. By chipping away at what proves to be false, we are then more likely left with the facts that we need and can use to improve our public and private organizations' effectiveness in our world at making a sustainable and healthy living in this world for all life. That, at least, is the dream.
Comments
Post a Comment