Entry 2355, on 2024-07-12 at 22:12:04 (Rating 3, Politics)
Summary
There are common proverbs applicable to political situations: don't let perfect be the enemy of good, you can't have it all, and there are only trade-offs. Many projects fail due to these issues. For example, striving for perfection may hinder progress, and pursuing a project may come at a cost. The New Zealand government's goal of more affordable housing led to criticism over potential quality and land use issues. Despite imperfections, compromises are necessary for progress. The need for pragmatic decisions over perfect solutions is highlighted, with trade-offs essential in balancing economic, social, and environmental factors. Ultimately, there are no ideal solutions, only necessary compromises.
Full Text
There are several common proverbs which I think have relevance to many political situations we see around the world today. Here are a few: don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good; you can't have your cake and eat it too; and (maybe my favourite) there are no solutions, only-trade-offs.
I think many good projects and ideas have failed because of these issues. Here are a few general comments on how...
Imagine we decide we want to proceed with a particular project but someone points out how it could be done even better if we just start again with some aspects of the project changed. Should we stop and start again? Or should we just go ahead? Do we let the pursuit of perfection stop us from attaining the merely good?
Or imagine we wanted to proceed with a project but to do so meant we had to give up something else we valued in some way. Do we cancel the project in that case? Do we say well because I can't keep my cake as well as eat it, I just won't even bake a cake at all?
Finally, imagine a project which is designed to solve a particular problem, but by doing that it creates some other problems, even if they are lesser than the original one. Do we scrap the project and try again? Do we look for a perfect solution instead of accepting there must be trade-offs?
So let's look at a major real-world example in politics today. The New Zealand government wants to encourage more low cost housing to be built. Some of the policies they have implemented to do this involve reducing the amount of paper work, testing, and consultation required before a new building starts; allowing smaller, cheaper units to be built; and allowing more land to be zoned for house building.
Of course, the usual suspects (mainly the opposition, which is fair enough, it is their job, but also many left oriented commentators) have complained bitterly claiming that this will allow lower quality houses to be built which will create "slums" and use up valuable farm land.
Well, sure, all of that is potentially true. But are we letting the pursuit of perfection get in the way of achieving the good? Surely even living in a "slum" (which it really isn't) is better than living in a car, or under a bridge, isn't it? Are we wanting to have our cake (the productive farm land) and eat it (allow more house building) too? Do we not have to accept that some farm land might have to be sacrificed to help solve the housing crisis? And are possibly lower quality and smaller houses a worthwhile trade-off to make them available at the right price?
The previous government spent a lot of time studying the problems they wanted to solve. They spent vast amounts of money on consultants to try to get the perfect solution. In some cases the projects weren't started because they were too busy being planned. In others the solution became impractical because of massive cost over-runs.
Maybe it's better to be pragmatic about these things and risk some possibility of negative side effects so that something can be achieved. Maybe smaller houses, built with less consultation, on land which has other uses is actually the best compromise.
Another area this has occurred here is in gas exploration. The previous government wanted to reduce the country's carbon emissions, so they shut down the search for new gas fields. But now we are running out and importing coal instead. Gas is a far better fuel than coal when CO2 emissions are considered. Additionally it is debatable whether we should even be worrying about CO2, but let's not go there in this post!
Every decision involves compromises between economic, social, environmental, and other factors. If we are unprepared to compromise on any of those we will be effectively paralysed. We just have to admit that some major economic benefits can justify compromises in environmental standards. Of course, I'm not saying that we should dig massive open cast coal mines in the middle of national parks. There has to be some compromise of economic goals to recognise environmental standards, just like there has to be compromise the other way.
After all, there are no perfect solutions, only trade-offs.
Comment 1 by Jim Cable on 2024-07-13 at 19:59:45:
As a thesis, it is pragmatically argued. However, if I might take the stopping of the oil/gas exploration as a single issue, we'd come to a circumstance that resulted entirely from the unthought, knee-jerk reaction of a one-time fish and chip wrapper, whose forward-looking or downstream-consequence-rationalising abilities were demonstrably short - if not demonstrably non-existent if the case of her closing our coal mines so we could import at huge cost, Indonesian-sourced, far-dirtier-burning coal is contemplated.
In her case, the use of "consultants" would have been to confirm a position she sought - not to analyse how the actuality would have impacted, which is fairly easy to conclude, given the number of times similar outcomes were evidenced from her actions in comparative scenarios.
Essentially as a society, we've gone from the tried and true standpoint where competence was king to that of determination by inepts and incompetents who've risen by political means rather than by track records.
To establish perfection from the input of such as they is a physically impossible ask - way beyond their conceptualising, as so many of their ho-hum renderings evidence "doom equivalents" in all their meagre glory today.
Comment 2 by OJB on 2024-07-13 at 22:35:46:
Yes, I would agree with that, except to say these deficiencies weren't unique to Ardern, although she was unusually inept. But unfortunately incompetence is common amongst politicians, as is the common action of employing consultants to give them the results they have already agreed on before the process is even started.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE
