5 ms·

I think your point is correct in general, but I’d like to nitpick in a specific part here: > it's hard for Australia to build, for Germany to build, for Turkey

I think your point is correct in general, but I’d like to nitpick in a specific part here: > it's hard for Australia to build, for Germany to build, for Turkey to build, for Japan to build. Just looking at the cost of rail infrastructure, it looks like the US has a significantly harder time generating value for money with what we build. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-09/why-1-billion-doesn-t-buy-much-transit-infrastructure-anymore https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2011-11-09/why-1-bil... The cost difference per km of rail comparing Tokyo or Berlin to NYC is insane. It’s literally an order of magnitude difference in some cases. And this issue arises in many parts of our society. IT modernization projects in the federal government cost boatloads of money, yet never seem to make any real headway. Even in the private sector, real value adding things like transitioning to electronic medical records never really took until insurance companies and the government started forcing it. And once they did the focus on their design was entirely around billing and coding and not really improving the physician’s workflow or enhancing care. So while the point may be true everywhere, I think there really is a baked in tendency to veto and strike down proposals for change in the US that doesn’t seem to get quite so rampant in other places.

netcan 6y ago
I think you're both right. To the meta-point made by the OP... We are now sitting on 200 years of social "science" failure to gain an understanding of this stuff. Theories fall in and out of favour, but they never seem to be affected by reality very much either way. I think science, as an approach, just isn't a useful way of getting an understanding of why US rail construction costs are so outrageous. It isn't that kind of question. Aspiring to an abstract philosophical or scientific Theory of Government Procurement doesn't take you anywhere useful.
- watwut 6y ago
  Was the "Theory of Government Procurement" ever been the goal of social science?
  - netcan 6y ago
    The goalposts of social science always seems to be moved to where the ball goes. But, I think if we're being honest, than yes. Not the only goal obviously. But, there are countless economists & policy researchers publishing on similar topics all the time.
    - watwut 6y ago
      To me, it seems that actual scientific articles that would fall into social science umbrella have much smaller scope and goals.
      - netcan 6y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean by "actual scientific articles," but I mean stuff that's generally published in economics, policy, psychology or other "social science" related journals. I'm not commenting on which is "scientific" in a Popperian sense. I'm not sure any of these publications clear that bar. Questions of scope and/or magnitude is one of the moving goalposts. Scope is implied to be very broad in most contexts, limited in more critical contexts. This theory only applies to preschools in this neighborhood. The 2018 Nobel Laureate for Economics was about "Endogenous growth theory," a theory of how human capital, innovation, and knowledge contribute to economic growth. Is that a small scope? The most influential social science book of the last few years was "Capital in the 21st century" which is a theory of income and wealth gaps. Is that small in scope? Ultimately, a theory that can't be generalized iss not really a theory, in a scientific sense. It's punditry.
  - naravara 6y ago
    It is a consideration in the field of political economy or development economics. Development economists rarely get invited to talk about domestic politics in OECD countries though so the focus is all on developing ones.
- naravara 6y ago
  >Theories fall in and out of favour, but they never seem to be affected by reality very much either way. It's the opposite. Theories happen, but reality isn't affected by them in any way. Part of the reason is because there is no longer a pipeline for public intellectuals or academics to be in any sort of advisory position in government. Those roles are all taken up by career bureaucrats, industry-linked experts from the private sector, or well-connected political flunkies now. The trouble with that is that while these people are usually established with PhDs or whatever in the relevant field, they're usually a decade or more out of practicing in that field by the time people reach the level in their careers where they can end up on a Presidential committee. So they end up with ideas and preconceptions about their own field that are frozen in amber from a long time ago. What's more, they've spent the time since assimilating the values of other people who are even older than them. So all their practice and discipline involves explaining theory that is a decade out of date to get buy in from someone whose understanding of the theory is 2 decades out of date.
  - netcan 6y ago
    I totally disagree. Theories have enormous effect on reality. Coase Theorem^ dictated how radio spectrum was managed in the US, with disastrous results. Monetarism dictates most decisions made by central banks. Unionisation and later union-busting were very closely tied to social science theories. "Romer theory" had profound influence on world bank and UN policies. Reality impacting theory though... Keynesianism remained totally intact when 1980s stagflation disproved it. Monetarism is taught as-is despite the last 10 years of macroeconomic reality. Marxist theories of ancient history and the origins of high civilisation are virtually indisputed despite the discovery of gobleki tepeh, for an example outside of economics. In the 30s, almost all economists predicted a much reduced workweek. Keynes, the most famous, predicted a 15 hour workweek by the 1970s. Most economists agreed: marxists, liberals, keynsians, corporatists.... The prediction was based on some fundamental theories in economics, combined with GDP & productivity assumptions. The assumptions were right. The theories have not changed. The way economists explain the result is by tweaking theory in a non fundamental way. They mostly argue that people (surprisingly) prefered working 40 hrs, earning more and spending more... The in-theory implication is that people place nearly no value on "leisure." No need to rethink theories just because they predict falsities. No problem if the updated parameter values imply a reality that is obviously false. ^Technically, a bastardised form of the theory that reverses the authors' intended conclusions.
greggman3 6y ago
I don't if this is relevant but at least one of these things is not like the others. In Tokyo rail is privately owned. There are 10+ train companies in Tokyo alone and many more all over. Osaka/Kyoto probably have a similar number. They get to own the land the trains are on and the stations so many stations become shopping centers run by the train company. Some stores they run, For example Tokyu Trains runs Tokyu groceries, Tokyu department stores. The famous 109 buildings in Shibuya are called 109 because 10 can be pronounced "tou" and 9 can be "kyu". The famous Tobu department store in Ikebukuro with 64 restaurants is run by the Tobu train company. A lot of stations have an "Atre" shopping center above them. Those are Japan Rail owned. Etc... Some stores they rent out. Many of the new 20-30 story buildings and the new 50 story building above Shibuya station is owned by Tokyu. That may or may not make it cheaper to build but it gives them more money to support trains and there are also arguably incentives to make your lines the most attractive so people will want to live on that line and patronize your line and all your stores and businesses. I don't know where it will end but it's a long way from the no self interested incentive to do a good job publicly run trains. Of course many publicly run trains do great as well. I'd be curious to know if there are other incentives that help. For example Singapore trains seem have a shopping center over many stations. Maybe the government runs that and can use the rent to help balance the train books. No idea.

netcan 6y ago

I think you're both right. To the meta-point made by the OP... We are now sitting on 200 years of social "science" failure to gain an understanding of this stuff. Theories fall in and out of favour, but they never seem to be affected by reality very much either way. I think science, as an approach, just isn't a useful way of getting an understanding of why US rail construction costs are so outrageous. It isn't that kind of question. Aspiring to an abstract philosophical or scientific Theory of Government Procurement doesn't take you anywhere useful.

watwut 6y ago
Was the "Theory of Government Procurement" ever been the goal of social science?
- netcan 6y ago
  The goalposts of social science always seems to be moved to where the ball goes. But, I think if we're being honest, than yes. Not the only goal obviously. But, there are countless economists & policy researchers publishing on similar topics all the time.
  - watwut 6y ago
    To me, it seems that actual scientific articles that would fall into social science umbrella have much smaller scope and goals.
    - netcan 6y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by "actual scientific articles," but I mean stuff that's generally published in economics, policy, psychology or other "social science" related journals. I'm not commenting on which is "scientific" in a Popperian sense. I'm not sure any of these publications clear that bar. Questions of scope and/or magnitude is one of the moving goalposts. Scope is implied to be very broad in most contexts, limited in more critical contexts. This theory only applies to preschools in this neighborhood. The 2018 Nobel Laureate for Economics was about "Endogenous growth theory," a theory of how human capital, innovation, and knowledge contribute to economic growth. Is that a small scope? The most influential social science book of the last few years was "Capital in the 21st century" which is a theory of income and wealth gaps. Is that small in scope? Ultimately, a theory that can't be generalized iss not really a theory, in a scientific sense. It's punditry.
- naravara 6y ago
  It is a consideration in the field of political economy or development economics. Development economists rarely get invited to talk about domestic politics in OECD countries though so the focus is all on developing ones.
naravara 6y ago
>Theories fall in and out of favour, but they never seem to be affected by reality very much either way. It's the opposite. Theories happen, but reality isn't affected by them in any way. Part of the reason is because there is no longer a pipeline for public intellectuals or academics to be in any sort of advisory position in government. Those roles are all taken up by career bureaucrats, industry-linked experts from the private sector, or well-connected political flunkies now. The trouble with that is that while these people are usually established with PhDs or whatever in the relevant field, they're usually a decade or more out of practicing in that field by the time people reach the level in their careers where they can end up on a Presidential committee. So they end up with ideas and preconceptions about their own field that are frozen in amber from a long time ago. What's more, they've spent the time since assimilating the values of other people who are even older than them. So all their practice and discipline involves explaining theory that is a decade out of date to get buy in from someone whose understanding of the theory is 2 decades out of date.
- netcan 6y ago
  I totally disagree. Theories have enormous effect on reality. Coase Theorem^ dictated how radio spectrum was managed in the US, with disastrous results. Monetarism dictates most decisions made by central banks. Unionisation and later union-busting were very closely tied to social science theories. "Romer theory" had profound influence on world bank and UN policies. Reality impacting theory though... Keynesianism remained totally intact when 1980s stagflation disproved it. Monetarism is taught as-is despite the last 10 years of macroeconomic reality. Marxist theories of ancient history and the origins of high civilisation are virtually indisputed despite the discovery of gobleki tepeh, for an example outside of economics. In the 30s, almost all economists predicted a much reduced workweek. Keynes, the most famous, predicted a 15 hour workweek by the 1970s. Most economists agreed: marxists, liberals, keynsians, corporatists.... The prediction was based on some fundamental theories in economics, combined with GDP & productivity assumptions. The assumptions were right. The theories have not changed. The way economists explain the result is by tweaking theory in a non fundamental way. They mostly argue that people (surprisingly) prefered working 40 hrs, earning more and spending more... The in-theory implication is that people place nearly no value on "leisure." No need to rethink theories just because they predict falsities. No problem if the updated parameter values imply a reality that is obviously false. ^Technically, a bastardised form of the theory that reverses the authors' intended conclusions.

greggman3 6y ago

I don't if this is relevant but at least one of these things is not like the others. In Tokyo rail is privately owned. There are 10+ train companies in Tokyo alone and many more all over. Osaka/Kyoto probably have a similar number. They get to own the land the trains are on and the stations so many stations become shopping centers run by the train company. Some stores they run, For example Tokyu Trains runs Tokyu groceries, Tokyu department stores. The famous 109 buildings in Shibuya are called 109 because 10 can be pronounced "tou" and 9 can be "kyu". The famous Tobu department store in Ikebukuro with 64 restaurants is run by the Tobu train company. A lot of stations have an "Atre" shopping center above them. Those are Japan Rail owned. Etc... Some stores they rent out. Many of the new 20-30 story buildings and the new 50 story building above Shibuya station is owned by Tokyu. That may or may not make it cheaper to build but it gives them more money to support trains and there are also arguably incentives to make your lines the most attractive so people will want to live on that line and patronize your line and all your stores and businesses. I don't know where it will end but it's a long way from the no self interested incentive to do a good job publicly run trains. Of course many publicly run trains do great as well. I'd be curious to know if there are other incentives that help. For example Singapore trains seem have a shopping center over many stations. Maybe the government runs that and can use the rent to help balance the train books. No idea.