Overall, Complexity and the Art of Public Policy is a good book. However, the last third of the book did not convince me that complexity theory arms us with many new policy tools. A complexity frame punches holes in many of our methods of analysis and the policy options we put on the table using standard economic frameworks. But the very nature of complex systems makes it a challenge to propose options that we can claim with any confidence to have positive effect. Roland and Kupers have ventured into that area – which I am grateful for. I was glad to read a complexity book with an attempt to give some policy relevance without yet another description of the El Farol Bar problem. But the particular examples they provided leave me of the view that the strongest contribution of complexity theory will be to tell us when our standard economic policy tools will work, and when they won’t. That’s no small accomplishment, but in a world where we need to “do something”, it’s not an easy sell.
I called it the best book of 2014, and I think hardly anyone agrees with me. However, I found myself often frustrated by its flaws, and Collins shares my frustration. I strongly recommend reading Collins’ entire piece. I agree with every sentence in it.
I hope that in your review you will address the question of why exactly appreciation of our ignorance, whether that is due to complexity, causal density or whatnot, should lead us to adopt particular substantive policies, rather than just to have less confidence in our ability to predict the outcome of any course of action (including leaving things to the market). Collins regrets that the book does not offer more support for drawing substantive conclusions, but even the steps in this direction that Collins seems to cite with approval are unconvincing.
–Having emphasized our ignorance, C&K apparently don’t just give up, but propose that we evaluate policies based on “educated common sense”. But as described by Collins, this just means acknowledgement of our ignorance. What can we predict based on that?
–C&K’s approach assumes that if people are given responsibility they will “avoid problems” and “achieve the goals they want”. Unless this is so diluted with qualifications as to become a platitude, it assumes away precisely the issue in dispute with “statists”.
Since I presume you are sympathetic to the inference from realization of ignorance to support for a particular political orientation, I hope you will explain why it is not the non-sequitur that it appears to some of us to be.
I agree with much of Collins’s criticisms of the policy part of the book
…really? Every sentence of it?
‘…the strongest contribution of complexity theory will be to tell us when our standard economic policy tools will work, and when they won’t. That’s no small accomplishment, but in a world where we need to “do something”, it’s not an easy sell.’
But we DON’T need to “do something”! If what complexity theory does for us is tell us what we can’t ever know and what tools can’t ever work, that’s a valuable lesson. Just imagine how much better off we would be from a policy perspective if the state made the simple change of discontinuing policy efforts that we already know are doomed to failure. Now imagine expanding the scope of what we know to be doomed, allowing us to abandon yet more policies. What a victory that would be!