Empowering the People with Systemic Analysis of Policy Proposals

1. FOUNDATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOCIAL THEORY Empowering the People with Systemic Analysis of Policy Proposals Steven E. Wallis, Ph.D. Fielding, Alumnus, HOD 2006 Director, Foundation for the Advancement of Social Theory Adjunct Faculty, Capella University Fulbright, Specialist Roster Candidate Based on a paper titled: “How to Choose Between Policy Proposals: A Simple Tool Based on Systems Thinking and Complexity Theory” In Press 2013 – E:CO – Emergence, Complexity, and Organizations, 15(3) Fielding Graduate University - Summer Session 2013 July 15th-20th at the Hilton Alexandria Mark Center, Alexandria, VA swallis@ProjectFAST.org

2. Abstract Complexity theory and systems approaches can be applied for the creation and evaluation of policy proposals. However, those approaches are difficult to learn and use. Therefore, those conceptual tools are not available to the general public. If citizens were able to analyze policies with relative ease, they would gain a powerful tool for deliberating, choosing, and improving policy. Here, I present a method for measuring the structure (complexity and co-causal relationships) of competing policies. I demonstrate this method by conducting a structural comparison of two economic policies that have been put forth by competing political parties. The results show clear differences between the policies that are not visible through other forms of analysis. This method may be used to empower individuals and organizations to become more active participants in the policy process. Further, this process is useful for integrating disparate views – opening the door for greater civic collaboration instead of political competition and social fragmentation. swallis@ProjectFAST.org

3. Background The present study is an exercise in the emerging “Science of Conceptual Systems” where rigorous methods are applied to study theories and policies to gain new understandings of how to improve our conceptual systems so that we may more effectively improve the human condition.

4. Theoretical Foundation • Dubin, Stinchcombe, Kaplan, etc.: agree theories are more effective when they are more highly structured (however, they did say how to measure structure). • Structure may include: Complexity (number of concepts), and Robustness / Systemicity (interrelatedness between concepts). • Using insights from systems thinking, complexity theory, and cybernetics, Wallis pioneered “Integrative Propositional Analysis.” • To quantify structure • Clarify relationship between structure and effectiveness of theory. • Confirmed untested assumptions of previous scholars. swallis@ProjectFAST.org

5. The Old and the New Science One Science Two Complex structures of logic (especially concatenated) Coherence bet. concepts in the model Integration Models ARE the data for analysis • Toulmin’s logic (claim, warrant, support, proof, etc.) • Correspondence bet. concept & reality • Separation • Focus on gaining DATA for models

6. METHOD: Integrative Propositional Analysis • Identify propositions within one or more policy models. • Diagram those propositions with one box for each concept and arrows indicating directions of causal effects. • Find linkages between causal concepts and resultant concepts between all propositions. • Count the number of concepts to quantify the Complexity • Identify concatenated concepts (resulting from two or more causal concepts). • Divide the number of concatenated concepts by the total number of concepts in the model to quantify the Robustness / systemicity / likelihood of successful application.

7. Five Structures of Logic Atomistic – claims are unsupported assumptions. Circular – structures are useless tautologies. Linear – have insufficient support Branching – can’t tell between real causes and spurious causes. Concatenated – “C” provides useful knowledge (Bateson’s dual description, dialectic).

8. Data Set • Two economic policies - Each drawn from the websites of the two major competing political parties in the recent Presidential campaign. • Small sample set – but suitable for comparative case study.

9. Arrows indicate causal relationships Economic Policy #1 6. More investing in a clean energy economy 2. Fewer tax loopholes that let corporations hide profits overseas 3. More investing those dollars in small businesses 8. More manufacture of windmills, solar panels, and electric cars 7. More tax credits 4. More tax cuts to small businesses NOTE: “concatenated” concepts – useful and understood NOTE: “concatenated” Concepts – useful and understood 1. More strengthening of American industries and more jobs for American workers 5. More lending to businesses 10. Stronger infrastructure 9. More rebuilding roads, bridges, rails, and ports NOTE: “atomistic” not so useful 13. More investment in our people (middle class families and small business owners) NOTE: “linear” not so useful 14. More successful as a country 15. More growth of the economy from the bottom up. 11. Hard work 12. Responsibility swallis@ProjectFAST.org

10. Arrows indicate causal relationships Economic Policy #2 NOTE: This is an “atomistic” claim – unsupported and therefore not of great value NOTE: This next two are “linear” structures and therefore not of great value 1. There is power and opportunity in America’s free market economy 3. More promotion of confidence in our economy among consumers, entrepreneurs, and businesses 2. More sensible business regulations NOTE: To improve, the model should have more concatenated structures and include more concepts. 6. More federal government picks winners and losers in the marketplace 5. More federal government in control of industry 4. More interventionist policies

11. Policy #2 Complexity = 6 Robustness = 0 Policy #1 Complexity = 15 Robustness = 0.13 Structural Comparison NOTE: We have not looked at the concepts – that is a “Science One” approach. Which, while useful, has limitations based on perceptions and understandings. Here, we look at the relationships between the concepts – those define the level of understanding with some level of objectivity.

12. Conclusions From this analysis, it is clear that economic policy #1 is more systemic and more complex. Therefore, it is more likely to be effective in practical application. Using a facilitated, collaborative, version of this approach it is possible to integrate multiple policies to achieve greater effectiveness. More generally, this example demonstrates that it is possible to make effective evaluations by looking at the internal structure of competing policies. Therefore, deep policy experience and access to secret information (e.g. alleged weapons of mass destruction) are not prerequisites for participation in policy conversation. This approach provides a “David’s sling” to empower people and open the door for greater participation in the policy process. And, importantly, helps us see the difference between political rhetoric and useful logic. swallis@ProjectFAST.org

13. Fulbright Specialist Candidate Dr. Wallis was recently appointed to a position on the Fulbright Specialist Roster. He is available to support educational institutions outside the US for projects of two to six weeks. For more information, please contact Steve: swallis@projectfast.org • http://www.cies.org/specialists/Developing_a_Project/ • http://www.cies.org/Fulbrightagency_files/FSP/Specialist_HostInstitution_flyer.pdf