Introduction

By courtesy of the Oysterium team I have been taken on board as a guest blogger. This is an introduction to signal where I am coming from and how I hope to add some value on the site.

My formal training is in Agricultural Science and I have given myself a licence to roam far and wide from my roots as a kind of allrounder with a special interest in philosophy and political economy.

Just to be clear where I am coming from, I describe myself as "classical or non-socialist liberal", verging on libertarian. I don't think it makes sense to demand a single guiding principle and I nominate three - peace, freedom and prosperity. The good thing about these aims is that the same policies tend to promote all three, with a minimum of trade-offs.

So what are the policies?
The following three would applear to be a minimum set, others can be added to taste:
1. Free trade, that is, the freedom for people to engage in the voluntary exchange of legal goods and services, even if they happen to be in different countries.
2. The Rule of Law.
3. A moral framework, including things like honesty and compassion.

Moving on to my contribution to the team, as a biologist (by training) and an epistemologist (by inclination) it will be helpful to explore how the evolutionary approach and especially evolutionary epistemology can contribute to the understanding of social and economic processes. Just for starters, here are links to a couple of reviews that I wrote on collections of essays about evolutionary epistemology.

This collection was edited by Gerard Radnitzky and the late Bill Bartley. It contains papers written for several conferences during the 1980s. This is the proceedings of a conference on evolutionary epistemology which was held at Newcastle (Australia) in the1987. A word of warning, the second review has some eccentricities in the formatting because it is in the Forum section of my website and I have no control over the translation of some symbols in the text.

An extract from the second review.

Evolutionary epistemology is an academic growth area at present. Its distinctive feature is the way that it applies the principle of natural selection to scientific theories and to knowledge generally. It is concerned with problem-solving and error elimination under various forms of selective pressure including the tests of logic and empirical evidence. This is a very subversive approach compared with most schools of thought in philosophy which are essentially conservative in their preoccupation with the justification of beliefs or the analysis of linguistic usage and the explication of concepts.

One of the central insights of evolutionary epistemology is the fallibility and plasticity of our mental and sensory apparatus. This contrasts with the dogmas of the two main streams of Western epistemology which posit something like infallibility or at least foundational status for, on the one hand, rational insights (Descartes) or sense impressions (the empiricists). In each case knowledge is regarded as a purely mental or psychological phenomenon. In contrast the evolutionary perspective helps to make a distinction between subjective or personal knowledge which needs to be treated from a biological point of view, and objective or public knowledge which calls for appraisal as a human product or perhaps a social construct. From this perspective mind and language are viewed as linked evolutionary products which emerge and develop in parallel as brains and social life become more complex.

The concluding remarks from the first review.

Like children who grow up, leave home and seek fame and fortune in distant lands, important ideas have implications far beyond their point of conception. This applies to Popper's theory of research programs and the alternative program that he provides. This has the capacity to liberate the potential of many other lines of thought that have been suppressed or devalued. These include some aspects of the Austrian tradition in economics, individualism in literature and the political philosophy of classical liberalism. Common to these movements is the notion of the creative individual who has a degree of autonomy and the capacity to be an agent, not merely a passive response mechanism.

In economics the old program sponsors various forms of economic determinism and analysis of aggregates, also the collective choice theory where Kenneth J. Arrow made such a mark. In contrast, Israel M. Kirzner offers an 'Austrian' perspective in The Crisis in Economic Theory edited by Bell and Kristol (Basic Books, 1981). The last decade has witnessed a tentative revival of the Austrian tradition that dates from Carl Menger (1840-1921:). It may be that the intellectual ecosystem provided by Popper's metaphysics is hospitable to such a revival and if this is the case then the revival may gain momentum if Popper's ideas become better understood and more widely disseminated. The theory of literature has been dominated by I. A. Richards' psychologism (precursor of the New Criticism), by psychoanalytical probing for themes of neurotic maladjustment in artists and their products, by Marxist reductionism and its offspring, structuralism. The creative function of the author is replaced by the confluence of drives and influences.

In psychology the reductionist program is clearly apparent in the two major schools of psychoanalysis and behaviourism which share the old metaphysics however much they are antagonistic towards each other. One of the victims of the dominant program is George Kelly's 'inquiring man' who lives by a process of conjecture and refutation. Political theory and practice are dominated by collectivist ideas such as 'social justice,' originally propounded by Plato and revived by Hegel and the socialists. These ideas have poisoned the theory of democracy which is almost universally summed up in the simplistic: formula 'majority rule'. Under the influence of this formula persecuted minorities attempt to secede to form their own majority and freedom fighters establish new dictatorships. In the climate of a non-reductive and individualistic approach it may be possible to explain that the task for democracy is not just to establish a representative system of some kind but to secure the rights of individuals and minorities against unreasonable interference from other people and from the state itself.

artmarket: part I

I'm trying to put together a case for the use of markets in the arts (and more broadly, creative) sectors. I have a particular idea that I intend to advance in full, but in the meantime I'm posting the following as a signpost for my thinking. More will follow.


What would Australia’s arts landscape look like if everyone had a say in its emerging shape and nature?

What makes the arts unique? The fact that the experience of an encounter with a work of art is intrinsically personal: it’s your experience and yours alone. In a sense, the practice of art bestows a gift – from artist to viewer - of the most intimate kind. Whoever you are, says the artist, take my interpretation of the world and do with it what you will. Critique it raw and bold in the forum of public opinion, debate it casually over coffee, or speak of it softly as a frame of reference in difficult and dreadful times. But use it, just use it, for whatever you think it’s worth.

Films, sculptures, writing, music, or performance; all move us in different ways, and sometimes (but not always) profoundly so. The value of any individual piece of art is hard to define objectively, yet we all agree that the arts, as a whole, add value and meaning to the human experience. That art enriches, delineates and uplifts us is not in doubt. We need the arts to help us make sense of who we are, where we’ve been, and what might come next.

But who gets to decide that one artistic idea is more worthy of funding than another? Why is it that some ideas attract the funds necessary to bring a project to fruition, whereas others languish in the basement where all the signs hang lopsided, flickering and hard to discern.

Alright, I’ve obviously just demonstrated that my mastery of metaphor and symbolism is completely insufficient for climbing any sort of literary career ladder (for an aspiring writer, Kate, you seem to be a very good economist). Still, my question remains: why do we trust a small group of experts, appointed (but not elected) to arts councils and other funding bodies, to make good decisions about the allocation of our hard-earned tax dollars to support particular art forms, or some art projects and not others?

Why we do this, actually, is not my real concern, because that is the domain of public choice theorists and, perhaps, neuro-economists. Instead, I’d like to propose a new method for deciding the allocation of arts funding.

What are the Insights from Complexity and Evolutionary Thinking?

And why should they be part of a new approach to economic reform?

I'm going to post a series of vignettes on the concepts that I find myself constantly referring back to in thinking about the nature of economic phenomena and possible policy responses to such. Please note this list is not exhaustive and just represents my own views*, although I will try to provide references where possible.

This is my tentative list:

• Change as first and fundamental, with the static view only ever (and at best) offering a snapshot rather than a true representation of the phenomena of interest.
• True uncertainty, in the Knightian sense (otherwise known as 'unknown unknowns') really exists, no matter how smart we think we are or can be.
• The prevalence and naturalness of failure, because outcomes only ever exactly match intentions by pure chance (due to uncertainty, see above).
• Humans don't evolve (in any way we can make sense of) but our social and economic institutions do. This process is not well understood, but needs to be.
• Unevenness: (i) Human-based systems are restless, with different parts exhibiting differential rates of growth and decline over time. (ii) Many aspects of physical and human-based systems conform to power laws, where a small proportion of the population is 'big' or has 'a lot' of something, but the vast majority is 'small' or has 'a little'. Unevenness of both types implies that the notion of an average is often meaningless.
• Knowledge, of all kinds, is ever-changing, and the implications of new knowledge are always hard to discern. Yet we rely on new knowledge, new ideas, inventiveness and innovation to take us forward - but to where, we cannot know. Stan Metcalfe calls this a Faustian bargain, and I think he's right.

* These are indeed my views and my words, but I should note (in case it's not clear already!) that my thinking is strongly influenced by Stan Metcalfe's work. I included him in my list of classical liberal thinkers in the welcome note for this blog, because I firmly believe he belongs with this esteemed group.

Think Tanks of Interest

There is no shortage of think tanks and fora in the Australian ideas and policy markets, and I hope that one of the outcomes of the conversation on this blog is a consideration of whether there is room - an unfilled niche - for another one based on the interface between complexity/evolutionary thinking and classical liberalism.

As well as the relatively well-known CIS and IPA, three groups from abroad seem of particular relevance to the themes of our dicussion:

Reform, based in the UK, is 'an independent, non-party think tank whose mission is to set out a better way to deliver public services and economic prosperity'. Ruth Richardson, former NZ Finance Minister, could not speak highly enough of this group at a recent conference.

The Resiliance Alliance is a network of researchers and practicioners that 'explores the dynamics of complex adaptive systems in order to discover foundations for sustainability'.

The NZ Business Roundtable is a business-based group with a growing international reputation for effective policy advocacy, with an aim of 'contributing to the development of sound policies that reflect overall national interests'.

I also try to keep abreast of developments at the Cato Institute. What other centres, research groups or institutions would people here recommend?

What's with the Name?

Anna suggested 'oyster', as in 'the world is your...', but it was taken so I made up the word 'oysterium'. Something along the lines of a place for intellectual grit to do its work in the creation of brighter, more valuable things. Or something.

Who can you expect to find here?

This blog is the brainchild of Dr Anna Straton and Kate Morrison. Being in the public domain, it's obviously open to anyone, but at this early stage we've sent out invitations to participate to a number of people who may be interested in pursuing a confluence of these ideas. If you'd like to contribute posts, including perhaps a short profile of your background and interests, let me know.

Anna is a postdoctoral fellow at CSIRO in Darwin, where she applies environmental and ecological economics to a range of insitutional and ecosystem issues.

Kate is a PhD candidate and principal analyst with Volterra Pacific, a small economics consulting group.

We're also joined by our regular partner in all discussions economic and intellectual (and these are not always the same thing!), Jason Potts, Senior Lecturer in Economics at UQ.

Welcome to the Oysterium

This blogsite has been created to facilitate debate and discussion of the ideas of complexity science, classical liberalism and evolutionary economics, and how these might all - together or separately - contribute to policy reform in Australia.

The Australian marketplace for ideas is well populated, but we wonder whether there may be niches yet unfilled. There are a lot of good people doing a lot of good work: for example, the CIS, IPA, Lowy Institute, state and national business advocacies and local centres such as the Brisbane Institute. It seems to us, though, that no one of these organisations captures the potential that seems to exist in the interface between:

• scientific advances in explaining emergent or systemic behaviour (for which there are now many practically useful, and proven, tools, such as network analysis, experimental social science and agent-based modelling);
• political philosophy based around classical liberalism (Mill, Hume, Hayek and Metcalfe);
• evolutionary economics which seeks to address dynamics first in its explanation of markets, industry, entrepreneurship, institutions and globalization.

I have been deliberately vague in these characterizations. Unpacking the nature of these streams of thought, and the way in which they might usefully combine, is one of the goals of this blog, so I wish to simply sketch the outlines rather than lay down rules for engagement.

I believe, though, that there is much latent potential here for a new approach to policy development, analysis, evaluation and advocacy. I propose that a first task for this blog is to debate and discuss the shape and nature of such an approach, and whether cohesion and consistency with respect to policy are possible, or even desirable.

This is also a place for contributors to play with their ideas, however half-formed, and engage with topics and concepts that may fall slightly out of the domain of comfortable familiarity. So please feel free to contribute on whatever topic, and in whatever style, you feel would add interest and insight to this conversation. All perspectives and ideas are welcome within the broad remit sketched above. The only guiding principle for participation is Voltaire's (from his Essay on Tolerance): 'Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too'.