Thanks for this post! This seems like a valuable project, and I’m excited to see what comes of it over the course of this year.
As a first step toward a working definition, we consider key institutions to be centrally managed bodies of one or more people in a direct position to allocate disproportionate funds and/or set rules, incentives, and norms affecting the lives of many.
tl;dr for the remainder of this comment: I tentatively suggest instead using a definition (or statement of scope/focus) more along the lines of:
We think the institutions it makes sense for IIDM to focus on are centrally managed bodies of one or more people who are in a position to directly determine or significantly influence important policy decisions, funding decisions, rules, incentives, norms, the implementation of programs and projects, research, development, and/or career decisions.
Rambling thoughts that underpin that:
You and/or commenters note being uncertain about whether to indeed focus on centrally managed bodies rather than decentralised bodies, and whether to indeed focus on institutions rather than individuals. But one thing that didn’t seem to be discussed was this part of that working definition: “in a direct position to allocate disproportionate funds and/or set rules, incentives, and norms affecting the lives of many”.
It seems to me that those are some of the actions/influences that can make it valuable to improve how an institution/individual makes decisions, but not all of them. For example, it seems like it wouldn’t capture:
Influencing (rather than directly making) policy choices
E.g., I’d tend to think of think tanks as themselves institutions
And it seems to me productive to include such institutions within the scope of IIDM, since some such institutions can be quite influential, their influence could be made more positive if their decision-making was improved, and their decision-making could often be improved in somewhat similar ways to how e.g. a government’s own decision-making could be improved
There will of course between differences in what IIDM efforts will tend to be useful for each type of institution, but this is also true between “large governments, foundations, multilateral agencies, etc.”
Influencing career decisions
E.g., if 80,000 Hours’ decision-making seemed poor, it would seem valuable to improve it, and I think some of the IIDM efforts relevant to other institutions could apply there as well
Ordering military actions (or failing to), which could fairly directly cause people to die, and also could disrupt/destroy (rather than set) rules, incentives, and norms
Running certain types of “programs” or “projects”
E.g., a government agency may run a program that helps certain separate groups of experts pool and disseminate their knowledge, or may build a major dam. This could affect many people’s lives. But it doesn’t really seem to do so by allocating disproportionate funds and/or setting rules, incentives, and norms, except in trivial senses like that most professional actions require paying someone.
Acting in a way that doesn’t exactly set rules, incentives, or norms (in what I see as the intuitive sense of “set”), but still in effect contributes to, undermines, or adjusts certain rules, incentives, or norms
I’d see “set” as implying that this outcome is intended by the institutions, that it’s fairly explicit that the institution is trying to bring this outcome about, and that the institution has a “mandate” or “legitimacy” for undertaking the relevant actions
Whereas there could be cases where institutions’ actions accidentally influence these outcomes, or the institution influences these outcomes deliberately but underhandedly
I think that this might be nit-picking, and in any case could probably be fixed by saying “in a direct position to significantly influence funding allocation, rules, incentives, and norms affecting the lives of many”.
Doing research and/or development
Again, I think that this is something that can be done by organisations, and that it could be valuable to improve those organisation’s decision-making, and that some IIDM efforts could be relevant to doing that
Excellent points, Michael! I agree with much of what you wrote here, especially the first three points. I think the most important theme you bring up is the relevance of indirect influence, which you’re absolutely right isn’t reflected well enough in the definition as currently written. We are working on an operationalization of this definition now for the purposes of prioritizing key institutions, and I believe the way we’ve structured it will allow us to take considerations like these into account. Would love to have your feedback on it and will PM you with more info.
Thanks for this post! This seems like a valuable project, and I’m excited to see what comes of it over the course of this year.
tl;dr for the remainder of this comment: I tentatively suggest instead using a definition (or statement of scope/focus) more along the lines of:
Rambling thoughts that underpin that:
You and/or commenters note being uncertain about whether to indeed focus on centrally managed bodies rather than decentralised bodies, and whether to indeed focus on institutions rather than individuals. But one thing that didn’t seem to be discussed was this part of that working definition: “in a direct position to allocate disproportionate funds and/or set rules, incentives, and norms affecting the lives of many”.
It seems to me that those are some of the actions/influences that can make it valuable to improve how an institution/individual makes decisions, but not all of them. For example, it seems like it wouldn’t capture:
Influencing (rather than directly making) policy choices
E.g., I’d tend to think of think tanks as themselves institutions
And it seems to me productive to include such institutions within the scope of IIDM, since some such institutions can be quite influential, their influence could be made more positive if their decision-making was improved, and their decision-making could often be improved in somewhat similar ways to how e.g. a government’s own decision-making could be improved
There will of course between differences in what IIDM efforts will tend to be useful for each type of institution, but this is also true between “large governments, foundations, multilateral agencies, etc.”
Influencing career decisions
E.g., if 80,000 Hours’ decision-making seemed poor, it would seem valuable to improve it, and I think some of the IIDM efforts relevant to other institutions could apply there as well
Ordering military actions (or failing to), which could fairly directly cause people to die, and also could disrupt/destroy (rather than set) rules, incentives, and norms
Running certain types of “programs” or “projects”
E.g., a government agency may run a program that helps certain separate groups of experts pool and disseminate their knowledge, or may build a major dam. This could affect many people’s lives. But it doesn’t really seem to do so by allocating disproportionate funds and/or setting rules, incentives, and norms, except in trivial senses like that most professional actions require paying someone.
Acting in a way that doesn’t exactly set rules, incentives, or norms (in what I see as the intuitive sense of “set”), but still in effect contributes to, undermines, or adjusts certain rules, incentives, or norms
I’d see “set” as implying that this outcome is intended by the institutions, that it’s fairly explicit that the institution is trying to bring this outcome about, and that the institution has a “mandate” or “legitimacy” for undertaking the relevant actions
Whereas there could be cases where institutions’ actions accidentally influence these outcomes, or the institution influences these outcomes deliberately but underhandedly
I think that this might be nit-picking, and in any case could probably be fixed by saying “in a direct position to significantly influence funding allocation, rules, incentives, and norms affecting the lives of many”.
Doing research and/or development
Again, I think that this is something that can be done by organisations, and that it could be valuable to improve those organisation’s decision-making, and that some IIDM efforts could be relevant to doing that
Excellent points, Michael! I agree with much of what you wrote here, especially the first three points. I think the most important theme you bring up is the relevance of indirect influence, which you’re absolutely right isn’t reflected well enough in the definition as currently written. We are working on an operationalization of this definition now for the purposes of prioritizing key institutions, and I believe the way we’ve structured it will allow us to take considerations like these into account. Would love to have your feedback on it and will PM you with more info.