Reviewing the latest review: Blueprint for inaction?
Tuesday, May 9, 2006 at 8:28AM Max Borders of TCS Daily has a critique of Tom: A Blueprint for Inaction?
Tom's comments:
No offense to Max and the cutesy title, but the critique amounts to: this is really hard to pursue when you involve international financial institutions like IMF and the WB as currently configured and operated.Point taken. New rule sets required.
Borders is right on this, for example: we turn naturally to our closest allies for trickiest work of institution-buildling, like rule of law. Where we turn logically to New Core (as I note in my current brief) is more in the simpler, less elegant, 3-sigma-like solutions on rapid construction of infrastructure networks. So yeah, assign SysAdmin roles according to the logic of comparative advantage.
So great point by Max, just a bit OBB (overtaken by the brief).
His larger critique that I focus too much on nation-building vice institution-building is at worst a misrepresentation of my ideas (BFA is full of discussion on the latter, which, quite frankly, is logically indistinguishable from the former--to wit, what is a nation but a collection of institutions?) and at best an argumentative ploy (reminding me of the criticism that "Barnett should think less about shrinkíng the Gap and more about growing the Core," to which I reply "Fine, call it whatever you want.").
Borders' points about the complexity of the challenge are all good and his emphasis on, and articulation of, the goals of institution-building are most welcome. But he needs to put his considerable brainpower to the "how' answers, not just the "how not" summaries of past experience.
Max could have reached a lot higher in this piece. He has--I suspect--far more original insight to offer on these tough subjects than he reveals here.
Reader Comments (12)
Nation-state vs. institution is a question of degree (scale) and not of kind ( domain). " Connectivity" or " Resilience" or whatever in principle applies if you are talking State Dept or IMF or the nation of Afghanistan or the entire Gap.
So the cry for institutions amounts to a preference for Dr. Barnett to focus on a particular perspective of scale. Tom started with the biggest possible picture in PNM, BFA narrowed that scope to actionable strategies. Presumably, he could keep working his way "down" in terms of scale/perspective to small networks and short-term tactical actions. Max has bought the concept ( whether he knows it or not) and is now just negotiating a price.
Thanks. That helps me understand the critique better. Probably Max too.
You are welcome. I think your big picture viewpoint is innately unsettling to policy wonk detail types and they get antsy simply because you aren't pressing your eyeballs up to the same tree that composes their "forest". Not the way they are trained to think about problems.
The article is stirring some real interest. I had already heard about the review via email before I checked in here today.
I wish I had a blog again (sigh). Lemme just say to Zen, above, that nation-building and institution building are definitely a difference of kind, not of degree. I believe both of you are mistaken on this point - and it's crucial. Institutions are the DNA, nations are the organism. Check out Douglass North on institutions v., say, Jeff Sachs on wrong-headed attempts at benign development. (Development in a Box seems to be more on the right track than the top-down view.)
Tom: What about Max's points/problems re: multilateralism and "free-riding?" This seems to be a key difficulty.
I think Max carries a big point here.
The very reason some nations are defined as Gap are due to the nature of the institutions that define them. The DNA as it were indeed.
What institutions that drive and support ruleset reset I think are critical to the results expected.
Being just a greasy engineer I realize utilization of a hammer to drive screws is ineffectual - doesn't mean that the hammer is bad per se - but if you only have that then thats what you will use. But if you change it up to a screwdriver then you can build a stronger house. The tools that you use to define institutions and nations can be very important to what the end outcome will look like and how robust they perform and weather the inevitable stress and strain.
Both of you guys do fantastic work and I enjoy the display of brain power - keep it up.
chrism
Hi Max,
No offense, but the organism analogy is too Eurocentric a conception for much of the Gap ( I do like the DNA bit though). The Congolese or the Sudanese aren't really nations in the same sense that the Germans, French or Chinese are. The ethno-cultural-linguistic critical mass required is often absent.
Technically speaking, we really aren't building "nations" in the Gap but "states" i.e. - institutions of sovereignty around which, hopefully, a sense of nationhood will coalesce, should the state prove its basic competency at governance over a long period of time.
We did not create a German nation in 1945 -1955, the existence of the German nation was certainly left indisputable by recent events, but a German state that could rein in the worst excesses of German national behavior.
One might consider the local foodwebs that feed a locality, enough to raise a city state, including the bioregion that feeds that enity, to trading that forms a nation. Using dynamic language without biological understanding is to abstract it once more in service of ideologies which are tossed down from above, altho I understand that we are doing the best we all can...
Zen,
Interesting observations re: structure of "the state" vs. ethno-cultural-linguistic groupings. Reminds me of Dr. Philip Bobbitt's work in 'The Shield of Achilles' where he traces the continual reconstruction of the state in various forms. Could be useful in supporting/defending this particular point.
To All,
With respect to all of you, I think both arguments are two sides of the same COIN. You need both - nation building and institution building. uhm... let's see - IRAQ, what's happening here nation building or institution building? I think both: nation building is the process of politics and power, institution building is the process of running a nation. You need both if you are to have a "functional state" ready to integrate into the core. Institutions run the machinery of the state: gas, electricity, human rights, democractic processes, etc. Nation building is about realizing the hopes, dreams, and needs of the people. The hopes, dreams, needs are encapsulated in the policitcal process while the realization is through the institution of the democratic process.
Peace,
Vinit Joshi
In other words to put it in Max's term, DNA by itself, life doesn't make; DNA with cellular processes, an organism make. DNA is just one component among many that together constitutes life ( organism ).
Vinit Joshi
It seems to me that Max and Tom are arguing the old chicken or the egg debate; which comes first, the nation or the institutions. Let me clear this debate up once and for all; the potential comes first (the egg also represents potential drumsticks, so the debate could, in a way, still remain). DNA represents the potential of becoming a chicken, as does the gleam in the old rooster’s eye, and the egg represents the sum-of-the-forces-equaling-zero or a harmonized (or on the other side of the COIN a Reharmonized) nation. If this sounds like I am describing an OODA-PISRR movement (I heard a groan from Zenpundit); I am.
If we describe nation-building as a movement that begins with establishing institutions to the finished product, a nation, then we are describing a loop that includes an Observation, Orientation, Decision-making, and Action (OODA) movement. It is observed that a nation is needed and the information on how to build one starts. The significance of an OODA movement rests in the space between Orientation and Decision-making. In America, despite what those on the Left and Right say, we allow everyone into the Orientation and Decision-making part of the loop (they maybe of little significance in comparison to others, but at least they are there). As the letter from the President of Iran underscores, most of the countries of the world don’t let the minorities in. Because this inclination, to be all-inclusive, is part of our DNA or, as Tom says, source code, the use of corporate power or socialist movements are not up to the task of keeping the loop from going kinetic. However, at least Tom has a plan, which is a lot more than any socialist movement has shown me so far. You simply can’t be just against something; you have to show how your plan will encourage non-destructive frequencies inside a society.