Showing posts with label anarchism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anarchism. Show all posts

Friday, December 10, 2010

The Political Economy of Hierarchy

Summary: Gary Miller.
Managerial Dilemmas: The Political Economy of Hierarchy.
Cambridge University Press. 1992.
Introduction, pp. 1-13.

In the Introduction to his Managerial Dilemmas, Gary Miller explains that his main aim in the book is to connect two different literatures on hierarchical organizational control: organizational economics, with its emphasis on incentivizing self-interested employee behavior, on the one hand, and political science and organizational psychology, with their emphasis on organic processes of leadership able to inspire employees to transcend self-interest, on the other.  The tools needed to build a "theoretical bridge" between these literatures, Miller maintains, are to be found in modern game theory and political economy.  

Organizational economics, rigorous as it is, generates incorrect predictions about the kinds of incentive structures we should expect to find in firms subject to competitive pressures in a free market.  This means that “Either competitive market pressures are less likely to discipline hierarchies than economists have imagined, or else there are reasons outside of current economic theory that egalitarian incentive systems are more efficient than those typically prescribed by economists." (7)  

Miller will therefore adopt an institutional approach to the political economy of hierarchies, since this has the best potential to explain outcomes produced in contexts with high transaction costs, information asymmetry, inefficient property rights, and multidimensional exchanges involving non-monetary goods like status and services.  Following Ronald Coase, institiutional theorists believe that hierarchies allow firms to avoid some of the transaction costs associated with using the price mechanism to coordinate exchange rates: under hierarchy, the employee and employer benefit by allowing the employer to have "broad discretionary authority" over the employee by means of a single contract, rather than negotiating a price for each particular service the worker provides.  

This discretionary authority as an important feature of organizational behavior.   Ultimately, Miller believes he can explain how authority is established in firms, why these firms exhibit persistent inefficiencies that weaken their ability to solve market failures, and the extent to which managers who inspire cooperation--voluntary deviations from self-interested behavior--can minimize those inefficiencies.

Hackers and the Information War

Ian Drury
Mail Online 06.12.2010

"Julian Assange has distributed to fellow hackers an encrypted 'poison pill' of damaging secrets, thought to include details on BP and Guantanamo Bay.  He believes the file is his 'insurance' in case he is killed, arrested or the whistleblowing website is removed permanently from the internet.  Mr Assange - understood to be lying low in Britain - could be arrested by Scotland Yard officers as early as tomorrow... Mr Assange, a reclusive Australian, has infuriated and embarrassed the U.S. in recent months by releasing hundreds of thousands of classified documents."

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Philosophical Anarchism

A. John Simmons
Wellman & Simmons, Is There a Duty to Obey the Law?
The conclusion to which those arguments point...is that there is (for most persons in most states) no moral duty to obey the law.  This is the position commonly referred to as philosophical anarchism.  Most nontheorists, I've suggested, are probably initially disinclined to accept such a conclusion, perhaps because they think it implies that legal disobedience is routinely or always morally justifiable.  And in one technical sense this is correct. If "disobedience" means literally "not obeying the law"--that is, not doing what the law commands because the law commands it--then the denial of a duty to obey does in fact entail that disobedience... is normally justified.  But if by "legal disobedience"we mean simply "not performing the act (or forbearance) identified by the law as obligatory," then nothing so dramatic about the moral justification for disobedience to law in fact follows from my conclusion.