> “ I think the key worry about back channel conversations is that they might be a vector for bribery or influence, but I’m not sure that the potential harm from that is of the same order as the harm from constantly delayed infrastructure”
Mmm… not sure about that. The problem of bribery and undue influence going on is a bad one in itself, sure, but a bigger one is if everyone thinks that that’s how it works. That’s a big picture problem like “not having infrastructure” is. Some might say that’s naive and everybody already does think that the whole planning process is already nothing but a mess of unfair decisions and backhanders so you can’t make that worse, but I don’t think I’m quite that cynical.
I think in some sense, so long as there is an overarching planning system that can veto projects based on claims by those possibly in danger of future harm there will always be a huge amount of insider power required to get things done. The problem isn’t so much how the conversations happen, but a lot of concentrated arbitrary power.
It is interesting this morning to read about the corruption problems around big construction projects in Spain now affecting the other main party (current government) after taking a strong hold of the other party/previous government. In particular because Spain has come up a lot in abundance type discussions with praise for infra projects (eg the low cost per km of building out their high speed rail network). Not sure what that adds up to, but something to ponder perhaps.
It feels (which means "it's probably untrue that...") solving the state capacity part of the problem would make the lack of informal channels easier to solve through direct or indirect means (early access to the plan of "what we're going to look deeper into [in order of how seriously we take it]", external consultants who can turn around and talk with developers, etc) but first you have to have the thing you want to communicate.
You and the "Abundace" folks are chewing on the same problem. Too many choke points and veto points are in the system. Seems to me as a natural consequence to decades of projects being steam rollered into existance. In Murika, freeways and Urban Slum Clearance. The victims grasped enough power and got a say. Shit stirrers saw a great opportunity to stir shit in to the process just for the fun of it.
> “ I think the key worry about back channel conversations is that they might be a vector for bribery or influence, but I’m not sure that the potential harm from that is of the same order as the harm from constantly delayed infrastructure”
Mmm… not sure about that. The problem of bribery and undue influence going on is a bad one in itself, sure, but a bigger one is if everyone thinks that that’s how it works. That’s a big picture problem like “not having infrastructure” is. Some might say that’s naive and everybody already does think that the whole planning process is already nothing but a mess of unfair decisions and backhanders so you can’t make that worse, but I don’t think I’m quite that cynical.
I think in some sense, so long as there is an overarching planning system that can veto projects based on claims by those possibly in danger of future harm there will always be a huge amount of insider power required to get things done. The problem isn’t so much how the conversations happen, but a lot of concentrated arbitrary power.
It is interesting this morning to read about the corruption problems around big construction projects in Spain now affecting the other main party (current government) after taking a strong hold of the other party/previous government. In particular because Spain has come up a lot in abundance type discussions with praise for infra projects (eg the low cost per km of building out their high speed rail network). Not sure what that adds up to, but something to ponder perhaps.
It feels (which means "it's probably untrue that...") solving the state capacity part of the problem would make the lack of informal channels easier to solve through direct or indirect means (early access to the plan of "what we're going to look deeper into [in order of how seriously we take it]", external consultants who can turn around and talk with developers, etc) but first you have to have the thing you want to communicate.
fn2: LOL!
You and the "Abundace" folks are chewing on the same problem. Too many choke points and veto points are in the system. Seems to me as a natural consequence to decades of projects being steam rollered into existance. In Murika, freeways and Urban Slum Clearance. The victims grasped enough power and got a say. Shit stirrers saw a great opportunity to stir shit in to the process just for the fun of it.