Tyranny of small decisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The tyranny of small decisions refers to a phenomenon explored in an essay by that name, published in 1966 by the American economist Alfred E. ahn.!1" The article describes a situation #here a number of decisions, indi$idually small in si%e and time perspecti$e, cumulati$ely result in an outcome #hich is not optimal nor desired. &t is a situation #here a series of small, indi$idually rational decisions can ne'ati$ely chan'e the context of subse(uent choices, e$en to the point #here desired alternati$es are irre$ersibly destroyed. ahn described the problem as a common issue in market economics #hich can lead to market failure.!1" The concept has since been extended to areas other than economic ones, such as en$ironmental de'radation,
!)"

political elections!*" and health outcomes.!+"

A classic example of the tyranny of small decisions is the tra'edy of the commons, described by ,arrett -ardin in 196.!/" as a situation #here a number of herders 'ra%e co#s on a commons. The herders each act independently in #hat they percei$e to be their o#n rational self0interest, ultimately depletin' their shared limited resource, e$en thou'h it is clear that it is not in any herder1s lon'0term interest for this to happen. !6"
Contents
!hide"

1 &thaca railroad ) Earlier references to the idea * En$ironmental de'radation + 2ounters / 3ee also 6 4otes and references 5 6iblio'raphy

&thaca railroad!edit"

Abutment of the &thaca0Auburn 3hort 7inebrid'e

The e$ent that first su''ested the tyranny of small decisions to ahn #as the #ithdra#al of passen'er rail#ay ser$ices in &thaca, 4e# 8ork. The rail#ay #as the only reliable #ay to 'et in and out of &thaca. &t pro$ided ser$ices re'ardless of conditions, in fair #eather and foul, durin' peak seasons and off0peak seasons. The local airline and bus company skimmed the traffic #hen conditions #ere fa$ourable, lea$in' the trains to fill in #hen conditions #ere difficult. The rail#ay ser$ice #as e$entually #ithdra#n, because the collecti$e indi$idual decisions made by tra$ellers did not pro$ide the rail#ay #ith the re$enue it needed to co$er its incremental costs. Accordin' to ahn, this su''ests a hypothetical economic test of #hether the ser$ice should ha$e been #ithdra#n. 3uppose each person in the cities ser$ed #ere to ask himself ho# much he #ould ha$e been #illin' to pled'e re'ularly o$er some time period, say annually, by purchase of prepaid tickets, to keep rail passen'er ser$ice a$ailable to his community. As lon' as the amount that he #ould ha$e declared 9to himself: #ould ha$e exceeded #hat he actually paid on the period;and my o#n introspecti$e experiment sho#s that it #ould;then to that extent the disappearance of the passen'er ser$ice #as an incident of market failure. !5" The failure to reflect the full $alue to passen'ers of keepin' the railroad ser$ice a$ailable had its ori'ins in the discrepancy bet#een the time perception #ithin #hich the tra$ellers #ere operatin', and the time perception #ithin #hich the railroad #as operatin'. The tra$ellers #ere makin' many short term decisions, decidin' each particular trip #hether to 'o by the railroad, or #hether to 'o instead by car, bus or the local airline. 6ased on the cumulati$e effects of these small decisions, the railroad #as makin' one ma<or lon' run decision, =$irtually all0or0nothin' and once0and0for0all=> #hether to retain or abandon its passen'er ser$ice. Taken one at a time, each small tra$el decision made indi$idually by the tra$ellers had a ne'li'ible impact on the sur$i$ability of the railroad. &t #ould not ha$e been rational for a tra$eller to consider the sur$i$al of the railroad imperilled by any one of his particular decisions.!5"

The fact remains that each selection of x o$er y constitutes also a $ote for eliminatin' the possibility thereafter of choosing y. &f enou'h people $ote for x, each time necessarily on the assumption that y #ill continue to be a$ailable, y may in fact disappear. And its disappearance may constitute a 'enuine depri$ation, #hich customers mi'ht #illin'ly ha$e paid somethin' to a$oid. The only choice the market offered tra$ellers to influence the lon'er0run decision of the railroad #as thus shorter in its time perspecti$e, and the sum total of our indi$idual purchases of railroad tickets necessary added up to a smaller amount, than our actual combined interest in the continued a$ailability of rail ser$ice. We #ere $ictims of the =tyranny of small decisions=. !5"

Earlier references to the idea!edit"

Thucydides 9c. +6?;c. *9/ 62: stated@ !T"hey de$ote a $ery small fraction of time to the consideration of any public ob<ect, most of it to the prosecution of their o#n ob<ects. Aean#hile each fancies that no harm #ill come to his ne'lect, that it is the business of somebody else to look after this or that for him> and so, by the same notion bein' entertained by all separately, the common cause imperceptibly decays.!." Aristotle 9*.+;*)) 62: similarly ar'ued a'ainst common 'oods of the polis of Athens@ For that #hich is common to the 'reatest number has the least care besto#ed upon it. E$ery one thinks chiefly of his o#n, hardly at all of the common interest> and only #hen he is himself concerned as an indi$idual. For besides other considerations, e$erybody is more inclined to ne'lect the duty #hich he expects another to fulfill> as in families many attendants are often less useful than a fe#. !9" Thomas Aun 91/51;16+1:, an En'lish mercantilist, commented about decisions made #ith a myopic, small time perspecti$e@ !T"hey search no further than the be'innin' of the #ork, #hich mis0informs their <ud'ements, and leads them into error@ For if #e only behold the actions of the husbandman in the seed0time #hen he casteth a#ay much 'ood corn into the 'round, #e #ill rather account him a mad0man than a husbandman@ but #hen #e consider his labours in the har$est #hich is the end of his endea$ours, #e find the #orth and plentiful increase of his actions.!1?" Eu'en $on 6Bhm06a#erk 91./1;191+:, an Austrian economist, obser$ed that decisions made #ith small time perspecti$es can ha$e a seducti$e (uality@ &t occurs fre(uently, & belie$e, that a person is faced #ith a choice bet#een a present and a future satisfaction or dissatisfaction and that he decides in fa$or of lesser present pleasure e$en thou'h he kno#s perfectly #ell, and is e$en explicitly a#are at the moment he makes his choice, that the future disad$anta'e is the 'reater and that therefore his #ell0bein', on the #hole, suffers by reason of his choice. The =playboy= s(uanders his #hole

month1s allo#ance in the first fe# days on fri$olous dissipation. -o# clearly he anticipates his later embarrassment and depri$ationC And yet he is unable to resist the temptations of the moment. !11"

En$ironmental de'radation!edit"

As a result of many small decisions, and #ithout the issue bein' directly addressed, nearly half the marshlands #ere destroyed alon' the coasts of 2onnecticut and Aassachusetts

&n 19.), the estuarine ecolo'ist, William Ddum, published a paper #here he extended the notion of the tyranny of small decisions to en$ironmental issues. Accordin' to Ddum, =much of the current confusion and distress surroundin' en$ironmental issues can be traced to decisions that #ere ne$er consciously made, but simply resulted from a series of small decisions.=!)" Ddum cites, as an example, the marshlands alon' the coasts of 2onnecticut and Aassachusetts. 6et#een 19/? and 195?, almost /? percent of these marshlands #ere destroyed. This #as not purposely planned, and the public may #ell ha$e supported preser$ation had they been asked. &nstead, hundreds of small tracts of marshland #ere con$erted to other purposes throu'h hundreds of small decisions, resultin' in a ma<or outcome #ithout the o$erall issue e$er bein' directly addressed. !)" Another example is the Florida E$er'lades. These ha$e been threatened, not by a sin'le unfa$orable decision, but by many independent pin prick decisions, such as decisions to add this #ell, that draina'e canal, one more retirement $illa'e, another road#ay... 4o explicit decision #as made to restrict the flo# of surface #ater into the 'lades, or to encoura'e hot, destructi$e fires and intensify drou'hts, yet this has been the outcome. !)" With fe# exceptions, threatened and endan'ered species o#e their predicament to series of small decisions. Eolar bears, humpback #hales and bald ea'les ha$e suffered from the cumulati$e effects of sin'le decisions to o$erexploit or con$ert habitats. The remo$al, one by one, of 'reen turtle nestin' beaches for other uses parallels the decline in 'reen turtle populations.!)" 2ultural lake eutrophication is rarely the result of an intentional decision. &nstead, lakes eutrophy 'radually as a cumulati$e effect of small decisions> the addition of this domestic se#a'e outfall and then that industrial outfall,

#ith a runoff that increases steadily as this housin' de$elopment is added, then that hi'h#ay and some more a'ricultural fields.!)" The insidious effects of small decisions marches on> producti$e land turns to desert, 'round#ater resources are o$erexploited to the point #here they can1t reco$er, persistent pesticides are used and tropical forests are cleared #ithout factorin' in the cumulati$e conse(uences. !)"

2ounters!edit"
2onsiderin' all of the pressures and short0term re#ards that 'uide society to#ard simple solutions, it seems safe to assume that the =tyranny of small decisions= #ill be an inte'ral part of en$ironmental policy for a lon' time to come. ; William Ddum !)"

An ob$ious counter to the tyranny of small decisions is to de$elop and protect appropriate upper le$els of decision makin'. Fependin' on the issue, decision0makin' may be appropriate at a local, state, country or 'lobal le$el. -o#e$er, or'anisations at these le$els can entan'le themsel$es in their o#n bureaucracy and politics, assi'nin' decisions by default back to the lo#er le$els. Eolitical and scientific systems can encoura'e small decisions by re#ardin' specific problems and solutions. &t is usually easier and more politic to make decision on indi$idual tracts of land or sin'le issues rather than implementin' lar'e0scale policies. The same pattern applies #ith academic science. Aost scientists are more comfortable #orkin' on specific problems rather than systems. This reductionist tendency to#ards the small problems is reinforced in the #ay 'rant monies and academic tenure are assi'ned.!)" Ddum ad$ocates that at least some scientists should study systems so the ne'ati$e conse(uences that result #hen many small decisions are made from a limited perspecti$e can be a$oided. There is a similar need for politicians and planners to understand lar'e scale perspecti$es. En$ironmental science teachers should include lar'e scale processes in their courses, #ith examples of the problems that decision makin' at inappropriate le$els can introduce.!)"

3ee also