Intra-Elite Competition: A Key Concept for Understanding the Dynamics of Complex Soc

[Dan '82]

http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/int...societies/

Quote:Intra-elite competition is one of the most important factors explaining massive waves of social and political instability, which periodically afflict complex, state-level societies. This idea was proposed by Jack Goldstone nearly 30 years ago. Goldstone tested it empirically by analyzing the structural precursors of the English Civil War, the French Revolution, and seventeenth century’s crises in Turkey and China. Other researchers (including Sergey Nefedov, Andrey Korotayev, and myself) extended Goldstone’s theory and tested it in such different societies as Ancient Rome, Egypt, and Mesopotamia; medieval England, France, and China; the European revolutions of 1848 and the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917; and the Arab Spring uprisings. Closer to home, recent research indicates that the stability of modern democratic societies is also undermined by excessive competition among the elites (see Ages of Discord for a structural-demographic analysis of American history). Why is intra-elite competition such an important driver of instability?

Elites are a small proportion of the population (on the order of 1 percent) who concentrate social power in their hands (see my previous post and especially its discussion in the comments that reveal the complex dimensions of this concept). In the United States, for example, they include (but are not limited to) elected politicians, top civil service bureaucrats, and the owners and managers of Fortune 500 companies (see Who Rules America?). As individual elites retire, they are replaced from the pool of elite aspirants. There are always more elite aspirants than positions for them to occupy.  Intra-elite competition is the process that sorts aspirants into successful elites and aspirants whose ambition to enter the elite ranks is frustrated. Competition among the elites occurs on multiple levels. Thus, lower-ranked elites (for example, state representatives) may also be aspirants for the next level (e.g., U.S. Congress), and so on, all the way up to POTUS...




http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/int...societies/

[pbrower2a]

My suspicions:

1. Those elites are not the nicest of people. They are what they are because they are greedy and rapacious; they keep the doors shut tight to people of talent and ability (thus, 'brilliant young man -- why don't you become a governor for my kids?). They expect undemanding deference of the proles. Isolated from the rest of humanity through their exclusive networks, they never need show empathy even if they might 'slum' in popular trends if they seem a bit fun.

If some people find ways to create wealth outside themselves, they usually find ways to squelch or co-opt it.

But they have their squabbles, mostly on dividing what economic opportunity can make people rich (monopoly power in business, cronyism, institutional power, and even outright crime), and when they can no longer get high returns from sweating and bleeding the proles that they exploit, they then turn upon each other.

2. They have command of the resources, so they can commit them to wars against foreign elites. There's nothing noble about this quasi-nobility. They can make war an offer too good to be true. A meat-grinder war for profits is an excuse for both raising taxes for all but themselves and squeezing non-elite consumption even further. Got overpopulation? There's nothing like a 'good war' to solve that problem.

3. They create a zero-sum economy.

4. They get reckless. Rarely wise enough to keep well-enough alone, they insist on getting even more.

[Cynic Hero '86]

The Problem in my opinion is not Intra-elite competition. The problem is a calcified elite at the top echelons of the political class. There is intensive competition in the middle and lower echelons of the political class and in the economic hierarchy. The calcified leadership echelon of the political class needs to move out of the way and allow the more capable and more ambitious and creative elements to assume power.

[Mikebert]

(02-18-2017, 07:08 PM)Dan Wrote: http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/int...societies/

Quote:Intra-elite competition is one of the most important factors explaining massive waves of social and political instability, which periodically afflict complex, state-level societies. This idea was proposed by Jack Goldstone nearly 30 years ago. Goldstone tested it empirically by analyzing the structural precursors of the English Civil War, the French Revolution, and seventeenth century’s crises in Turkey and China. Other researchers (including Sergey Nefedov, Andrey Korotayev, and myself) extended Goldstone’s theory and tested it in such different societies as Ancient Rome, Egypt, and Mesopotamia; medieval England, France, and China; the European revolutions of 1848 and the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917; and the Arab Spring uprisings. Closer to home, recent research indicates that the stability of modern democratic societies is also undermined by excessive competition among the elites (see Ages of Discord for a structural-demographic analysis of American history). Why is intra-elite competition such an important driver of instability?

Elites are a small proportion of the population (on the order of 1 percent) who concentrate social power in their hands (see my previous post and especially its discussion in the comments that reveal the complex dimensions of this concept). In the United States, for example, they include (but are not limited to) elected politicians, top civil service bureaucrats, and the owners and managers of Fortune 500 companies (see Who Rules America?). As individual elites retire, they are replaced from the pool of elite aspirants. There are always more elite aspirants than positions for them to occupy.  Intra-elite competition is the process that sorts aspirants into successful elites and aspirants whose ambition to enter the elite ranks is frustrated. Competition among the elites occurs on multiple levels. Thus, lower-ranked elites (for example, state representatives) may also be aspirants for the next level (e.g., U.S. Congress), and so on, all the way up to POTUS...




http://peterturchin.com/cliodynamica/int...societies/

Goldstone developed a measure of the forces leading to political instability using something he called the political stress index (psi).  Turchin's version of psi can be simplified to a form given by e^2 / [EF(1-EF)] where e is the elite fraction of the population and EF is the fraction of output that goes to elites and so serves a measure of inequality.  For the US the range of EF varies from 0.45 to 0.75 in which case the denominator varies by less than 30%, By far the largest impact is the effect of numbers of elites.  If you think of elite competition as an interaction or "collision" between rival A and rival B, the frequency such collisions will be proportional to the concentration of A and B or similar e x e.  Psi is a theoretical representation of intra-elite competition leading to sociopolitical instability. Below is a plot of psi for the US. You can clearly see peaks in psi for each of the 4Ts. 



But elite competition is not the whole story for political instability.  After all there was a major outburst of instability around 1970, when psi and elite competition was low.  There was a similar outburst in the 1830's--another time elite completion was low. We recognize these periods as well as the periods of political instability due to elite competition as social moment turnings (2Ts and 4Ts).  This suggests that the generational cycle of S&H and the secular cycle of Turchin may both be important factors in the cycles of history.

[Warren Dew]

I suspect that high concentration of wealth is a characteristic of precrisis periods, and that dissipating that concentration is a characteristic of the crisis itself. Intraelite competition may be involved in dissipating the concentration of wealth as some of the elites are destroyed and their wealth dissipated.

The effort to repeal the ACA has at least temporarily failed. This means it's likely that bailouts to the health insurance companies in the form of federal subsidies to the risk corridors - subsidies that have been ruled unconstitutional - will cease. With or without the subsidies, the ACA exchanges will likely fail in a spiral between rising prices and dropping participation.

Are the health insurance companies going to be a group of losing elites? Was the ACA itself an effort by elites - health insurers and corporate hospitals - to prevent the rise of a large group of elite aspirants, the doctors?

Will part of the crisis be a complete or near complete collapse of the health care system as currently constituted?

[pbrower2a]

(07-28-2017, 02:59 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: I suspect that high concentration of wealth is a characteristic of precrisis periods, and that dissipating that concentration is a characteristic of the crisis itself.  Intraelite competition may be involved in dissipating the concentration of wealth as some of the elites are destroyed and their wealth dissipated.

High levels of inequality of wealth and income typically go together. Persistent wealth is typically a multiple of yearly earnings (castles, mansions, baubles, and the like are dissipation of wealth); people who get above-average income typically invest some of what they make, also creating wealth. When most people are earning little, small savers and investors usually end up going through what they have, with such wealth being transferred to economic elites. Needless to say, the disappearance of a middle class is a great stress.

But those elites are obvious targets themselves for dispossession, whether by foreign powers or by revolutionary aspirants. To defend themselves most effectively they must support armies and police through taxation upon themselves in the event that nobody else has any funds. 

Quote:The effort to repeal the ACA has at least temporarily failed.  This means it's likely that bailouts to the health insurance companies in the form of federal subsidies to the risk corridors - subsidies that have been ruled unconstitutional - will cease.  With or without the subsidies, the ACA exchanges will likely fail in a spiral between rising prices and dropping participation.

Are the health insurance companies going to be a group of losing elites?  Was the ACA itself an effort by elites - health insurers and corporate hospitals - to prevent the rise of a large group of elite aspirants, the doctors?

Cost control; was a necessity, and the insurance companies had few incentives for controlling costs other than workers' pay. So was a means of funding it -- most likely a VAT (user pays) and perhaps some excise taxes on tobacco and liquor (abuser pays!)

Quote:Will part of the crisis be a complete or near complete collapse of the health care system as currently constituted?

Much more will be at risk. Every institution will be at risk.

America so far has been fortunate in avoiding wars that devastate American property. Figuring that should America end up in a war as destructive to America as WWII was destructive to Germany and Japan, any post-Crisis leadership will need to establish priorities on what recovers first. It would seem likely that energy production (as in oil refineries) would take precedence over cosmetics. Spartan pre-fabricated housing and huge blooks of flats with Stalinist architecture may replace middle-class housing from the immediate post-war period if much of the world of "Beaver Cleaver" should be wrecked or incinerated.  Enrichment and indulgence of elites will be a low priority, especially if those elites are seen culpable for the horrors of the Crisis.