5 ms·

Why is this evidence that “we need to abolish centralized institutions”? It’s not like every local organization can marshal expertise on every issue. Perhaps th

by majos 7y ago

Why is this evidence that “we need to abolish centralized institutions”? It’s not like every local organization can marshal expertise on every issue. Perhaps the WHO misjudged the coronavirus, but I’m confused about how this is suddenly a referendum on large institutions and the superiority of local ones. Running the WHO seems hard. Alarm people too often and they will tune you out. Miss an alarm once and they will call you incompetent (“you had one job!”).

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
There's nothing wrong with having large-scale institutions. The problem is when local organizations can't act without a single centralized institution giving the OK. National health departments listen to the WHO but can take action as needed without WHO signoff; local health departments in the US often literally could not test for the coronavirus, even though they had the tools and the capacity and the desire to make tests, because they didn't have federal approval.
- majos 7y ago
  > local health departments in the US often literally could not test for the coronavirus, even though they had the tools and the capacity and the desire to make tests, because they didn't have federal approval But that’s a judgement against the United States’ federal government, not the WHO. The WHO does not actively constrain governments, they just offer guidance (as far as I know!).
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    In principle, that's true, and certainly a point in the WHO's favor. In practice, it sounds like a lot of things are happening only conditional on the WHO's statement that it's a pandemic, which if true reflects a lack of local adaptability. I don't think it's the WHO's fault, necessarily, but local authorities need to have the capacity and skills to feel they don't have to rely on the WHO's judgment of such things.
plainOldText 7y ago
> It’s not like every local organization can marshal expertise on every issue. In order to be efficient decision makers, local organizations should be concerned with acquiring expertise related to local issues, and then, through cooperation, global expertise becomes an emergent property. It's not like every central institution can marshal expertise on every local issue. One reason you want to avoid centralization is due to the fact that decision making occurs under imperfect and incomplete knowledge, or bounded-rationality as Herbert Simon called it. By decentralizing the process of decision making, you mitigate the risks, since you are allowing entities to tackle a problem in parallel, and if one of them turns out to be wrong, the fallout is localized. Whereas in a centralized system, one bad decision can spell trouble for everyone.
- majos 7y ago
  > It's not like every central institution can marshal expertise on every local issue. True, but maybe we disagree on how easy it is for every locality to acquire expertise. Plenty of local governments in the United States are already stretched thin fulfilling the simpler functions of policing, schooling, and basic infrastructure. Adding a staff epidemiologist seems very hard for such places. The same proviso applies to many poorer states and nations. That is why I think it makes most sense to direct effort toward having a competent central authority. > By decentralizing the process of decision making, you mitigate the risks, since you are allowing entities to tackle a problem in parallel, and if one of them turns out to be wrong, the fallout is localized. Whereas in a centralized system, one bad decision can spell trouble for everyone. On the flip side, decentralizing makes coordination harder. In coarse terms, there are game-theoretic considerations in an epidemic. For example, if localities are purely self-interested, an unaffected region may attempt to quarantine and keep all of its medical infrastructure ready for itself rather than lend it to nearby affected regions. In such cases a coordinating mechanism can be extremely helpful. I'm not arguing that one kind of organization is always better or worse. To me it just seems complicated.
  - plainOldText 7y ago
    > On the flip side, decentralizing makes coordination harder. Perhaps technology could help in this regard, at least to some degree. Bitcoin has proven coordination in a low trust environment is possible. Imagine if we could make coordination easier in other industries too. > I'm not arguing that one kind of organization is always better or worse. To me it just seems complicated. I agree, it is indeed complicated. But we need to start seriously considering concepts such as scale, systems thinking with its centralization/decentralization paradigms, and incomplete knowledge/risks if we want to design better institutions. Then we can thinker with turning the knobs one way or the other.

by majos 7y ago

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

There's nothing wrong with having large-scale institutions. The problem is when local organizations can't act without a single centralized institution giving the OK. National health departments listen to the WHO but can take action as needed without WHO signoff; local health departments in the US often literally could not test for the coronavirus, even though they had the tools and the capacity and the desire to make tests, because they didn't have federal approval.

majos 7y ago
> local health departments in the US often literally could not test for the coronavirus, even though they had the tools and the capacity and the desire to make tests, because they didn't have federal approval But that’s a judgement against the United States’ federal government, not the WHO. The WHO does not actively constrain governments, they just offer guidance (as far as I know!).
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  In principle, that's true, and certainly a point in the WHO's favor. In practice, it sounds like a lot of things are happening only conditional on the WHO's statement that it's a pandemic, which if true reflects a lack of local adaptability. I don't think it's the WHO's fault, necessarily, but local authorities need to have the capacity and skills to feel they don't have to rely on the WHO's judgment of such things.

plainOldText 7y ago

> It’s not like every local organization can marshal expertise on every issue. In order to be efficient decision makers, local organizations should be concerned with acquiring expertise related to local issues, and then, through cooperation, global expertise becomes an emergent property. It's not like every central institution can marshal expertise on every local issue. One reason you want to avoid centralization is due to the fact that decision making occurs under imperfect and incomplete knowledge, or bounded-rationality as Herbert Simon called it. By decentralizing the process of decision making, you mitigate the risks, since you are allowing entities to tackle a problem in parallel, and if one of them turns out to be wrong, the fallout is localized. Whereas in a centralized system, one bad decision can spell trouble for everyone.

majos 7y ago
> It's not like every central institution can marshal expertise on every local issue. True, but maybe we disagree on how easy it is for every locality to acquire expertise. Plenty of local governments in the United States are already stretched thin fulfilling the simpler functions of policing, schooling, and basic infrastructure. Adding a staff epidemiologist seems very hard for such places. The same proviso applies to many poorer states and nations. That is why I think it makes most sense to direct effort toward having a competent central authority. > By decentralizing the process of decision making, you mitigate the risks, since you are allowing entities to tackle a problem in parallel, and if one of them turns out to be wrong, the fallout is localized. Whereas in a centralized system, one bad decision can spell trouble for everyone. On the flip side, decentralizing makes coordination harder. In coarse terms, there are game-theoretic considerations in an epidemic. For example, if localities are purely self-interested, an unaffected region may attempt to quarantine and keep all of its medical infrastructure ready for itself rather than lend it to nearby affected regions. In such cases a coordinating mechanism can be extremely helpful. I'm not arguing that one kind of organization is always better or worse. To me it just seems complicated.
- plainOldText 7y ago
  > On the flip side, decentralizing makes coordination harder. Perhaps technology could help in this regard, at least to some degree. Bitcoin has proven coordination in a low trust environment is possible. Imagine if we could make coordination easier in other industries too. > I'm not arguing that one kind of organization is always better or worse. To me it just seems complicated. I agree, it is indeed complicated. But we need to start seriously considering concepts such as scale, systems thinking with its centralization/decentralization paradigms, and incomplete knowledge/risks if we want to design better institutions. Then we can thinker with turning the knobs one way or the other.