We Don't Have to Be This Bad at Improving Society
Debate over how to “improve society” centers on whether more centralized, technocratic decision-making—often exemplified by China’s rapid development—actually produces better outcomes than messy, decentralized democracies. Commenters highlight structural barriers to policy experimentation: entrenched interest groups, political polarization and culture wars, short electoral cycles, and the inability of politicians to admit failure all make it hard to test, learn from, and scale up effective reforms. Many argue that the core problem is not a lack of ideas or evidence (on issues like transit, healthcare, or social welfare) but institutions whose incentives optimize for preserving the status quo rather than systematically improving collective well‑being.
Centralization, China, and “improving society”
- Debate over whether China is a positive model:
- Pro: rapid poverty reduction, massive infrastructure (HSR, renewables, transmission), apparent ability to learn from failures (e.g., environmental policy, EV supply chain).
- Con: history of major policy disasters (Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, one‑child policy), current repression (Uyghurs, Hong Kong), data distortion upwards, renewed personality cult around leadership.
- Some argue China is less centralized than assumed (significant regional autonomy under performance pressure).
- Others stress “local knowledge” limits of central planning, though examples like South Korea and China suggest it can work under some conditions.
- EU vs US: EU seen as over‑decentralized in execution (vetoes, consensus requirements), US as more centralized in federal decision-making.
Why political experiments are difficult
- Experiments create entrenched constituencies (agencies, NGOs, contractors) that fight cancellation and frame results as partial success.
- Safety problem: political experiments can harm real people; some policies require full-scale rollout due to network effects (immunization, public transit).
- Governments do run experiments (e.g., UBI pilots, state-level US policies), but leaders often ignore evidence in favor of ideology or think‑tank “policy‑based evidence.”
Democracy, polarization, and interests
- Many issues become culture wars (transit, climate, healthcare), blocking reform until crisis.
- Voters often tie identity to parties; two‑party systems force all-or-nothing choices.
- Billionaires, media, and social platforms are seen as amplifying conflict and defending status quo interests.
- Some see local opposition (NIMBYs, protected professions like notaries) as major blockers even without billionaire influence.
What counts as “improvement”
- Societies are heterogeneous; policies usually help some groups and hurt others.
- Disagreement on whether net gains justify new or ongoing harms to minorities.
- Economy vs ecology framed by several as a false dichotomy; many policies (transit, bikes, land value tax, renewables/nuclear) could benefit both.
Known solutions vs implementation failure
- Commenters argue many “experiments” aren’t needed: extensive evidence for walkability, mass transit, basic healthcare, some drug reforms, etc.
- Main barrier is political will and incentives, not ignorance.
- Politicians and executives are punished for admitting failure (“flip‑flopping”), encouraging big, irreversible bets and denial instead of iterative learning.
- Several note that systems optimize for the incentives they actually have, not for abstract “societal improvement.”