The Complexity of Government

Abstract

Two broad arguments are made. The first is that we are some distance away from having a good understanding of collective action, and until we do, claims about the role and scope of government will be based on crude impressions or ideologies. The second is that complexity science is well placed to make advances in in this area because social systems are inherently complex, as are many collective action problems. Indeed, most political ideologies impacting on public policy have emerged from a comparatively simple, mechanistic view of social systems. It is argued that the economic success of capitalist countries can in part be attributed to people being free to form organisations, which are collective acts, and can be seen as the other side of the coin to Adam Smith’s division of labour. A discussion of what is meant by collective action will develop a broader than normal definition that includes social governance, defined here as all forms of institutions, the role of which is to facilitate, or enable, collective action. Governments are part of our social governance furniture, but have a monopoly over the use of force. The libertarian challenge concerning government will be used as the antithesis to the thesis that a primary role of government is to enable collective action, leading to a synthesis of the two. A speculation on the role governments should have in complex social systems vis-a-vis collective action precedes consideration of what value complexity science can add in the domain of collective action and government. This could be substantial since complexity science includes concepts and tools which can help advance our understanding. At the very least, the dispassionate science of complexity could provide a fresh perspective on what has been an historically emotive and inconclusive debate.