>Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:39:17 -0800 (PST)
>From: Jonathan Karpoff <karpoff at u.washington.edu>
>To: Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu>
>cc: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
>Subject: Re: progress in economics
>In-Reply-To: <3.0.6.32.19990324104829.007fe6d0 at jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>
>Message-ID:
><Pine.A41.4.05.9903241033170.183526-100000 at homer30.u.washington.edu>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
>
>Thank you for copying me on your message! I am delighted that these
>findings regarding exploration outcomes have prompted discussion here and
>elsewhere.
>
>Two observations: First, it is indeed true that many government-funded
>expeditions were conducted by the military. But not all. Consider, as
>counter-examples, Richardson (1847), Hall (1871), Nordenskiold (1872),
>Weyprecht (1872), Nansen (1893), Toll' (1900), and Mylius-Erichsen (1906).
>(For examples beyond my sample period, consider also the non-military, but
>government-funded, disasters involving Stefansson in 1913 and Nobile in
>1928.)
>
>Thus, it would be incorrect to label the paper something like "Military
>versus Civilian Initiative in Arctic Exploration..."
>
>Second, regarding your "spurious causality" argument: You seem to agree
>with the paper's conclusions that government-funded expeditions performed
>poorly, but you add a layer of complexity. You argue that some
>government-initiated endeavors can be "more flexible and less
>authoritarian", while others (those led by the military?) apparently
>cannot.
>
>Thus, you seem to propose an "efficient government" (non-military) versus
>an "inefficient government" (military) story. That certainly is a
>testable hypothesis. Do you have in mind a way to test it?
>
>As for your claim that some government-initiated endeavors can be flexible
>and successful -- absolutely! Think, for example, of Lewis and Clark.
>
>Beyond the level of anecdotes, however, it is useful to examine general
>tendencies. Why, for example, did so many government-initiated
>expeditions perform poorly? Why is public funding frequently not
>"...utilised in a more flexible and less authoritarian manner"? It is
>different to claim that government-funded initiatives *can* perform most
>effectively, than to claim that, in fact, they generally do.
>
>This, I propose, is why it is important to understand the effects of
>different incentives that accompany different organizational structures.
>By doing so, we can get beyond dogmatism and better understand both
>anecdotes and more systematic evidence.
>
>Jon Karpoff