So fails the checks and balances desideratum. Checks and balances can be achieved somewhat by adding in more Resources that can be controlled by multiple Actors.
What is empirical evidence that checks and balances work as people assume they should in organizations?
Possibly. I admit there is an organisational overhead to checks and balances. I also tend to think of the system as an isolated one, which means I don’t tend to consider things like prosecuting someone for theft if they just gut the organisation and run off with the money. Which I probably should. Having people sign a contract saying they won’t intefere with or marginalise the market when gaining control of ultimate power would assuage some of my concerns.
What is empirical evidence that checks and balances work as people assume they should in organizations?
The continued stability of the liberal democracy rule set? One would assume that some past leaders would have liked to have remained in power and might have rewritten the rules to allow them to do so if they could have done.
Having people sign a contract saying they won’t intefere with or marginalise the market when gaining control of ultimate power would assuage some of my concerns.
Which authority judges whether someone is engaging into the behavior of intefering with or marginalising the market?
What is empirical evidence that checks and balances work as people assume they should in organizations?
Nothing works exactly as people assume it should.
If you look at the US it however seems quite clear to me that power is distributed among multiple people. Nixon lost power through impeachment.
The US Supreme court frequently invalidates laws that congress passes.
Multiple actors need to agree to get some things done.
Feature not bug? ;)
What is empirical evidence that checks and balances work as people assume they should in organizations?
Possibly. I admit there is an organisational overhead to checks and balances. I also tend to think of the system as an isolated one, which means I don’t tend to consider things like prosecuting someone for theft if they just gut the organisation and run off with the money. Which I probably should. Having people sign a contract saying they won’t intefere with or marginalise the market when gaining control of ultimate power would assuage some of my concerns.
The continued stability of the liberal democracy rule set? One would assume that some past leaders would have liked to have remained in power and might have rewritten the rules to allow them to do so if they could have done.
Which authority judges whether someone is engaging into the behavior of intefering with or marginalising the market?
The same authority that decides whether people are engaging in anti-competitive behaviour currently: The courts of law.
They probably wouldn’t be very good at it, but it provides some disincentive which isn’t there in the more abstract models I think about.
Nothing works exactly as people assume it should. If you look at the US it however seems quite clear to me that power is distributed among multiple people. Nixon lost power through impeachment.
The US Supreme court frequently invalidates laws that congress passes.
Multiple actors need to agree to get some things done.