Moral economy does not matter

Shahab Sabahi
Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

Maha Hosain Aziz in her article in CNN (April 19th 2012), analyzes the causes of Occupy Wall Street movements around the globe. She claims that at various points in the past six months, movements have been fighting for the same cause as the peasant communities of rural Vietnam during the 1930s - the moral economy. She explains that theorists have typically used moral economy rhetoric to explain rural movements where protesters felt their basic right to subsistence was being threatened. In the case of Vietnam, the onset of colonial capitalism in the Great Depression contributed to a food crisis for peasant farmers, prompting significant protests. In effect, an informal contract had been broken between the governing power and the governed involving the individual’s basic right to feed himself. She believes today, a similar “contract” has been broken between governing powers and the governed, thus the main causes of Wall Street Movements were beyond corporate greed and income inequality.

Her analysis and perspective is valid in the context of the Great Depression and the 1930s. Since then, the world has thoroughly got changed. People’s knowledge has advanced and it affected their worldview, perception of world affairs and their rights. The street movements are not just about demanding people’s basic right, such as work, affordable basic goods, and homes. They challenge the government dysfunctional bodies, lousy regulations and ineffective policies. They simply do not trust governments’ corporate –oriented policies.   

Unlike the Great Depression era, there is no a clash of ideologies in the Great Recession time. Now policy making process faces big challenges and should be restructured. Capitalism embraces the culture of change which drives societies toward growth. Some people accept both the joys and comforts of capitalism achievements and challenges posed by those achievements. Capitalism contains the element of creative destruction which creates winners and losers. The gap between winners and losers widen when governments fail to regulate based on facts and reality and instead intervene by giving ill visions and targets which are not inline with society well-being.        

Contrary to Maha, I see the street movements, in different locations, fight their own causes. But what they have in common is “they are fed up with fake government visions”.  

To conceptualize the main causes of the street movements, two macro-questions should be asked “What difference cultural variation would make to capitalism? and Which forms of embedding would be most successful in supporting the street movements' strategies for success in the context of capitalism? (if we admit the importance of economic growth!!)”

Conflict between what societies need and what societies want in our time may be the key barrier. Perhaps moral economy in the context of globalization, integrated markets falls short to provide adequate principles for designing effective global governance and global policies.

Myths, Fallacies, Artifacts in Strategy Development

Shahab Sabahi
Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

This piece is a part of my discussion on "Creating  body of knowledge for strategy" in Society of Strategic Planning. It just reflects a pure view through the lens of Philosophy of Science. It should not be regarded as an educational expert view. (part of critical thinking development discourse)

To avoid ambiguity, I first make concept clearance and set the context in my discussion and then proceed to make my points which agree with Dr. Pierre's original thought (Myth, fallacies and irrelevant fact of strategies as a pure science).

From an international development perspective (not firm strategy) and the basic platform of philosophy of science, I initially state problems and explain in brief where the contradictories stem from.

1. It fails to draw a fine line between short and long term (cause objectivity). No solid guiding principle for defining short and long range. It causes a conflicting between the short term view (performance) and long term (value creation). If the concept of short/long borrowed from economics there would be a conceptual contrary. (i think that it must be valid even for corporation strategy as it is for state),

2. There is no evidence that strategic planning actually improves performance (only case studies) so it leads to inductive reasoning (probability).More than fifty casualty analysis articles have been published which proposed different methodologies to gauge the contribution of strategic plan in success of a company. Yet consensus has to be reached (Strategic Management Journal)....I agree this is not a fallacy and is progressive debates ....But as i mentioned in my earlier comment the result of debate whatever would be, just acceptable as inductive reasoning (nature of strategy),

3. Strategic planning attempts to control (deterministic) the future by employing forecasting techniques. Strategic planning requires quantitative data which limited in scope, aggregated, and uncertain to be useful in effective strategy formulation (limitation to develop theoretical bases). It stems from philosophical debate between dynamists and progressive advocates. I do not think it could be discussed without settling a common ground for what school of thoughts we would like to subscribe to. (just punching air),

4. Strategic planning frequently focuses exclusively on strategy formulation, the success for implementation rests upon people who had nothing to do with creating those plans (Subjectivity conflicts Objectivity). Strategy, strategic thinking, strategic planning and performance plan etc help to prioritize our actions (a wonderful approach to solve the long dilemma of value judgment) and support efficient resource allocations (through process which are known)However it contradicts Agent-base theory which is used in development of strategy (EU social science journal, if i my mind goes right),

5. To have a robust analysis, analysis should not be synthesis. However strategic planning analysis in its interaction with strategy is often synthesized (if we do not accept dialectic!!!),  

6. Strategic planning is rather a tool of formal analysis while strategy requires creative synthesis. It is another source of fallacies (a reality),

5 and 6 i have personally no problem with dialectic process as way to develop knowledge....But if one subscribes to intuitivist school of thought (philosophy of science) it would have a hard time to convince its research results

Society with the harmony of interests: free-man's desire

Shahab Sabahi
Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

My ideology, world perception and reality mismatched. My mindset, it had shaped since my childhood, misled my perception to reality. Ambiguity was high in my every action. Why do I receive vice in return to my earlier wise to people? Should not I be nice? Do societies treat me unjust?

It was a struggle rather a challenge. It took me decades to find fallacy deep in myself. I do not think it is late. The discovery of realities always is sweet and brings happiness.

With a proper understanding of one's interest, it can be seen that there is a harmony of interests between rational people. We benefit extremely from positive interactions with others. This benefit comes in the form of the abundance of wealth made possible by the notion of real capitalism and in the form of knowledge advancement for mankind. It comes in the form of friendships, romantic love, and reciprocal support of kinships. The harmonies of interests bring men together in peaceful cooperation to benefit their lives. This is the bedrock of society. This would be a society to live in.

Although the desires of men may be opposed, their interests are not. It leads to a peaceful society where brings vast benefit to its habitants. Any possible advantage gain from living outside of a peaceful society is insignificant compared to the loss. Living in a wilderness may bring one more peace and quiet, but it is at the expense of friendships and the enormous material wealth possible in a society.

The harmony of interests only exists between rational men. Irrational men tend to use force against the interests of others. Men's interests are only in harmony with peaceful, voluntary interactions. Only when men live by the mutual reciprocal value-based altruism principle, their interests meet and steadily grow. Only when men accept value-based trade like principle, their society thrives in peace and just.

Don't let your value down

Strategy: science or art?

Shahab Sabahi
Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group


This piece is a part of my discussion on "Creating  body of knowledge for strategy" in Society of Strategic Planning. It just reflects a pure view through the lens of Philosophy of Science. It should not be regarded as an educational expert view. (part of critical thinking development discourse)

To me (perhaps like you Peter) strategy falls in the realm of axiomatic concept albeit as a case specific truth. Strategy as an axiomatic proposition is one (an epistemology perspective) that being known to be true only by understanding its meaning without proof.  No proof or possible proof in distance future makes strategy difficult to perfectly fit in the scientific sphere. We have to also keep in our minds that certain forms of argument from axiom are considered fallacious or abusive in scientific debate and different contexts.

However analytic propositions have been well established in strategic planning and strategic management and such (strategy with suffix), ultimately contains of strategy itself are only verbal truths and valid in specific context. Furthermore strategy may be regarded as the secret of success for a firm who does not have any intention to share it with others.

The value of strategists’ contribution is as important as scientists and artisans. Although strategists may not be scientists, strategists are talented in bringing ideas from conception to reality. They expect perfection from themselves as well as other intellectuals so long as they are competent to see the whole picture. Strategists may prefer to stay in the background while leading strategies, knowledge and adaptation (for better observations).

My position:

1-     There is room to articulate and elaborate “a body of knowledge” for strategic management, strategic planning, strategic international relations, strategic sustainable development (all with suffix), though strategy by itself is an art which is crafted by decisive, open-minded, self-confident, attentive, theoretical and pragmatic persons (strategists)  

2-     If one wish to outline a “body of knowledge” for strategy (without any suffix), s/he must initially formulate strategy as abstract concept of evident truths through which reveals connections between the meanings of ideas. (Enormous case specific data in place and it makes it a hard task)

The Prime mover of Human progress – leave human alone

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

We always come down by surprise and ask ourselves why did this happen? Why did that technology fail? Should it not be utilized? Why did that nuclear plant (Fukushima for instance) break down? They were supposed to generate CLEAN electricity and have done so far? Surely the technology had not been developed for any other purpose. In panic, we label that technology devil and keep saying something else happened than what was intended and campaigning for shutting down them.  However the joy and benefit from the technology is still fresh in memory of us.

All technologies have developed in almost same pattern. Human experience and knowledge has long been the engine of change. The fruit of human ingenuity curiosity and experience over the course of history is our today relatively better standard of life. However developments make some part of our life insecure, as climate change, resource depletion and human security can be considered as our key challenges

I do not intend to talk about the impact of development on or the importance of technologies in human life transformation. Rather I aim to point out the chief driver of human experience. I would to briefly discuss whether this driver depends really on conformity to one central vision, or it comes from trial and error attempts taken place in an open-ended society where creativity operating under predictable rules, generate progress in unpredictable ways

In “the future and its enemies” Virginia Postrel’s book, she draws a line between people, mislabelled “progressive” who desire social stasis, and those paradoxically named conservatives, who open the perpetual change of society by dynamism.

Dynamists focus on complex evolutionary processes as scientific inquiry, market competition, artistic development, and technological invention. This world view, as well as a penetrating analysis of how our beliefs about personal knowledge, nature, virtue, and even the relation between work and play shape the way we run our businesses, make public policy, and search for truth.

In contrast, so-called wrongly progressive, think of a central planner tries to anticipate moves in future. He tries to set up a plan for achieving a better outcome, as he thinks. Imagine his static vision and plan cannot fit in the reality of future. The central planner insists on prescribing outcomes in advance, circumventing the process of competition and experiment in favour of its own preconceptions and prejudices. It just wastes resources without hitting the desire outcome and even achieving any experience.

We should welcome patterns created by millions of uncoordinated and independent decisions within determined rules. It may look like a chaotic situation but we remember that chaos is not really disorder but rather is an order that is unpredictable and necessary for our survival. (I. Prigogine)