The law of unintended consequences
Sep. 21st, 2008 12:58 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vit_r"If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or total pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to partially counter-act the imposed change." (Le Chatelier's principle, also called the Le Chatelier-Braun principle)
I agree with the common observation, however it seems some points are missed.
1. A political system itself is not simple but it has own goals. If we consider short time horizons, low feedback, and misaligned incentives, the correct name for the discussed phenomena would be
"The Law of Unimportant Consequences"
For instance: The official goal is to help people with disabilities, the real goal is to show the electorate that politicians care about people with disabilities.
2. What is simple is not the system that makes the decisions but the model it uses to predict (explain/announce/...) the consequences.
Simple model cannot (and should not) predict the behavior (of all parameters) of a complex system. However it can be used for the specific goals. (Newton laws in ordinal conditions)
3. It is no fault to use a wrong model. The key of the problem is in the low feedback.
For instance:
The experiments had shown that the Neewton's model is limited and physicist have started to use Einstein's model.
Market participants note that they lose money and they adjust their behavior.
Government introduces new taxes and gathers less money. The politicians blame greedy capitalists, foreign competition and political opponents.
The law of unintended consequences is what happens when a simple system tries to regulate a complex system. The political system is simple, it operates with limited information (rational ignorance), short time horizons, low feedback, and poor and misaligned incentives. Society in contrast is a complex, evolving, high-feedback, incentive-driven system. When a simple system tries to regulate a complex system you often get unintended consequences."The Law of Unintended Consequences", Alex Tabarrok
I agree with the common observation, however it seems some points are missed.
1. A political system itself is not simple but it has own goals. If we consider short time horizons, low feedback, and misaligned incentives, the correct name for the discussed phenomena would be
"The Law of Unimportant Consequences"
For instance: The official goal is to help people with disabilities, the real goal is to show the electorate that politicians care about people with disabilities.
2. What is simple is not the system that makes the decisions but the model it uses to predict (explain/announce/...) the consequences.
Simple model cannot (and should not) predict the behavior (of all parameters) of a complex system. However it can be used for the specific goals. (Newton laws in ordinal conditions)
3. It is no fault to use a wrong model. The key of the problem is in the low feedback.
For instance:
The experiments had shown that the Neewton's model is limited and physicist have started to use Einstein's model.
Market participants note that they lose money and they adjust their behavior.
Government introduces new taxes and gathers less money. The politicians blame greedy capitalists, foreign competition and political opponents.
