The title should clarify that it’s “national scale” rather than scale generally that’s overrated.
US and China are probably more likely to copy their own respective states & provinces than copy the Nordics, right?
Being unusually homogenous, stable, and trusting might mean that some policies work in the Nordics, even if they don’t work elsewhere.
If we’re worried about whether govt pursues certain tech (like AI) safely over the coming 1-2 decades, then we should favour involvement in the executive over legislating, and the former can’t really transfer from the Nordics to the US. Diffusion may be rather slow.
1) “The title should clarify that it’s “national scale” rather than scale generally that’s overrated.” We did not use “national scale” because we cover policy making on both national-, subnational- and multinational scale. However, we agree that “scale” is very useful as a parameter in cause prioritization frameworks. You’re right that our claim is more narrow—only that it’s overrated in this specific setting.
2) “US and China are probably more likely to copy their own respective states & provinces than copy the Nordics, right?” This is a valid point. For this reason, our logic can also be used to argue that EA should increase policy efforts in US states, or other sub-national policy entities. However, there are some policy domains that are mostly relevant on the national level (e.g. foreign policy), and there are examples where foreign examples work as better motivators (see e.g. this commercial which uses US patriotism to advocate for accelerated EV uptake in the US).
3) “Being unusually homogenous, stable, and trusting might mean that some policies work in the Nordics, even if they don’t work elsewhere.”
You’re right that some policies that work in the Nordics won’t work elsewhere! This is analogous to how some (small-scale) startups will pass a Series A round funding but not succeed at larger scale. Startups typically start with little funding and unlock increasing amounts of money. This way, if the startup fails, it fails in the cheapest possible way. Similarly, by testing new policies first in the most ideal governance environments and gradually scaling them to trickier environments with larger costs of failure, the policies that fail will do so in the least costly wa
4) “If we’re worried about whether govt pursues certain tech (like AI) safely over the coming 1-2 decades, then we should favour involvement in the executive over legislating, and the former can’t really transfer from the Nordics to the US. Diffusion may be rather slow.”
You’re right that if your main concern is linked to specific, urgent causes, you may prefer more direct routes to impact in the countries that matter most
Agree with some of this, but:
The title should clarify that it’s “national scale” rather than scale generally that’s overrated.
US and China are probably more likely to copy their own respective states & provinces than copy the Nordics, right?
Being unusually homogenous, stable, and trusting might mean that some policies work in the Nordics, even if they don’t work elsewhere.
If we’re worried about whether govt pursues certain tech (like AI) safely over the coming 1-2 decades, then we should favour involvement in the executive over legislating, and the former can’t really transfer from the Nordics to the US. Diffusion may be rather slow.
Hi Ryan, thanks for your comment!
1) “The title should clarify that it’s “national scale” rather than scale generally that’s overrated.”
We did not use “national scale” because we cover policy making on both national-, subnational- and multinational scale. However, we agree that “scale” is very useful as a parameter in cause prioritization frameworks. You’re right that our claim is more narrow—only that it’s overrated in this specific setting.
2) “US and China are probably more likely to copy their own respective states & provinces than copy the Nordics, right?”
This is a valid point. For this reason, our logic can also be used to argue that EA should increase policy efforts in US states, or other sub-national policy entities. However, there are some policy domains that are mostly relevant on the national level (e.g. foreign policy), and there are examples where foreign examples work as better motivators (see e.g. this commercial which uses US patriotism to advocate for accelerated EV uptake in the US).
3) “Being unusually homogenous, stable, and trusting might mean that some policies work in the Nordics, even if they don’t work elsewhere.”
You’re right that some policies that work in the Nordics won’t work elsewhere! This is analogous to how some (small-scale) startups will pass a Series A round funding but not succeed at larger scale. Startups typically start with little funding and unlock increasing amounts of money. This way, if the startup fails, it fails in the cheapest possible way. Similarly, by testing new policies first in the most ideal governance environments and gradually scaling them to trickier environments with larger costs of failure, the policies that fail will do so in the least costly wa
4) “If we’re worried about whether govt pursues certain tech (like AI) safely over the coming 1-2 decades, then we should favour involvement in the executive over legislating, and the former can’t really transfer from the Nordics to the US. Diffusion may be rather slow.”
You’re right that if your main concern is linked to specific, urgent causes, you may prefer more direct routes to impact in the countries that matter most