Planned and designed rules or mechanism tend to breakdown and require more management and control at a higher costs than it's benefit. Is this premise correct?
Article Information percolation in segmented markets (Reprinted from...
Self-emergence is a natural phenomenon of living system evolution and also the economic behavior of markets is included in this free information flow. Self-emergence is physically necessary for systemic innovation, to create new socio-economic cycles and to drive investment. The cost for any economic system to control emergence will always be higher than the potentiality of a probable pathway error. It is possible to communicate with this complexity, but very unlikely to control such innovation processes by calculative a-priori mechanisms.
Self-emergence is a natural phenomenon of living system evolution and also the economic behavior of markets is included in this free information flow. Self-emergence is physically necessary for systemic innovation, to create new socio-economic cycles and to drive investment. The cost for any economic system to control emergence will always be higher than the potentiality of a probable pathway error. It is possible to communicate with this complexity, but very unlikely to control such innovation processes by calculative a-priori mechanisms.
"It is possible to communicate with this complexity, ...not control". How true. Also the idea of nugding towards a goal seems more feasible than regulating towards it. The idea of reverse games, has suggested therefore a "design paradigm", specifically "mechanism design". Where mechanisms consists of incentives. Is there a way to infuse this incentives with some adaptiveness?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Correction