Comments on: From traffic management to development management?

By: David Week

David Week — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:33:23 +0000

I find the science of complexity pretty interesting, and I’m also a long-time fan of Hanoi traffic patterns. I’m not so sure though about many of the claims made in the literature about applying the science of complex adaptive systems.

For instance, none of the discourse I’ve seen seems to point to any specific evidence that a particular system (cities, social systems, health systems) are really CASs, as opposed to just messy, unplanned, or chaotic. CAS is a mathematical theory, and I’m not sure that discussing it without using any mathematics is meaningful.

The other are in which I find the discourse around the practical application of complexity disappointing is a general sense that complexity is a good thing, even “natural”. Being scientifically trained, I have no idea what people think they are describing when they imply that some forms of human behaviour are “unnatural”. That kind of normative language used to be the preserve of religious fundamentalists describing certain sexual acts. It has no place in serious analysis.

For instance, the following question needs to be asked: what kind of traffic system is best for human beings? Planned and controlled, or self-organised? If I look at this table:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate

my first impression is that self-organised traffic is a good way to kill people. So as intriguing and interesting as I find these new mathematical insights into nature, as a development worker, I’m cautious about any claims that applying them to aid is going to make aid better.

By: What happens when you are busy making other plans « Aid on the Edge of Chaos

Fri, 30 Apr 2010 07:57:49 +0000

[...] The book focuses on a number of ‘wicked’ problems, including water scarcity in India, seeds and drought in Africa, epidemics and energy. It employs the memorable metaphor of “motorways” through which powerful actors and institutions channel fast-moving policies and interventions, which “often [run] over valuable footpaths that respond better to poorer people’s own goals, knowledge and values, and to more dynamic contexts.” (For more on this metaphor, see a previous Aid on the Edge post comparing development management to traffic management.) [...]

By: Javier Ekboir

Javier Ekboir — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:47:54 +0000

The literature on management, innovation and complexity has made important contributions along these lines. There, two types of strategies are recognized. Deliberate strategies are the traditional strategies that come out from planning exercises. These strategies are appropriate for interventions in processes that are relatively well understood. For example, I think it would be very difficult to eradicate a disease without a well-planned campaign of vaccination, disinfection of contaminated sites, distribution of nets, etc.
On the other hand, emergent strategies are those that arise from complex behaviors and go along the lines of what is described in the comment above.
Of course, when using deliberate strategies, it is important to be open to emerging problems and opportunities.

By: Craig Duncan

Craig Duncan — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 18:36:18 +0000

Great post – We are working in risk reduction, and I think there are a lot of compelling success stories, but there is still a poor understanding of motivation. Agency has many drivers, and unfortunately most of them are not directly connected to end results.