The point that the ordering of optimisation and allocation phases is important in negotiation is a good one. But as you say, the phases are more often interleaved: the analogy isn’t exact, but I’m reminded of pigs playing game theory
I disagree that this maps to mistake / conflict theory very well. For example, I think that a mistake theorist is often claiming that the allocation effects of some policy are not what you think (e.g. rent controls or minimum wage).
For example, I think that a mistake theorist is often claiming that the allocation effects of some policy are not what you think (e.g. rent controls or minimum wage).
A big part of optimizing systems is analyzing things to determine it’s outcomes. That might be why mistake theorists frequently claim to have discovered that X policy has surprising effects—even policies related to allocation, like the ones you cited.
It’s a stretch, but not a large one, and it explains how “mistake/conflict theory = optimizing first/last” predicts mistake theorists yapping about allocation policies.
The point that the ordering of optimisation and allocation phases is important in negotiation is a good one. But as you say, the phases are more often interleaved: the analogy isn’t exact, but I’m reminded of pigs playing game theory
I disagree that this maps to mistake / conflict theory very well. For example, I think that a mistake theorist is often claiming that the allocation effects of some policy are not what you think (e.g. rent controls or minimum wage).
A big part of optimizing systems is analyzing things to determine it’s outcomes. That might be why mistake theorists frequently claim to have discovered that X policy has surprising effects—even policies related to allocation, like the ones you cited.
It’s a stretch, but not a large one, and it explains how “mistake/conflict theory = optimizing first/last” predicts mistake theorists yapping about allocation policies.