- Email: [email protected]
On social well-being
OMEGA, The Int. JI of Mgmt Sci., VoL I, No. 6, 1973
Editorial ON SOCIAL WELL-BEING ONE CAN read Cook's paper (Operational Research: Social Well-Being or the Zero Growth Concept) at a number of levels: As a review of four or so books that he has read, the impression they made on him, and his reactions As a review of how OR (operational research) has developed in the past and where it stands today As a challenge to OR in the wider context of social well-being and the role that OR men should see for themselves in the future. At whatever level you read this paper, it is, characteristically for Cook, a stimulating and thought-provoking essay. It has in it much that one could fully endorse and identify with. It also has points with which I take issue, or which need much more clarification and debate. First, I see Cook's paper as a manifestation of the general concern about OR and the sense of frustration of many OR men that the phenomenal progress of OR during its first 25 years of existence is not matched by the present rate of development--at least that is what evidence about present-day OR seems to suggest. And while OR work in the past was less hampered by questioning the goals and constraints that pertained to OR projects (since such goals and constraints as were defined were largely taken for granted), the very essence of economic man has now come into question, and with it the role of the OR man who has been regarded in the past as the very epitomy of economic man. It is, therefore, inevitable that many of us should begin to search for a new role, a new raison d'Etre, for OR, and Cook starts off by declaring that OR should be "concerned with the use of science and the scientific method to influence decisions to the benefit of society" (his emphasis), and while, on the face of it, this sounds a laudable credo, if examined more closely we have to conclude that this definition is far from adequate. What does the term "benefit to society" mean and who is society? Is it the group of people working in an industrial enterprise, its suppliers, its customers, the national entity in which the enterprise operates? How does one measure benefits of the kind that Cook has in mind, and how do we resolve the inevitable conflict between the individual and society (whatever definition for "society" is adopted)7 These questions are relevant--indeed crucial--if one is to follow 643
Editorial the suggestions made at the end of Cook's paper regarding a professional code of ethics (which he admits would be difficult to write). In this context I believe that his reference to the doctor's Hippocratic oath is misleading, because the doctor is concerned in this oath with the welfare of his patient as an individual and not with that of society; similarly, the lawyer has a clear loyalty only to his client, although other professions--such as engineering--have dilemmas which are not dissimilar to those of the OR fraternity. It is because the OR man has three loyalties--to his client, to individuals who may be affected by his work, and to society (which has to be defined in each case)--that a conflict of interest arises, and it is far from clear how it can be settled in general terms. Perhaps the only way to handle this problem is purely on an ad hoc basis, but this will inevitably lead to value judgments, and different people will see the solution of this conflict in different ways. A second point, which very much relates to the first, is the conflict between the long term and the short term. We are familiar with this problem even in conventional OR models, where the goals are well defined and where the constraints are not in question. But when social benefits are to be considered, the conflicts are exacerbated even further, particularly because long lead times are often involved and because it is all too easy to discount or to ignore very long term benefits and penalties. The proponents of the zero-growth concept argue that "people's main needs are no longer material but psychological and social", and while this is pertinent to the developed countries, it is patently untrue for the underdeveloped countries, who are engaged in a fierce battle against poverty and disease, and who clamour to achieve the material well-being of the industrialized world. Clearly the needs of the two groups are very different; they are even in conflict, since while the zero-growth concept may be thought desirable for the one group, it may be incompatible with the aspirations of the other. Cook's plea for a measure of well-being is an understandable one. It represents the frustration of those who feel that they have been compelled, by circumstances or convention, to work for the " R o m a n s " rather than for the "Greeks", and that their function is being increasingly regarded as purely technical in character. But the question that we need to ask ourselves is whether such a measure is at all realistic. I suppose that Cook will argue that whatever measure is adopted, it would not be one that is arbitrarily chosen by OR men, but that OR would help--with its tools of scientific enquiry--to establish what measures would be acceptable to most members of society, but I wonder whether such a process is feasible. In the first place it is not even clear that a pluralistic approach need necessarily be sufficiently efficient for practical purposes or even stable (and stability is important for decisions that involve the long term), nor is it clear that it can be immunized from manipulators and power seekers. But even if we dismiss such criticisms or find mechanisms to protect ourselves adequately from objectionable or vile men, the tools that we 644
Omega, Vol. 1, No. 6 have for establishing pluralistic views and aspirations are just too crude and unreliable to inspire any confidence in the results. Take the example of the first project proposed by Cook. He suggests a sample survey "to assess levels of feeling of well-being and factors affecting well-being for a small cross-section of the U.K. population". He admits that such a proposition may be regarded as naive and I confess that I rate the chances of success and the benefits from this exercise to be too infinitesimal to justify such an undertaking. The suggestion that a survey of the kind envisaged could unravel to us the "aims, desires, beliefs and sources of fulfilment" of individuals, or of society en bloc, is quite fanciful. And it is not at all clear what we do with the results once we get them, since it does not follow that the desires of individuals could necessarily be met; indeed, the consequences of fulfilling such desires may at times be to the detriment of society and even of the individual himself, who may derive more satisfaction from working and striving towards a goal than from reaching it. I cannot help feeling that the identification of what is good for society, and the extent to which the individual must sacrifice some of his freedom for the good of his fellow-men, lies in the political arena; perhaps Cook wants us to become actively involved in political affairs, although he does not specifically say so. It is, therefore, against three main problems or dimensions that Cook's paper needs to be considered. The first is the definition of society and the recognition of the conflict of interests that persists between groups. The second is the problem of metric, which is associated with values, goals, constraints and methods of measurement. The third is that of the time dimension, where achievements in any time period need to be balanced against possible disbenefits in others. Any contribution that OR can make to the understanding of these problems would be of immense value, and one can only hope that Cook's paper will stimulate people to regard these as legitimate and rewarding horizons for OR to work in. SAMUELEILON Chief Editor
645
Editorial ON SOCIAL WELL-BEING ONE CAN read Cook's paper (Operational Research: Social Well-Being or the Zero Growth Concept) at a number of levels: As a review of four or so books that he has read, the impression they made on him, and his reactions As a review of how OR (operational research) has developed in the past and where it stands today As a challenge to OR in the wider context of social well-being and the role that OR men should see for themselves in the future. At whatever level you read this paper, it is, characteristically for Cook, a stimulating and thought-provoking essay. It has in it much that one could fully endorse and identify with. It also has points with which I take issue, or which need much more clarification and debate. First, I see Cook's paper as a manifestation of the general concern about OR and the sense of frustration of many OR men that the phenomenal progress of OR during its first 25 years of existence is not matched by the present rate of development--at least that is what evidence about present-day OR seems to suggest. And while OR work in the past was less hampered by questioning the goals and constraints that pertained to OR projects (since such goals and constraints as were defined were largely taken for granted), the very essence of economic man has now come into question, and with it the role of the OR man who has been regarded in the past as the very epitomy of economic man. It is, therefore, inevitable that many of us should begin to search for a new role, a new raison d'Etre, for OR, and Cook starts off by declaring that OR should be "concerned with the use of science and the scientific method to influence decisions to the benefit of society" (his emphasis), and while, on the face of it, this sounds a laudable credo, if examined more closely we have to conclude that this definition is far from adequate. What does the term "benefit to society" mean and who is society? Is it the group of people working in an industrial enterprise, its suppliers, its customers, the national entity in which the enterprise operates? How does one measure benefits of the kind that Cook has in mind, and how do we resolve the inevitable conflict between the individual and society (whatever definition for "society" is adopted)7 These questions are relevant--indeed crucial--if one is to follow 643
Editorial the suggestions made at the end of Cook's paper regarding a professional code of ethics (which he admits would be difficult to write). In this context I believe that his reference to the doctor's Hippocratic oath is misleading, because the doctor is concerned in this oath with the welfare of his patient as an individual and not with that of society; similarly, the lawyer has a clear loyalty only to his client, although other professions--such as engineering--have dilemmas which are not dissimilar to those of the OR fraternity. It is because the OR man has three loyalties--to his client, to individuals who may be affected by his work, and to society (which has to be defined in each case)--that a conflict of interest arises, and it is far from clear how it can be settled in general terms. Perhaps the only way to handle this problem is purely on an ad hoc basis, but this will inevitably lead to value judgments, and different people will see the solution of this conflict in different ways. A second point, which very much relates to the first, is the conflict between the long term and the short term. We are familiar with this problem even in conventional OR models, where the goals are well defined and where the constraints are not in question. But when social benefits are to be considered, the conflicts are exacerbated even further, particularly because long lead times are often involved and because it is all too easy to discount or to ignore very long term benefits and penalties. The proponents of the zero-growth concept argue that "people's main needs are no longer material but psychological and social", and while this is pertinent to the developed countries, it is patently untrue for the underdeveloped countries, who are engaged in a fierce battle against poverty and disease, and who clamour to achieve the material well-being of the industrialized world. Clearly the needs of the two groups are very different; they are even in conflict, since while the zero-growth concept may be thought desirable for the one group, it may be incompatible with the aspirations of the other. Cook's plea for a measure of well-being is an understandable one. It represents the frustration of those who feel that they have been compelled, by circumstances or convention, to work for the " R o m a n s " rather than for the "Greeks", and that their function is being increasingly regarded as purely technical in character. But the question that we need to ask ourselves is whether such a measure is at all realistic. I suppose that Cook will argue that whatever measure is adopted, it would not be one that is arbitrarily chosen by OR men, but that OR would help--with its tools of scientific enquiry--to establish what measures would be acceptable to most members of society, but I wonder whether such a process is feasible. In the first place it is not even clear that a pluralistic approach need necessarily be sufficiently efficient for practical purposes or even stable (and stability is important for decisions that involve the long term), nor is it clear that it can be immunized from manipulators and power seekers. But even if we dismiss such criticisms or find mechanisms to protect ourselves adequately from objectionable or vile men, the tools that we 644
Omega, Vol. 1, No. 6 have for establishing pluralistic views and aspirations are just too crude and unreliable to inspire any confidence in the results. Take the example of the first project proposed by Cook. He suggests a sample survey "to assess levels of feeling of well-being and factors affecting well-being for a small cross-section of the U.K. population". He admits that such a proposition may be regarded as naive and I confess that I rate the chances of success and the benefits from this exercise to be too infinitesimal to justify such an undertaking. The suggestion that a survey of the kind envisaged could unravel to us the "aims, desires, beliefs and sources of fulfilment" of individuals, or of society en bloc, is quite fanciful. And it is not at all clear what we do with the results once we get them, since it does not follow that the desires of individuals could necessarily be met; indeed, the consequences of fulfilling such desires may at times be to the detriment of society and even of the individual himself, who may derive more satisfaction from working and striving towards a goal than from reaching it. I cannot help feeling that the identification of what is good for society, and the extent to which the individual must sacrifice some of his freedom for the good of his fellow-men, lies in the political arena; perhaps Cook wants us to become actively involved in political affairs, although he does not specifically say so. It is, therefore, against three main problems or dimensions that Cook's paper needs to be considered. The first is the definition of society and the recognition of the conflict of interests that persists between groups. The second is the problem of metric, which is associated with values, goals, constraints and methods of measurement. The third is that of the time dimension, where achievements in any time period need to be balanced against possible disbenefits in others. Any contribution that OR can make to the understanding of these problems would be of immense value, and one can only hope that Cook's paper will stimulate people to regard these as legitimate and rewarding horizons for OR to work in. SAMUELEILON Chief Editor
645