risk-trust-security

The Price of Fish

by

Michael Mainelli and Ian Harris have written a wide-ranging survey of economics, choice theory (game theory, psychology and ethics), systems theory, chaos theory, global warming and evolution. So what’s all that got to do with the price of fish?

One of the themes running through the book is that the price of fish bears no relation to the value of fish, especially if we are concerned about long-term value and the sustainability of fish stocks.

Oscar Wilde famously defined a cynic as one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. This definition has also been applied to accountants and economists. Michael and Ian are leaders of the Long Finance initiative, a movement within the City of London that aims to overcome this kind of short-term financial cynicism.

Michael and Ian describe the price of fish as a wicked problem – a problem that lacks easy definition as well as easy answers.  “Sustaining the supply of edible fish is a wicked problem that presents global risks.” (p 301) And yet they suggest that the system might possibly sort itself out. “As fish run out and have to be sustainably fished, the historic underpricing of fish ceases.” (293)

But this is no time for naive optimism, and the system will undoubtedly need some intervention. “When the price is the same as the value, there are opportunities for sustainable financing. So far, price has not equaled value for fish. This is the biggest, wicked decision-making problem of all: knowing how to set a price that equals the value.” (p 295)

In other words, the problem is not just the alarming dwindling of fish stocks but the collective cynicism that not only led to this problem but also amplifies it and resists dealing with it effectively. The key word in the problem statement is the word “set” – even if a few clever people can agree what the right price of fish should be, the real challenge is to set this price into global trading and consumption systems.

Read more »

The Price of Fish

by

Michael Mainelli and Ian Harris have written a wide-ranging survey of economics, choice theory (game theory, psychology and ethics), systems theory, chaos theory, global warming and evolution. So what’s all that got to do with the price of fish?

One of the themes running through the book is that the price of fish bears no relation to the value of fish, especially if we are concerned about long-term value and the sustainability of fish stocks.

Oscar Wilde famously defined a cynic as one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. This definition has also been applied to accountants and economists. Michael and Ian are leaders of the Long Finance initiative, a movement within the City of London that aims to overcome this kind of short-term financial cynicism.

Michael and Ian describe the price of fish as a wicked problem – a problem that lacks easy definition as well as easy answers.  “Sustaining the supply of edible fish is a wicked problem that presents global risks.” (p 301) And yet they suggest that the system might possibly sort itself out. “As fish run out and have to be sustainably fished, the historic underpricing of fish ceases.” (293)

But this is no time for naive optimism, and the system will undoubtedly need some intervention. “When the price is the same as the value, there are opportunities for sustainable financing. So far, price has not equaled value for fish. This is the biggest, wicked decision-making problem of all: knowing how to set a price that equals the value.” (p 295)

In other words, the problem is not just the alarming dwindling of fish stocks but the collective cynicism that not only led to this problem but also amplifies it and resists dealing with it effectively. The key word in the problem statement is the word “set” – even if a few clever people can agree what the right price of fish should be, the real challenge is to set this price into global trading and consumption systems.

Read more »

Whose target is it anyway?

by

“The IMF downgrades its growth forecasts and casts further doubt on Osborne meeting his debt target” reports @JJ_159 via @Spectator_CH. @EmmaLangman suggests (sadly) that that it is ‘our’ debt target by association. “What Chancellor chooses, the countr…

Sharing Trust

by

@CoCreatr (Bernd Nurnberger) via @VenessaMiemis blogs about #trust.

“Being in business is basically about trust. Establishing and verifying trust, documenting it, so it can be shared, swiftly, without every business partner having to redo what led to the trust.”

What I am slightly wary about here is the implication that trust can be passed around, like a parcel. I often find myself questioning the related notion that knowledge (content) can be passed around like a parcel, and I am wondering whether the same fallacy can be found in each of the five dimensions of VPEC-T.

Bernd also repeats some trust-builders and trust-destroyers that appear to originate in A Survey of Trust in the Workplace (pdf), carried out by Paul Bernthal of DDI.

Trust building behaviours:

  • Communicates with me openly and honestly, without distorting any information.
  • Shows confidence in my abilities by treating me as a skilled, competent associate.
  • Keeps promises and commitments.
  • Listens to and values what I say, even though he or she might not agree.
  • Cooperates with me and looks for ways in which we can help each other.

Trust reducing behaviours:

  • Acts more concerned about his or her own welfare than anything else.
  • Sends mixed messages so that I never know where he or she stands.
  • Avoids taking responsibility for action (“passes the buck” or “drops the ball”).
  • Jumps to conclusions without checking the facts first.
  • Makes excuses or blames others when things don’t work out (“finger-pointing”).

A commentary on this survey on the Challenge Network Forum (presumably by Oliver Sparrow) observes that fear appears to be a common factor of the trust destroyers.

“When you look over the trust-destroyers, that list sounds like the actions of people who are scared – scared of what might happen to them if they make mistakes in a company where mistakes are punished, rather than regarded as the occasional result of encouraging employees to take some initiative.”

Again, I am wondering whether the same pattern of xxx-building and xxx-reducing behaviours applies to the other dimensions of VPEC-T.

There is another set of popular theories about trust, involving certain social activities (such as team-building exercises) that are supposed to promote trust. A quick internet search for “trust-building” will yield a large number of these exercises, together with companies that will happily take your money for running these exercises with you and your colleagues. Alternatively, why not just drip oxytocin into the air-conditioning?

See also Two Dimensions of Trust

Paul Bernthal, A Survey of Trust in the Workplace (pdf) (DDI, 1998)

Randy Borum, The Science of Interpersonal Trust (Mitre, 2010). Also available via Scribd.

Bernd Nurnberger, Community of practice and trust building (Feb 2012) – reposted by Venessa Miemis, 5 Trust Builders and 5 Trust Destroyers (March 2012)

Oliver Sparrow (?), Whom do we trust? (Challenge Network Forum, undated)