I was reading the various theories on the fall of Rome and came across one that I think is very relevant. Let me quote some of it below.
-- Begin Excerpt from Wikipedia article Decline of the Roman Empire
Joseph Tainter
In his 1988 book "The Collapse of Complex Societies" Tainter presents the view that for given technological levels there are implicit declining returns to complexity, in which systems deplete their resource base beyond levels that are ultimately sustainable. Tainter argues that societies become more complex as they try to solve problems.
When a society confronts a "problem," such as a shortage of or difficulty in gaining access to energy, it tends to create new layers of bureaucracy, infrastructure, or social class to address the challenge.
For example, as Roman agricultural output slowly declined and population increased, per-capita energy availability dropped. The Romans "solved" this problem by conquering their neighbours to appropriate their energy surpluses (metals, grain, slaves, etc). As a consequence of the growing Empire, the cost of maintaining communications, garrisons, civil government, etc. increased. Eventually, this cost grew so great that any new challenges such as invasions and crop failures could not be solved by the acquisition of more territory. At that point, the empire fragmented into smaller units.
We often assume that the collapse of the Roman Empire was a catastrophe for everyone involved. Tainter points out that it can be seen as a very rational preference of individuals at the time, many of whom were actually better off (all but the elite, presumably.)[citation needed] Archeological evidence from human bones indicates that average nutrition actually improved after the collapse in many parts of the former Roman Empire. Average individuals may have benefited because they no longer had to invest in the burdensome complexity of empire.
-- End Except from Wikipedia
I think this is a good warning as we consider regulation and bureaucracy in fixing our problems. We have to find a meaningful balance.
I've seen this in businesses. A small business can easily have a sales person, finance person, production person, etc. work together to achieve a solution for a customer, but as the business grows and the number of workers increase, the resulting complexity and increasing layers of bureaucracy turn informal flexible connections and solutions into rigid inflexible protocols of operation that are less likely to help the customer. Also, as often one time problems occur, policies are implemented to solve these problems but then create walls thwarting operations. Are the new policies for a one time problem worth the efficiency lost in day to day operations.
Risk is a part of life. You have to find a balance of safety versus risk. You can't make a policy for every single risk. For example, the safest way to never be in a car wreck is never to ride in a car, but that greatly reduces your options. The way to never have a financial melt down again is to encourage regulation that discourages lending. Your safer but won't have much.
Let's not over build complexity in our government. Its complex enough as is.
-- Begin Excerpt from Wikipedia article Decline of the Roman Empire
Joseph Tainter
In his 1988 book "The Collapse of Complex Societies" Tainter presents the view that for given technological levels there are implicit declining returns to complexity, in which systems deplete their resource base beyond levels that are ultimately sustainable. Tainter argues that societies become more complex as they try to solve problems.
When a society confronts a "problem," such as a shortage of or difficulty in gaining access to energy, it tends to create new layers of bureaucracy, infrastructure, or social class to address the challenge.
For example, as Roman agricultural output slowly declined and population increased, per-capita energy availability dropped. The Romans "solved" this problem by conquering their neighbours to appropriate their energy surpluses (metals, grain, slaves, etc). As a consequence of the growing Empire, the cost of maintaining communications, garrisons, civil government, etc. increased. Eventually, this cost grew so great that any new challenges such as invasions and crop failures could not be solved by the acquisition of more territory. At that point, the empire fragmented into smaller units.
We often assume that the collapse of the Roman Empire was a catastrophe for everyone involved. Tainter points out that it can be seen as a very rational preference of individuals at the time, many of whom were actually better off (all but the elite, presumably.)[citation needed] Archeological evidence from human bones indicates that average nutrition actually improved after the collapse in many parts of the former Roman Empire. Average individuals may have benefited because they no longer had to invest in the burdensome complexity of empire.
-- End Except from Wikipedia
I think this is a good warning as we consider regulation and bureaucracy in fixing our problems. We have to find a meaningful balance.
I've seen this in businesses. A small business can easily have a sales person, finance person, production person, etc. work together to achieve a solution for a customer, but as the business grows and the number of workers increase, the resulting complexity and increasing layers of bureaucracy turn informal flexible connections and solutions into rigid inflexible protocols of operation that are less likely to help the customer. Also, as often one time problems occur, policies are implemented to solve these problems but then create walls thwarting operations. Are the new policies for a one time problem worth the efficiency lost in day to day operations.
Risk is a part of life. You have to find a balance of safety versus risk. You can't make a policy for every single risk. For example, the safest way to never be in a car wreck is never to ride in a car, but that greatly reduces your options. The way to never have a financial melt down again is to encourage regulation that discourages lending. Your safer but won't have much.
Let's not over build complexity in our government. Its complex enough as is.
No comments:
Post a Comment