Inadequacy of global decision-making?

Global Challenge of the Global Challenge (Part #2)

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

There is a wide-spread perception among academics and commentators that institutional dysfunction has become increasingly common in important social, political, and economics arenas. Opinion polls show a decline in trust and confidence in major actors and institutions, including inter-governmental organizations, governments, firms, NGOs, and religious organizations. For some, the core of the problem is that the hitherto well-functioning states have become less effective in aggregating and acting upon citizens' preferences. Many policy initiatives of the 1990s -- deregulation, privatization, new public management, private regulation, regional integration, civil society, and so on -- seemed to have failed to meet expectations.

In the quest of the Global Challenges Prize for "A New Shape", one commentary specifically focuses on the possibility of a "UN 2.0" -- exploiting internet jargon with respect to upgrades. Unfortunately any UN-focus naturally frames the quest in terms of the decades of debate on UN reform and the frustration to which this has given rise. There is a case for exploring the challenge more generally given that track record.

It would be good to benefit from some kind of checklist of what does not work, with some indication of why. More systemic insight into why complex systems governance do not "get off the ground" (or fail) merit recognition, as separately argued (Variety of System Failures Engendered by Negligent Distinctions, 2016). Of particular interest is the systems engineering compendium by John Gall, successively titled as Systemantics: how systems really work and how they fail (1986) and The Systems Bible: the beginner's guide to systems large and small (2002) -- and separately reviewed as Why Systems Fail and Problems Sprout Anew (1980). Also relevant are obviously the arguments of Jared Diamond (Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed, 2005).

Issues of concern include:

Given the track record of UN reform, there is the possibility that the much sought "new thinking" may be more fruitfully triggered by calling into question the methodology through which it is sought. As noted by the Global Policy Forum (UN Reform):

UN reform is endlessly discussed, but there is sharp disagreement on what kind of reform is needed and for what purpose. Foundations, think tanks and blue ribbon commissions regularly call for institutional renovation. Secretary Generals trumpet their reform initiatives. NGOs make earnest proposals. And from Washington come somber warnings that the UN must "reform or die". UN reform is not a politically neutral, technocratic exercise. Bids for power and privilege lurk in every proposal. Many experts would like to see a stronger and more effective multilateral organization, but the mightiest governments are usually opposed to a robust institution, and they often use their power to block change.

Despite Einstein's above mentioned insight (We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them), to what extent can a problematic methodology be detected in the Global Challenges process itself?

Given the exploitation of the internet metaphor -- towards UN 2.0 -- such a possibility was explored with respect to the 1st International Conference on Internet Science (2013), held under the aegis of the EU (Internyet Nescience? Self-referential upgrading of obsolete Internet conference processes inhibiting emergence of integrative knowledge, 2013).

Or maybe there is an unstated dependence on failure to evoke fundamental reform and more appropriate patterns. There may then be an "art" to inaction (The Art of Non-Decision-Making -- and the manipulation of categories, 1997). Awaiting disaster may even be the most effective mode of decision-making in enabling necessary change.

[Parts: First | Prev | Next | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]