Full disclosure to readers: I was the one who repeatedly requested that this shorter version be its own toplevel post on the EA Forum (hope I wasn’t too annoying!) ; I think forum readers + Mauricio can benefit a lot from engagement.
Some specific comments:
The framework also suggests that the following factors, when high, make it more likely that transitions to greater political inclusion will occur and persist:
[...]
Potential strategic alliances between an excluded and an included group (e.g. the vulnerable group, if included, would militarily/economically benefit the included)
Are you counting cases where there are intra-elite battles for power, and a certain move that franchises the voiceless also directly helps elite group A’s interests at the expense of group B(eg, presumably some workers will benefit from not having to compete against slave/prison labor)?
Not sure how broad “strategic alliances” are referring to.
Are you counting cases where there are intra-elite battles for power [...] Not sure how broad “strategic alliances” are referring to.
What I have in mind is: cases when elite group A included group B, because group A thought that group B would use its new influence in ways beneficial for group A. I wouldn’t count the example you mention, because then the benefit seems to come from the exploiters being weakened (not being able to charge such low prices), rather than from the new influence of the formerly excluded.
(I’m trying to distinguish between inclusion that comes from the influence of the excluded, and inclusion that doesn’t, because only the latter could help groups like future generations.)
The dynamic you bring up does seem important. I’d currently put it in the miscellaneous bucket of “costs of inclusion” (as a negative cost—a benefit for elites). I wonder if there’s some better way to think about it?
Thanks for posting this!
Full disclosure to readers: I was the one who repeatedly requested that this shorter version be its own toplevel post on the EA Forum (hope I wasn’t too annoying!) ; I think forum readers + Mauricio can benefit a lot from engagement.
Some specific comments:
Are you counting cases where there are intra-elite battles for power, and a certain move that franchises the voiceless also directly helps elite group A’s interests at the expense of group B(eg, presumably some workers will benefit from not having to compete against slave/prison labor)?
Not sure how broad “strategic alliances” are referring to.
Thanks for your comment!
Nah :)
What I have in mind is: cases when elite group A included group B, because group A thought that group B would use its new influence in ways beneficial for group A. I wouldn’t count the example you mention, because then the benefit seems to come from the exploiters being weakened (not being able to charge such low prices), rather than from the new influence of the formerly excluded.
(I’m trying to distinguish between inclusion that comes from the influence of the excluded, and inclusion that doesn’t, because only the latter could help groups like future generations.)
The dynamic you bring up does seem important. I’d currently put it in the miscellaneous bucket of “costs of inclusion” (as a negative cost—a benefit for elites). I wonder if there’s some better way to think about it?