Fundamental socio-economic coordination process and metacoordination

Parinov, Sergey (2023): Fundamental socio-economic coordination process and metacoordination.

Abstract

In the agents’ socio-economic activity coordination, the factors important for the results of this activity, information about which, as Hayek noted, is distributed among the participants of the activity, can be taken into account by agents with varying degrees of completeness. The perfection of procedures for identifying such factors and the degree to which they are taken into account in the coordination process can determine greater or lesser benefits of agents from their joint activity. Thus, improving coordination characteristics can be considered as one of the sources of increasing the benefits of agents from their joint activity. In this study, the concept of a shared mental model (SMM) is used as a way for agents to take into account information that is important for coordinating their activities and which is initially distributed among all agents. Based on a number of hypotheses, the SMM features are described under three main options for communications between agents: direct communications, indirect communications, and the absence of communications. The transformation of the SMM into a universal instrument for coordinating socio-economic activities, the main elements of which are the “interface” and the “calculator”, is considered. The functioning of the universal coordination instrument is based on the fundamental process of coordination, which is present in all types of coordinated socio-economic activities. Among consequences arising from the results obtained are considered the possibility of generalizing the concept of general equilibrium, methodological connections with the concept of transaction costs and with the institutional economics. It is noted that this approach makes it possible to explore ways to build a unified model of socio-economic coordination, as well as to develop a metacoordination mechanism designed to improve existing coordination mechanisms and design new ones.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: shared mental model; universal coordination tool; fundamental coordination process; metacoordination
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O1 - Economic Development; O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights; P - Economic Systems > P0 - General

References

Coase, R. H. (1995). The nature of the firm (pp. 37-54). Macmillan Education UK.

Parinov S. (2022). New Approaches to the Improvement of Coordination Mechanisms. Foresight and STI Governance, 16(4), 82–89] https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2022.4.82.89

Parinov S.I. (2023a). Micro level of economic coordination processes. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2023;(2):127-144. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2023-2-127-144 (English version is available as a preprint at Munich Personal RePEc Archive, https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/114816/1/MPRA_paper_114816.pdf)

Parinov S.I. (2023b). Towards economic coordination mechanisms design. Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2023;(9):121-137. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2023-9-121-137 (English version is available as a preprint at Munich Personal RePEc Archive, https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/117282/1/coordination-mechanism-design-en.pdf)

Simon, Herbert A. (1978). Rationality as Process and as Product of Thought. Richard T. Ely Lecture // American Economic Review, May 1978, v.68, no.2, p.1–16.

Williamson, O. E. (1985). The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.

Adler P. S. (2001). Market, hierarchy, and trust: The knowledge economy and the future of capitalism. Organization Science, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 215—234. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.2.215.10117

Badke-Schaub, P., Neumann, A., Lauche, K., & Mohammed, S. (2007). Mental models in design teams: a valid approach to performance in design collaboration? // CoDesign, 3(1), 5-20.

Buchanan, A. (2018). Institutional legitimacy. Oxford studies in political philosophy, 4, 53-78. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198813972.001.0001 https://www.uio.no/english/for-employees/unitpages/jus/pluricourts/events/2019/buchanan_2018.pdf

Craik, K. J. W. (1967). The nature of explanation (Vol. 445). CUP Archive.

Crowston, K., Rubleske, J., & Howison, J. (2015). Coordination theory: A ten-year retrospective. In Human-computer interaction and management information systems: Foundations (pp. 134-152). Routledge

Elliott M. (2016) Stigmergic Collaboration: A Framework for Understanding and Designing Mass Collaboration. // In: Cress U., Moskaliuk J., Jeong H. (eds) Mass Collaboration and Education. Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, vol 16. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-13536-6_4

Elliott, M. (2006). Stigmergic collaboration: The evolution of group work. M/C Journal, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.2599

Hayek, F. A. V. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. The American Economic Review 35:44, 518-530, 1945.

Heylighen, F. (2016). Stigmergy as a universal coordination mechanism I: Definition and components. Cognitive Systems Research, 38, 4-13.

Hurwicz, L. (1973). The design of mechanisms for resource allocation. The American Economic Review, 63(2), 1-30.

Hurwicz, L., & Reiter, S. (2006). Designing economic mechanisms. Cambridge University Press.

Jackson, M. O. (2001). A crash course in implementation theory. Social choice and welfare, 18(4), 655-708.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1980). Mental models in cognitive science. Cognitive science, 4(1), 71-115.

Jonker, C., van Riemsdijk, M., & Vermeulen, B. (2011). Shared mental models. A conceptual analysis. In Coordination, Organizations, Institutions, and Norms in Agent Systems VI, 132-151.

Malone, T. W. (1988). What is Coordination Theory? Massachusetts Institute of Technology SSM WP # 2051-88, 1988

Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 26(1), 87-119. DOI:10.1145/174666.174668

Mantzavinos, C., North, D. C., & Shariq, S. (2004). Learning, institutions, and economic performance. Perspectives on politics, 2(1), 75-84. https://philarchive.org/archive/MANLIA-3

Marsh, L., & Onof, C. (2008). Stigmergic epistemology, stigmergic cognition. Cognitive Systems Research, 9(1-2), 136-149.

Maskin, E., & Sjöström, T. (2002). Implementation theory. Handbook of social Choice and Welfare, 1, 237-288.

Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of applied psychology, 85(2), 273.

Mohammed, S., Ferzandi, L., & Hamilton, K. (2010). Metaphor no more: A 15-year review of the team mental model construct. Journal of management, 36(4), 876-910.

Powell, W. W. (1991). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. ThFr91, 265-276.

Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of public administration research and theory, 18(2), 229-252.

Salas, E., Sims, D. E., & Burke, C. S. (2005). Is there a “big five” in teamwork?. Small group research, 36(5), 555-599.

Weigand, H., van der Poll, F., & de Moor, A. (2003). Coordination through communication. In Proceedings of the 8th International Working Conference on the Language-Action Perspective on Communication Modelling. Tilburg, The Netherlands.