Advertisement

Optimisation and “Thoughtful Conjecturing” as Principles of Analytical Guidance in Social Decision Making

  • Sergio Bruno
Part of the New Economic Windows book series (NEW)

Abstract

The XXth can be considered the Century of the culture of optimisation, that has been outstandingly improved and applied. There is a difference, however, between applying it to complicate technical problems, such as the war logistics, or to complex social choices, where the identification of measurable objectives and their relative weights cannot be objective and stable through time. Ex ante evaluation of actions cannot be considered as a task having an objective or scientific nature, since a part of it depends on forecasting future events, the effectiveness of which depends only on elements of systemic inertia. Despite its non-scientific basis, the use of evaluation criteria may improve, in a probabilistic sense, the quality of decisions, since, as a procedure, it contributes to confer order to the imagination of the decision makers, to reflect in qualitative terms about possible futures, to communicate, to reach consensus. Its wide use tends to produce routines, that on the one side contribute to stabilise the environment and to make it forecastable but, on the other side, tend to hinder innovative projects. Still it remains basically an art, while often it disguises itself as being objective. The associated risks are analysed in detail.

Keywords

Multiple Goal Shadow Prex Innovative Project Uncertain Event Innovative Organisation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amendola M., Bruno S. 1990, “The Behaviour of the Innovative Firm: Relations to the Environment”, Research Policy Google Scholar
  2. Amendola M., Gaffard J.L., 1988, The Innovative Choice, Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Arrow, K.J., Debreu, G., 1954, “Existence of an Equilibrium for a Competitive Economy”, Econometrica, pp. 265–290Google Scholar
  4. Axelrod, R: The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, New York, 1984Google Scholar
  5. Barone, E., 1908, “Il Ministro della Produzione in uno Stato Collettivista”, Giornale degli Economisti; reprinted in English in Hayek F.A., Collectivist Economic Planning, Routledge, London, 1935Google Scholar
  6. Berger, K, 1999, A Theory of Art, Oxford University Press, USCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruno, S., 1984, “Itinerari critici sui fondamenti razionali delle scelte collettive”, Istituto di Economia, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”, MimeoGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruno, S., 1986, “La scelta del decisore come processo culturalmente connnotato”, Sacconi L., (ed.), La decisione: razionalità collettiva e strategie nell’amministrazione e nelle organizzazioni, Franco AngeliGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruno, S., De Lellis, A. 1992, The Economics of ex-ante coordination, Dipartimento di Scienze EconomicheGoogle Scholar
  10. David, P. 1990, “The economics of compatibility standards: an introduction to recent research”, in Economics of Innovation and New Technology Google Scholar
  11. David, P. 1991, “Path-dependency: putting the past into the future of economics”, Journal of Economic Literature Google Scholar
  12. Feyerabend, P.K., 1994, La scienza come arte, LaterzaGoogle Scholar
  13. Freeman, C., 1987, Technological policies and Economic Performance: lessons from Japan, F.Pinter, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hacking, J., 1975, The Emergence of Probability, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahneman, D., 2002, “Maps of Bounded Rationality: a Perspective on Intuitive Judgement and Choice”, Nobel Prize Lecture, December 8. Reprinted in American Economic Review, 2003Google Scholar
  16. Kahneman, D., Frederick, S., 2002, “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgement”, in T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, D. Kahneman (eds.), Heuristics and Biases, (pp. 49–81), Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kline, S., Rosenberg, N., 1986, “An overview of innovation”, in Landau, R., Rosemberg, N. (eds.), The Positive Sum Strategy, National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhn T.S, 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn, Chicago, Chicago Univ. PrGoogle Scholar
  19. Lange, O.R., 1936, 1937, “On the Economic Theory of Socialism”, Part I and Part II, Review of Economic Studies Google Scholar
  20. Lindahl, E.R., 1919, Die Gerechtigkeit der Besteuerung. Eine Analyse der Steuerprinzipien auf der Grundlage der Grenznutzentheorie, Gleerup and H.Ohlsson, Lund; Ch. 4 translated as “Just Taxation: a Positive Solution”, in Musgrave R.A. and Peacock A.T. (eds), Classics in the Theory of Public Financ, MacMillan, London, 1958Google Scholar
  21. Lundvall B., 1988, “Innovation as an interactive process: from user-producer interaction to the national system of innovation”, in Dosi G. et al. (eds.) Technical Change and Economic Theory, Frances PrinterGoogle Scholar
  22. Mach E., 1905, Knowledge and Error: Sketches on the Psychology of Enquiry, D. Reidel Publishing Co., (Dordrecht), 1976Google Scholar
  23. Mariotti S., 1989, “Efficienza dinamica e sistemi di imprese”, Economia e Politica Industriale Google Scholar
  24. Montesano A., “La nozione di razionalità in economia”, Rivista Italiana di Economia, 2005/1Google Scholar
  25. Morgenstern O., 1950, On the Accuracy of Economic Observations, Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson R., 1990, “Capitalism as an engine of progress”, Research Policy Google Scholar
  27. Nicolo’ E., 1990, “Metaproject Analysis: a new method for scenario generation”, Idate Xii Conference, MonpellierGoogle Scholar
  28. Perelmann C., Olbrechts-Tyteca L., 1958, Traité de l’argumentation. La nouvelle rhétorique, Presses Universitaires de FranceGoogle Scholar
  29. Petit M.L., 1990, Control theory and dynamic games in economic policy analysis, Cambridge University Press, CambridgeMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. Pigou, A.C., 1920, The Economics of Welfare, London, MacMillanGoogle Scholar
  31. Raiffa H., 1968, Decision analysis: Introductory Lecture on Choices under Uncertainty, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MassGoogle Scholar
  32. Richardson, G.B., 1960. Information and Investment. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Samuelson, P.A., 1954, “The Pure Theory of Public Ecpenditures”, Review of Economics and Statistics, pp. 387–389Google Scholar
  34. Samuelson, P.A., 1948, Foundations of Economic Analysis, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  35. Silverberg G., Dosi G., Orsenigo L., 1988, “Innovation, diversity and diffusion: a self-organization model”, Economic Journal Google Scholar
  36. Simon H., 1955, “A Behavioural Model of Rational Choice”, Quarterly Journal of Economics Google Scholar
  37. Simon H., 1957, Models of man, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USAMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Simon H., 1981, The Sciences of the Artificial, Mit PressGoogle Scholar
  39. Stanovich K.E., West R.F., 2000, “Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Teece D., 1989, “Concorrenza e competizione delle strategie di sviluppo tecnologico”, Economia e Politica Industriale Google Scholar
  41. Torrisi S., 1988, “Apprendimento da cooperazione tra imprese e cooperazione tecnologica”, Economia e Politica Industriale Google Scholar
  42. Tversky A., Kahneman D., 1981, “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice”, Science, 211, 1124–1131MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tversky A., Kahneman D., 1983, “Extensional vs. Intuitive Reasoning: the Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgement”, Psychological Review, 90, 293–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tversky A., Kahneman D., 1986, “Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions”, Journal of Business, 59, 251–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tversky A. et Al. 1989, Decision making: Descriptive, normative and prescriptive interactions, Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  46. Vacca’ S., Zanfei A., 1989, “L’impresa globale come sistema aperto a rapporti di cooperazione”, Economia e Politica Industriale Google Scholar
  47. Von Neumann J., Morgenstern O., 1944, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sergio Bruno
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Economic Sciences, “La Sapienza”University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations