{"id":936,"date":"2026-10-15T13:09:59","date_gmt":"2026-10-15T13:09:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/?p=936"},"modified":"2026-10-15T23:29:32","modified_gmt":"2026-10-15T23:29:32","slug":"incompetence-and-the-institutions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/2026\/10\/15\/incompetence-and-the-institutions\/","title":{"rendered":"Incompetence and the Institutions"},"content":{"rendered":"

As noted<\/span> previously<\/a><\/p>\n

[I]n sociological theories institutions are generally reckoned to be significant features of a society, and there seems to be some primitive notion that underlies the use of the term, but as is often the case the precise definitions offered cover a range of related possibilities. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/em> (Miller, S. 2011, s.v.<\/em> \u2018Social Institutions\u2019, \u00b61) provides a reasonable overview of the issues and begins by referring to a pair of representative definitions. The first by J. Turner (1997,\u00a0The Institutional Order<\/em>, New York: Longman, p. 6): \u201ca complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organising relatively stable patterns of human activity with respect to fundamental problems in producing life-sustaining resources, in reproducing individuals, and in sustaining viable societal structures within a given environment.\u201d\u00a0And the second by Rom Harr\u00e9 (1979, Social Being<\/em>, Oxford: Blackwell, p. 98): \u201cAn institution was defined as an interlocking double-structure of persons-as-role-holders or office-bearers and the like, and of social practices involving both expressive and practical aims and outcomes.\u201d From such evidence, the consensus seems to be that an institution is a set of norms, rules of behaviour, etc. (i.e. a norm formation) that creates a structure of interacting roles into which participants in the institution fit, and which is seen to have the function of achieving some end (whether or not it also has other functions.)<\/span><\/p>\n

I claim that in so far as institutions are constituted by their characterizing normset, they are vulnerable to certain incompetencies on the part of their participating populations. In particular, an institution which has both implicit and explicit functions supported by its normset as it was instituted by and for a population that possessed competences favourable to the operation of that institution will fail to operate in the appropriate fashion if that originating population is displaced by a population that does not have the appropriate competences.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Cultural Incompetence.<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Cultures in which the norms that constitute an institution are in conflict with norms that constitute that culture are highly inimical to that institution. The family-centric culture that produces nepotism, the shame-honour culture that resists feedback or admission of error or etc, and the low-trust culture\/society that subordinates all norms to simple calculations of actor\u2019s advantage, are all cultures that find it hard to make most institutions work efficiently. The relationship of culture to material success was noted in general terms by Adam Smith (Theory of Moral Sentiments<\/em>) and JS Mill (Principles of Political Economy<\/em>) and famously by M Weber (The Protestant Ethic and the Rise of Capitalism<\/em>) who pointed to the cultural values encouraged by Protestantism \u2013 hard work, honesty, thrift, rationality, future orientation, delayed gratification (not his terms) \u2013 as the preconditions for European success. \u2018Modernisation Theory,\u2019 as proposed by researchers such as WW Rostow (Stages of Economic Growth<\/em>) responding to the difficulties experienced in the post-colonial world and reflecting on the empirical data available, hypothesized that development in currently underdeveloped countries will similarly require that the culture of those countries should adopt these norms (or something like them.) The failure of many societies to throw off their traditional cultural norms in favour of these \u2018modern\u2019 norms is equivalently taken to be at the root of continuing underdevelopment. Although modernization theory does not concentrate on the particular effect of traditional social norms on institutional functioning, it is quite clear that the traditional norms in question would have their retarding effects largely through their effects on the functions of imposed or inherited or innovated institutions. The topic of cultural effects on institutions has itself been the subject of considerable research in recent times, with wide acceptance that the functioning of institutions that are identically constituted normatively can be very different depending on the normative constitution of the participating populations. (See, for example, Alesina & Giuliano (2015) \u2018<\/span>Culture and Institutions<\/a>\u2019 in the Journal of Economic Literature, 53:4, 898-944, Persson & Gabelli (2021) \u2018<\/span>Culture, Institutions, and Policy<\/a>\u2019 for Bisin & Federico, The Handbook of Historical Economics<\/em> c. 16, or Acemoglu & Robinson (2021) \u2018<\/span>Culture, Institutions, and Social Equilibria: A Framework<\/a>.\u2019 (I endorse none of their theoretical assumptions.))<\/span><\/p>\n

    The fundamental nature of institutional corruption by incompetent cultures can be illustrated by the failure of the essentially British institution of \u2018queuing\u2019 to survive the multicultural experiment.<\/span> A simple thing made worse<\/a>, as they say.<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n

    Queuing means the old, small and weak are treated fairly. Not all cultures queue. I saw this living abroad. https:\/\/t.co\/XAXOY5n5uq<\/p>\n

    \u2014 Larry Lemon (@larrylemonmaths) May 13, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n