Thinking about Models

8/14/2019 Thinking about Models

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/thinking-about-models 1/62

GOALS, PROCESSES AND INDICATORS…WITH MODELS?

lan Miles and Sam Cole1

September 1978

Preface

A few words to guide the reader through what has become an oversize paper due to the

difficulties posed by the topic. The contents are as follows: 1) introduction a few words on the

term 'model', and different modelling approaches. 2) What Are Models For? - uses of models in

theory development, analysis of concrete situations and choices, and communication and

legitimation, with Table 1, an attempt to summarise the Issues here. 3) An Unavoidable

Diversion: Organisational and Resource Requirements - in which some tricky questions of cost

and lntra-project communication are raised. 4) in Small Beautiful? Notes Against the Juggernaut

Models (With A Digression On Desirable Futures.) argues that models of existing systems, of

major transformational

1Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex. At the time of writing, Sam Cole has not

had the opportunity to contribute to the final drafting of this working paper, prepared for the

meeting of the GPID project in October 1978 (originally scheduled for Hamadan).

The authors were asked to prepare this paper in the light of previous GPID notes on the possible

roles of modelling for the project, drawing upon our previous experience in the development and

critique of modelling and related techniques in forecasting (e.g. Encel, Maretrand and Page,

1975; Clark and Cole, 1975; Cole, 1977; Freeman and Jahoda, 1978). We shall refer in

particular to one of the earlier notea: prepared in 1978 by J. Galtung, C. A. Mallmann and S.

Marcus, entitled "Notes on 'Visions of Desirable Worlds' and World Models", and shall identify

this an GMM.

1This is strictly a working paper, and the rather diverse and sometimes speculative material involved is often

poorly formulated and integrated. it will remarkable if we have not dropped some clangers - cybernetic,

epistemological, political economic, and so on - although we hope that the main arguments made here retain their

force. We must apologise for the length of this piece, too!



processes, and of future goal states are best conceptualised together, but kept distinct as formal

models. 5) Is Hierarchy Horrendous? Against Monolithic Models argues that in an ambitious

approach to drawing together a wide range of issues it can be more fruitful to develop a set of

submodels around a 'parent' model than to relate everything together in one incomprehensible

package. 6) Models and Worldyiews further points out that models need firm grounding in their

theoretical bases, and that modelling is no technical fix for theoretical divergences.

7) Theoretical Foundations for GPID Models: Some Suggestions outlines one theoretical

perspective useful to the GPID project and discusses some of the Issues it raises for modelling,

including the viability of using aspects of previous modelling studies in GPID. 8) Speculative

Models: Some Statistical Modelling Approaches presents a view of how processing of empirical

data in regression and path analysis could play a limited role in our work. 9) Speculative

Models: Conceptual and Computer Approaches takes up the practicability of using matrix

layouts as a means to Simplifying and relating together our material for various purposes, and

then indicates some possible directions for computer simulation approaches to GPID-type

Issues. 10) Conclusion does the same sort of job as this preface, for those readers shocked into

amnesia while working through this text. There are two tables and seven figures, and an

appendix on world modelling studies.

Introduction

The word 'model' has several distinct senses in social science, usually indicating some attempt to

express some state of difference from the use of 'theory'. Thus, sometimes 'models' are held to

be pre-theoretical analogies or impressionalistic images of processes which suggest some weakly

developed sense of how a system behaves. in contrast, 'models' are sometimes held to be very

highly specified versions of theories, so that it can be said that a given theoretical statement can

be represented by any number of models (each one only differing minimally from many of the

others). We shall be concerned with the second sense of the term in the present paper. This

seems to accord with the formulation of GMM:

2



"The word models in used here in its more general connotation, which refers to conceptual

models both formalised and un-formalised. The reason for this in that we believe that the most

important part of a model in always the conceptualisation it to based on and not so much the

tools which are used to formalise it".

Of course 'models' are distinguished from 'conceptualisations’, and this is related to the use of

'tools' which may be more or less formal. The tools are used to produce a model - a purported

representation of relationships characterising some aspect of the word - on the basis of

conceptualisations - 'mental models', which may take the form of relatively coherent well-

developed theories, or poorly integrated theories and analogies. By working on data concerning

aspects of the world, in terms of the categories provided by theory (that may itself be worked on

and modified in the process), a representation of these aspects of the world is produced which

may be communicated: the tools structure a language of sorts. in some cases this way be a more

or less precise everyday language; in other cases it may take the form of mathematics, algebraic

logic, or computer programmes; and in yet other cases the model may involve human behaviour

(an in simulation gaming). The model - understood as the rules which govern the game or

programme, the system of equations, etc. - can be used to produce an output, which again can

take various forms.

So far just about any project of the GPID project could be taken to be a model. Why, then, a

discussion of models outside of our regular methodological discussions? One clue lies in the

titles of the three previous GPID notes, which all bear the phrase 'world models' in their title.

This phrase generally refers to a class of computerised representations of the world system'2

some four of which have achieved some prominence in the 'world futures debate'. One possible

function for a GPID project's use of models might be to effect entry to this debate, to reach the

audiences that find these world models worthy of attention.

However, we would argue that we be clear from the outset that it in unduly limiting, and probably

2 the chief examples of these are reviewed in Freeman and Jahoda (1978), Cole (1977) and - together with a new

model - Chichilnisky and Cole (1978). One might bark back to earlier attempts to relate national economic modelstogether, as in the case of Project LINK, an also belonging within the class of 'world models', although these earlier

projects were constructed for short-term forecasting and accounting purposes rather than to study long-termdevelopment issues. We discuss previous world models in Appendix 1.

3



misleading, to restrict 'models' in 3 GPID to 'computerised world modelling'3 First

computerisation itself involves using technical languages which have their own drawbacks (not

least of which in the level of expertise required to determine the ever-changing level of

sophistication which mathematicians and cyberneticians have achieved in producing computerised

symbolisation of operations performed in other languages). Adequate critical analysis of

computer models is out of the question for most people, lacking as they are in the necessary

technical experience and dissuaded as they often are by the 'mystique' of the 'electronic brain';

thus computer models may be poor vehicles for communicating complex ideas. It is difficult, as

we shall elaborate below, to represent various important processes and forms of analysis in

computer models. And a computer model never stands alone: it in always located within some

theoretical discourse, some other system of modelling which provides the claims for it to be

relevant to understanding an aspect of the world. Second, 'world models', and the term has so

far been used, are barely capable of fruitfully bearing all of the sorts of analysis with which the

GPID project Is concerned. It in doubtful whether the bent-known models so far have penetrated

to any depth in accounting for world development issues: indeed, the earliest models did not

disaggregate the world into nations, while none of these models consider class differentiation

within nations4. It may be relevant for addressing many of the crucial Issues of world

development to construct computer models of national, regional, or other sub-divisions,

processes. While we shall argue that these models should not be constructed in Isolation fromanalysis of the world-system, they need not form part of a single computer model of the world.

This in not to argue that computer models, world models, or even computerized world models

are inappropriate to the GPID project. It is rather to enter a plea, before we enter a discussion

largely pitched at these macrosocietal and technical forms of representation, that other forms of

modelling not be overlooked. For example, gaming can be a powerful tool for demonstrating the

operation of social tendencies Bertell Ollman's simple board game Class Struggle is a successful

recent demonstration of this. There is considerable potential for gaming as a tool for generating

analytic and educational insights, and we would suggest that this be taken up at least by the

3To what extent this corresponds to earlier GPID notes is unclear. A note by Galtung in March argues for a 'soft,-

weaker type' of model to codify key research 'findings'. The other notes, however, are much less specific, and couldeasily be taken to refer to fairly esoteric forms - thus in a note by Marcus, Mallmann and Galtung, "world models

should be elaborated by means of a language having both natural and artificial components...."

4 We are reminded of Marx's strictures on taking population as the starting point of economic analysis. A model

that does (or at least does in some of its variants) take social class into account to some degree in its formulations inthe North-South model of Chichilnisky and Cole (1978).

4



project members considering forms of presentation.

More generally, computer and mathematical models need to be substantiated by other forms of

formal analysis. Formal models, in general, are purported representations of processes underlying

some aspect of the world, in a language with well-defined terms (and rules for consistency etc.).

Relatively well-defined-terms offer some precision of expression - in the case of arithmetic and

formal logic, rigid rules of operation provide (and may demand) considerable precision, while

being quite demanding of expertise. These factors have an intimate bearing on the uses of

models, as we shall now see with reference to the GPID project.

2. What Are Models For?

In order to assess whether the GPID project should consider constructing models, and, If so,

what form these might take, we should have a reasonable Idea of what these models are to be

used for. For example, Johan Galtung's February note ("Some Reflections on World Models")

makes the points that “through coding, model operation, and decoding it should be possible to

arrive at propositions (theorems) insights not easily arrived at without the models .... these

processes may also stifle creativity, and generate proposals and insights in wrong directions" and

suggests that a GPID model should "perhaps mainly serve as a codification of key researchfindings (sic) and as heuristic to participants and others".

Let us distinguish between three related uses of models: the specification and development of

theories; the analysis of questions of strategy and choice; and the communication and

presentation of principles, results or strategic options. Formal models, expressed in relatively

well-defined languages, have a number of advantages and disadvantages in respect of each of

these possible roles. (See Table 1: we should note that different judgements of what constitutes

(dis)advantage are not uncommon - for example, mystification may be a positive asset to some

modellers and model users5 ). Models may be used to analyse in some detail the consequence of

both minor differences in theoretical specifications an well as more major changes in assumptions,

varying data bases, special cases, etc. Likewise, they may be used to simulate the effects of

interventions or other erogenous (i.e. unmodelled) changes in the system under consideration.

And models may be used for various communication Purposes: to structure a dialogue over

5 Thus, see Atklnson and Kuqch (1977), Clark and Cole (1976) and Golub and Townsend (1977) on world models,

or Cole and Turner (1979) and floss (1972) on the use of models in social planning.

5



theoretical issues, to demonstrate that a particular type of analysis can be expressed in terms no

less 'scientific' than those of mainstream analysts (or to mystify the theory - and value -

commitments which underly an analysis, so as to legitimate decisions with which it is consistent

no neutral, rational, etc.)6

6 it is not necessary to mystify with models. Bibby (1977) has pointed out that the technical sophistication of

mathematical models makes their evaluation@ difficult for the untrained: but what is most Important Is thealleged correspondence between the model and empirical phenomena. Formal models are themselvesgenerally silent on this metaIssue, of course, but the researcher can be at pains to make the necessity of, andthe specific nature of, conceptual and Ideological stages in modelling clear. One need not proclaim modelresults as being proved by value-free computers; one need not argue that quantitative analyses are intrinsicallymore valud and rigorous than others; one need not argue for technical devices an solving theoretical problems.in the GPID project a model may in principle be used to facilitate communication among researchers and to

depict and drew attention to the broad outlines of the conclusions of various studies without suchdissimulation.

6



Table 1 Formal Models and Research Projects

ISSUES OF: ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES1. Scope, Impact and

Resources of Project

a) can in principle allow for

closer relationship of subprojects

b) can be a vehicle of communication to wideaudience means of drawing attention toresults of study

c) requires additional

technical division of labour which is liable to beinstitutes through divisivesocial divisions of labour.

d) Costs of some formaltechniques – like computer simulation – are very high

e) Technical language andmystique frequentlymystifies results, leading touncritical attitudes or

apathy on part of audience

2. Theoretical and IntellectualDevelopment

f) can involve clearer thinking, more systematicspecification of theory anddata.

g) Can provide a basis andfocus for discussion andconfrontation of different

perspectives

h) difficult to represent manytypes of relationship informal languages (egcomputerised dialectics!)

i) Liable to divertattention and resourcesinto methodological issuesspecific to particular modelling techniques.

j) May trigger prematureor tangential confrontationof perspectives and feed

intellectual rigidity.

7



Thus in the GPID project there are at least three possible roles for modelling. (1) As a means of

developing our theoretical approaches, both through using the model(s) as means or focus of

dialogue among participants and through relating it to empirical material and appraising. The

usefulness of its necessarily idealised representation of such data. (2) As one means of evaluating

alternative strategies and courses of development or change, as a focus for debate among

participants concerning such alternatives, as a means for understanding the conjunctural

specificity of tactics, etc. (3) As a means of promoting the analyses and results of the study in

various settings, for example to demonstrate to technocratic planners that orthodox approaches

are not the only candidates for 'mathematically rigorous' treatment, or to combat conclusions of

other modelling studies cited in public discourse.

These three possible uses have some parallels with three dimensions of the GPID project: namely

processes, strategies and goals. Throughout these three uses attention has been directed to the

possibilities (both virtues and limitations) of modelling an a means of communication and an

element in dialogue. In terms of processes, a model may be used to represent the historical

development and current status of social relationships relevant to the GPID project. A model can

help us to understand these issues of concern better, to the extent that it describes the structures

and processes underlying empirical phenomena, giving intelligibility to the postulated

unobservable mechanisms (see Kest and Urry, 1976). Second, in terms of goals, a model might be constructed so as to demonstrate the theoretical viability of alternative systems of social

relationships (an in the egalitarian, basic needs-fulfilment world of Herrera et.al, 1977). This

would not be the Ideal-type model of an instrumentalist philosophy of science but an attempt to

represent the central structural features of a transformed world. Given the lack of a world

planning agency, most computerised world models have taken the form of propaganda devices.

Third, in terms of strategies for change, a model might be used to study processes of

transformation: to outline in broad terms the possible routes and phases of development between

the contemporary world and futures founded on different social relations. As pointed out in the

above discussion and Table 1, a model may facilitate debate on any of these three issues. It may

also be used to mystify, and a special effort may be needed to delimit the use of a model in GPID

work from the mystifying conventions of social science discourse.

8



3. An Unavoidable Diversion: Organisational and Resource requirements

Let us step aside from the main thread of our discussion for a moment. We have specified at a

very general level certain advantages and disadvantages associated with modelling for the GPID

project. Assuming that the project members judged that the intellectual and impact advantages of

some form of computer models can be made to outweigh the disadvantages here, what of the

organisational and resource requirements? Computer modelling is an expensive business, even

though computing facilities are themselves becoming cheaper. Expertise in programming is called

for, and previous world modelling studies have typically been developed by quite large (10 or

more researchers) interdisciplinary teams.

Good communication has to be established within the team so that the mutual adequacy of

different parts of the work can be established. Clark and Cole (1975) reported that "a most

Important ingredient for successful cooperation in a world modelling effort seems to be a

compatible political and value framework among the researchers. Many of the problems which

have arisen in various modelling efforts come from this source and from questions of status

within the group ... probably the most efficient team would consist of a few highly expert,

hardworking individuals of a similar political outlook". It seems feasible that the GPID project

could involve a number of individuals in modelling work - but that it would be vital to ensure thatthe project's needs were clearly specified, and that the 'modellers' worked closely with other

project members.

Modelling is, furthermore, an expensive business. As well as wages, computer time has to be

paid for. Sam Cole suggests that a serious world modelling effort starting from scratch is likely

to cost several hundred thousand U.S. dollars. Clearly we have to consider whether this sort of

financial commitment bent suits the project needs. It is not impossible, however, that ways might

be found around some of the expenses involved. Various institutions might be prevailed upon to

make computer facilities available free of charge. One possibility to consider is that GPID

modelling need not necessarily start from 'scratch'. It might be worth considering making use of

an existing world model, developing and modifying it to suit our purposes. (See Appendix 1 for a

brief review of models). It might prove satisfactory to engage two or three research students to

work in collaboration with an extant modelling project, perhaps the most economical way of

proceeding. The main problems here would revolve around the compatibility of the model (or

models) chosen with GPID approaches, and the maintenance of good communication channels

9



with the students (and members of the ongoing project with which they work).

We believe that the decision to make any major modelling effort must involve consideration of the

above factors. If it in judged too difficult to proceed in their light, then there may well be

grounds for individual project members to make use of less ambitious computer modelling - even

world modelling - in their work. And, as argued before, it could be well worth considering

'alternative technologies' in the field of modelling, such as simulation gaming, for any of the three

general uses of models within GPID. In the next sections of the paper, however, we will consider

other questions concerning the development of computer models in the GPID project:

approaches to modelling that may or may not be useful to us here. Much of the following

discussion is not specific to computerised modelling.

4. Is Small Beautiful? Notes Against the Juggernaut Models (With A Digression on

Desirable Futures)

Resuming our discussion of the uses of models, we should now point out that different types of

model, or submodel, way be most appropriate for different aims of the GPID project. For

internal communication within the project, no more than a matrix or checklist of issues may be

required. In the case of Issues with which the GPID project is concerned - understanding the processes and structures of the present world, assessing strategies and contradictions which are

relevant to the transition to a future world, and the Illustration and specification of the viability of

alternative futures - it may be useful to construct different models.

Let us refer to the present stage of the world an I, the transition process II, and the future world

Ill. This in not to assert a static present and future, linked by a process of transition. But I and Ill

may be structurally different forms of society, and there are various grounds for thinking that

structural transformations are necessary conditions for achieving a variety of social goals. Within

any one structural form, of course, considerable change in possible (indeed such change is a

structural necessity of contradictory social formations)7.

However, there are good reasons why models of 1, II and 11 should not be formulated in

Isolation (for example by attempting to determine 1 and II and then turning attention to II). If

they do not derive from a common approach - one which must be more elaborated than the set of

7 Perhaps an analogy with matrix algebra in order. I and Ill may be taken as initial and final matrices, with 11 a

vector transforming one to the other: I . II-------III

10



concerns uniting most GPID members - then it will be Impossible to relate together post hoe

without doing violence to one or other of the bodies of assumptions employed.

We would argue that what is required is an approach that is both dialectical and materialist.

Specifying a future in vacuo as a desirable possibility is seen from this approach an itself a rather

mystified practice. A 'vision of a desirable future' is inevitably derived from a critical analysis of k

resent forms, an analysis which determines with more or less adequacy the limitations of the

present and the present contingencies which constrain future development.8

The crucial aspect of this analysis in the identification of what material processes can link 1, 11

and Ill (an opposed to a purely logical unhistorical specification of the differences between I and

Ill): which means locating the social agencies which are capable of bringing about, societal

transformation, and determining which agencies are interested in so doing.

The existing differentiation of subprojects in GPID might encourage an approach of formulating

models of I, II and Ill in relative isolation. This would run the risk of failing to relate together I

and 111 through tensions and contradictions in I that provide the possibility for change, through

positing a 111 which expresses constrained and suppressed potentials of the present.

Furthermore, it in necessary to formulate III on the basin of a critical analysis of I precisely toavoid replicating the failures of many past utopian writers whose visions can now be seen to be

dependent upon culture-bound notions of human nature9. This critical analysis must probe

beneath the dissimulations of I in order to model its underlying structures (including those that

produce fetishism, and the alienated, Isolated individual of dominant social theories). The details

of future Ill will inevitably correspond to the specificities of transition process II, which in itself a

matter of conflict and choice. Thus only fairly broad aspects of Ill could be modelled with any

analytic value, although it may be worth constructing some specific scenarios for communication

8 GPID members have often been divided over the case for several subprojects - see for example, the undercurrents

of the Report of the Second Planning Meeting og the GPID project (Geneva, 31 January, 1978) There has beensome confusion concerning whether particular subproject; are being criticised per as, or from their lack of deepinterconnectedness with the other subprojects. There in evidently some concern about a possible Idealism inspecifying a desirable future to which movements in the present are then assumed to tend, in a kind of Hegellandialectic.

9 Thus to fit humanity into their notions of an Ideal world, either social controls were proposed which could contain

the 'vices and passions' of their contemporaries, or else miraculous transformations of human nature were involved.What in necessary, however, is to proceed in an analysis of how social consciousness and practices are themselvesreconstituted in processes.of transformation II (an well an the possible obstacles to this process: a matter taken up

by some materialist psychoanalysts in the 1930a and largely neglected since.

11



purposes or for a form of 'sensitivity analysis' of alternative strategies.

We have rather laboriously argued, then, that GPID models could be constructed relevant to

processes, strategies and goals, but that these steps should not be taken in Isolation. The

modelling of I, II and Ill must be integral parts of the same analysis, not independent studies to

be integrated together 10 However, it does not necessarily imply that I, II and Ill should all be

represented in the same model - indeed, we believe that it would be unwise to consider

computerising a juggernaut model which would encapsulate all the tasks of the GPID project

simultaneously. On grounds of cost and skill requirements, alone, such a model would be

daunting!

Different purposes for a model may well suggest the development of different models;11 a point

to bear in mind in considering worlds I, II and Ill. For example, the Beriloche team set out to

demonstrate the physical viability of a more egalitarian world order in the near future, showing

that under reasonable assumptions there was good reason to believe that the basic needs of the

population of all world regions could be met without running into severe resource constraints

(Herrera et.al. 1977). To demonstrate this was taken to be an Important scientific and political

task (given the Malthusian controversy) and the Bariloche model accordingly paid little attention

to the formal analysis of present structures of transition processes (the framework would seem to be dependency theory); different models would be required for these purposes.

10 Thus we have reservations concerning the suggestion in GMM that 'different models should be progressively

integrated in unified theories of social reality and development'. The integration of diverse objects certainlyrequires the application of a unified theory: but applying such a theory to an already constructed model may benonsensical, it the bases of the theory differs from those of the perspective incorporated into the model. We willreturn to this point later.

11 Which does not rule out the possibility of re-use of an extant model for different purposes to those originally

involved. See Griffiths, Irvine and Miles for a discussion of the Issues here (1979).

12



Likewise, it may be an unduly complicated tank to attempt to produce a single model which can

represent, in more than the most general form, two different social formations. The difference

between two such formations in Immensely greater than, say, the difference between two

empirical variants of the same social formation. Thus, the calibration of a given economic model

to two different mixed economies in relatively easy. in the case of different social formations,

qualitative differences in the meaning attached to particular variables exist, while quite different

relationships may hold between variables that themselves remain defined in similar terms. A

'single' model able to encompass two such formations (in any but the most broad terms 12 ) must

be either a pair of models linked be a programme which can specify the restructuring of variables

and relationships (either in terms of chronologically ordered and interdependent set of relations

governing and expressing the transformation process, or which would presumably be by a single

step of reconstitution), or involve a meta-model which itself determines the variables and

relationship to be brought into play at any moment. While such approaches are conceivable – at

least where a very small number of variables are involved – the more practicable route would be

to construct, within coherent theoretical framework, different models corresponding to different

historical epochs I, II and III.

5. I s Hierarchy Horrendous? Against Monolithic Models

Problems still remain for a project as ambitious as GPID, and these lead to our extending the

argument developed above concerning the need to consider several modes (conceptualised in an

integral, dialectical fashion, we reiterate, rather than merely being the focus of occasional

confrontations) rather than to orient activity towards a single juggernaut of a formal model. The

relevant features of the project which have a bearing on the question of models and submodels

are first, the multiplicity and complexity of the issues with which we are concerned, and second,

the different theoretical perspectives and worldviews which various participants have developed.

In this section we will consider the first of these features. The organisation of the GPID project

itself suggests the multiplicity and complexity of the issues covered. In the GMM paper at first

evaluation is made that the ‘processes and topics which are most relevant (for the attainment of

12

A broadly conceived ‘model’ of this sort could in principle be useful. We doubt, however, whether it couldform the basis of a more specific submodel of different formations.

13



the goals of development equitably13 each and every present and future human being of the world

in an integral way the quality of life of the poorest from the material and non-material point of

view) and which have not yet been modelled adequately” include: a) political centralisation and

marginalisation processes b) historical expansion and exploitation processes c) psychological

authoritarian and obedience enculturation processes d) distribution of activities throughout

society e) needs satisfier distribution patterns. As GMM points out ‘the previous list is certainly

incomplete’, and as noted before they argue that ‘the strategy should be .to construct partial

models of essential components of a model which as one gets along are connected in order to

arrive at a progressively more integrated model’. We have already expresses doubts concerning

this latter methodological point. The approach implied resembles an empiricist, positivist view of

the advance of science by an accumulation of discrete ‘findings’, of ‘grand theories’ as accretions

of ‘middle-range theories’. This begs the question of what principles are to be used for

integration, and of what sort of theory (commonsense?) underlies the isolated models delimitation

one from another in the first place.

We would propose that a different tack be taken, one which does not begin with an (empiricist?)

specification of disturbing issues and set out to produce explanation and models of each which

can be progressively integrated to form a grand model. This sort of ‘holism’ has characterised

previous world models, and its typical consequence has been a lack of scrutiny of the receivedideas underlying the sub-models (which have sometimes been in some conflict). Furthermore, it

already involves some mystification in that the ‘theoretical’ basis of the initial categorisation of

issues remains unsounded. As we argued in the case of models for I, II and III, integrated

approach would ideally involve starting with a coherent theory and then developing submodels

relating specific issues in terms of this. (Of course, the process is dialectical; the study of

concrete points may lead to modifications in the abstract analysis). We must thus focus on the

development of submodels around a more general model, rather than plan on a movement in

research from more limited to more general forms of representation.

Given the diversity and complexity of the issues in question, then, we are arguing for the

development of submodels in order to ‘focus in on’ specific issues of concern. This approach is

actually that taken in the North-South model reported in Chichilnisky and Cole (1978a, b). In

that study, a general model has been developed to study relations between central and peripheral

13These parentheses are abstracted from the GMM paper. It should be noted that the term ‘equity’ is generally

associated with a particular view of the world and that its meaning is certainly shaped in different ways bydifferent theoretical perspectives

14



economies: it can exist in a range of calibrations for different specific countries, of course, but it is

also specified in a number of different versions taking into account different categorisations of

commodities, income groups, and regions. To pursue particular issues in depth, submodels are

developed which single out the appropriate variables and relations for analysis – thus allowing for

easier analysis and clearer interpretations of the role of different determinations in the area of

concern.

Other arguments also tend to support an approach oriented towards developing several relatively

simple submodels around a ‘parent’ model rather than seeking to construct one extremely

complex model. McLean (1978) has pointed to ‘the tendency of models to become more and

more complex as additional relationships and variables are added to the existing structure.

Increasing complexity leads in turn to a reduced motivation to challenge the basic structural

assumptions of the model one of the most important theoretical advantages of model-

building, the way in which underlying assumptions are made explicit, is often vitiated in practice

by the extreme complexity of the representation chosen’. McLean argues for the construction of

‘a range of explanatory models’ rather than ‘ a single elaborate, untestable, complex dynamic

model’, and advocates the use of methods enabling ‘the rapid construction of alternative dynamic

structural models’. Likewise, Clarke et al (1977) argue against ‘general-purpose models’ and for

‘more compact, issue-specific models, with a clear purpose in view’.

So far, then, our suggested approach to formal modelling within the GPID project may be

represented something like figure 1.

It can be seen that we attach a critical role to the use of general principles of social theory, which

perhaps relates to the GMM argument that ‘the most important part of a model is always the

conceptualisation it is based upon. This point brings us round to next issue we need to consider,

and again it is one raised in McLean’s paper: that large and complex models not only raise

problems of interpretation and inertia, but also may conceal problems of theoretical diversity.

15



16

Figure 1 Modelling in GPID

Examination of previous literature

ongoing research Debate and discussion

among project members

Formulation of general principlesfor analysing social formations

and transformations (identification of central

social relationships)

I II III

Recuperation of existing model(s), or production of related models of differentstages of world development

(or possible development within a single, simplifies society)

submodels concerning specificissues in world I, includingissues opening up prospectsof transportation

submodels concerningconjunctural and issue-related aspects of transition processes

Submodels concerningspecific issues in World III?



6. Models and Worldviews

We have suggested that modelling is most likely to be useful when it is based upon explicit and

coherent theoretical perspectives, where a ‘parent’ model is constructed within such perspectives

with due caution concerning the problems of representing historical processes within a formal

model, and where a ‘family’ of submodels is constructed around the ‘parent’ to provide insights

concerning specific issues of concern. However, within the GPID project, there is some diversity

of theoretical perspectives; this obviously has implications for any modelling approach which

places emphasis on the role of theoretical constructions.

We should discount one possibility immediately. There is no (non-mystificatory) way in which

modelling could be a ‘technical fix’, reconciling diverse approaches within a varified system.

Diverse approaches can of course coexist within a joint project, but then their differences are a

continual matter for debate and mutual criticism (hopefully constructive!) while any joining

decisions must be a matter of coalition and compromise in the pursuit of common ends.

Compromise on programmatic grounds is one thing; compromise on scientific matters another.

Two different analyses may both identify benefits in a single common strategy; they may indeed

sharpen their mutual understanding by evaluating the processes and consequences of cooperation.

Thus, for example, few people would object in principle to the presentation (and confrontation)of analyses deriving from different world-views as chapter in a collection of essays. However,

two analyses with substantive differences are unlikely to provide. Or find acceptable, a common

rationale for a simplified analysis framework such as is involved in modelling. Different variables

and relationships are identified from different perspectives; what in one analysis is the core, in

another analysis is often no more than a phenomenal and reified appearance. Reconciling

analyses of different issues, or of the same issue, is only possible when the differences between

analyses are trivial (in theoretical terms – there may be a wealth of difference in terms of the

available empirical substantiation within a shared set of criteria), or where a dialogue between

researchers is possible which can enable one or both to transcend their existing perspectives 14. A

model can transcend nothing, being no more than a formal representation of a system or process

derived from a perspective that has itself to be specified in full detail. (Although the

systematisation often involved in modelling may be useful guide to assessing internal

14 Thus in previous work (Freeman and Jahoda, 1978, or see Miles, Cole and Gershuny’s presentation to the

January 1978 GPID meeting) we found it necessary to spell out the consequences of using different world-views in analysing possibilities for the world’s future. On intellectual grounds and in terms of the political and

theoretical differences within the research group involved in that study, it was out of the question to attempt a‘synthesis’ of approaches starting out from fundamentally different methodological principles.

17



inconsistencies implausibilities involved in a perspective).

A second possibility, and one which we would not rule out, is that modelling, while not resolving

differences, can facilitate fruitful confrontation and dialogue between researchers. In the main

this has not been the result of most modelling exercises to date, where there have been tendencies

to uncritically accept or equally uncritically reject models without any detailed analysis of what

their assumptions might entail15. In part this is because modellers have tended to share similar

political affiliations and theoretical assumptions; in part because they are more interested in the

delights of baroque methodology than in the relevance of their models to the process in the social

world which the models are purported to represent; and in part because the complexity of

computer models is often so great as to make it difficult to locate the finer threads of ‘theory’ that

run through them, let alone to determine which particular assumptions are most directly

responsible for any given set of model results16.

Nevertheless, simple models might facilitate dialogue between GPID researchers. Being asked to

specify the crucial factors of a development process in a formal language can help to cut through

sometimes ponderous and off-putting verbiage; although the obscurity of modellers’ jargon may

itself be little improvement! (see table 1). But the debate that hopefully ensues between

proponents of different worldviews cannot restrict itself to the terms involved in the model: it willalmost inevitably draw upon political and methodological considerations.

Such dialogues can be immensely valuable provided they avoid theoreticism or gestural polemics!

But we must acknowledge that there are difficulties and limitations here. First, there are

limitations to the rationalist view of scientific discourse, in which debates are seen to be resolved

by a lucid confrontation of intellectual perspectives. Rather, theoretical and political commitments

are intertwined, and the decision to participate in or withdraw from a dialogue is not solely

determined by factors internal to the dialogue. It may well be that in many circumstances a

researcher will see better hopes for illustrating her/his theory via other means of action than

15 Some exceptions here are Cole et al 1973 analysis of The Limits to Growth, gutman (1975) on Time On

The Cross, and Gough 91976) on gravity models in town planning. See Irvine, Miles and Evans 91979) for related arguments and counter arguments concerning the use of social statistics.16 Thus, McLean (1978) reports that the reasons for the ‘collapse’ behaviour of the Limits to Growth model are

other than has been assumed by most commentators. One approach to ‘untangling’ the behaviour of complexmodels is that adopted by McLean et al (1976), who have prepared a programme which analyses modelstructure and searches for the dominant relationships – an approach which has been used with some success in

producing pared-down versions of juggernaut models. But instead of simulating simulations, it is more practicable for us to begin with simple models!

18



discussion of computer models, or will simply wish to reserve judgement on an issue cloakal with

expertise, or substantiated by expert witness. Second, there are clearly going to be practical

difficulties in involving researchers in the process of model construction and debate. It is hard to

imagine the necessary personnel being readily available for the laborious process, another point to

bear in mind concerning place limitations on the effectiveness of attempting to realise our second

possibility.

A third possible role for modelling within GPID related to the preceding ones, and attempts to

incorporate pluralism into the modelling procedure itself. This would involve the development of

alternative models (or submodels) by different researchers in the GPID project. Such models

could be developed with some measure of independence at the researchers’ convenience and the

process of confrontation and dialogue channelled through the regular project meetings. There are

two chief drawbacks to this approach. First, we may be confronted by a proliferation of models,

perhaps even employing different simulation approaches, and have to devote much effort to

making sense of their harmonies, discord and silences. The potential impact of report describing

divergent models, to, is likely to be far less than of one portraying a clear-cut (if controversial)

analysis, and the appropriate strategy for coping with a range of complex issues would be to

develop a ‘family’ of submodels ar ound a relatively highly abstract and idealised ‘parent’ model.

Given the diversity of approaches within GPID, this would seem to demand several different‘parent’ models, not all of which would be of equal relevance to particular researchers and

research groups. The alternatives to this would seem to be the development of one single family

of models which represents only a limited portion of the spectrum of views within GPID. Of

course, the project members might move considerably closer towards consensus on a range of

fundamental issues, but such a process which is not likely to be encouraged by a premature

attempt to develop a single modelling framework.

We seem to have argued ourselves into a gradiloquent strategy here. Not only does the range of

issues necessitate a family of submodels, but the range of worldviews and the need to consider

epochs I, II and III points to the need for a set of such families! Indeed, this is a formidable

prospect, and one that would pose severe problems of organisation. But it is not, for all that,

unthinkable. The North-South model of Chichilnisky and Cole (1978) is intended to be

developed in a number of different forms, with different assumptions corresponding to (modified)

neoclassical, neo-Ricardian and Marxian economic theories17. Debate among members of the

17 Such a ‘pluralistic’ approach is not quite as bland as that taken in our earlier work (eg Freeman and Jahoda,

19



research group in question revolves not around the practicability of doing this but about the order

to work that would be best advance the study, and the appropriateness of different interpretations

of each approach to understanding ‘economic’ change. Furthermore, we should reiterate for

GPID members that it need not be necessary for all of the formal modelling to take the form of

computer simulation; it could be possible to develop the more quantitative studies, for example,

so that they are linked together by systematic qualitative analyses. On the other hand, it may be

useful to study a specific issues in qualitative detail after have formulated some of the broader

parameters in quantitative terms. The aim, after all, is to make flexible use of models: not to

rigidly apply a particular formal technique, nor to erect mathematical monoliths for later

generations to marvel at (or play among the ruins of).

7. Theoretical Foundations for GPID Models: Some Suggestions

Much of the preceding discussion has been abstract and procedural; in part this derives from the

situation that the GPID project is a rather disparate and diverse effort. This is not a criticism of

the project per se: its very diversity makes it a stimulating site for cross-fertilisation between

different disciplines and approaches. However, this does make for problems not usually

confronted by modelling exercises. Many modelling studies rest on a received tradition of

analysis; rather than go into theoretical exposition, they lurch immediately into constructingsimulations. These received traditions take for granted many of the factors that are themselves

taken as problems in the GPID group. The appropriate approach for developing models relevant

to alternative perspectives, in contract, is liable to be one in which ‘definitions are relational and

built up gradually through the text – a few key relations are expounded, and these are looked at

from a number of different points of view as other relations are pointed out, the full meaning

of the major concepts begins to emerge ’ Only in this process are mathematical equations

defined, and while these can be ‘rich implications for an understanding of the dynamics it is

the theory in which the model is set and not the equations themselves which provides the

explanation of dynamic ’(Sayer 1978)18.

1978) – for, in the present example, it has proved possible to use neoclassical assumptions to expose thecontradictions of neoclassical prescriptions. But exposing contradictions in a theoretical corpus is hardly thesame as exposing contradictions (which can be the site of activity) in the social world that is the object of

theory.18

Sayer is discussing problems in urban and regional modelling, and contrasting the use of models by

neoclassical theorists (who begin ‘by defining cariables K is capital, T is trips, etc ) with the simpleanalyses used in Capital by Marx.

20



We have drawn attention to the central role of the theoretical perspectives in guiding modelling.

In order to consider how GPID modelling approach might be developed, in more that the most

general terms, we need to have a theoretical perspective on which to base and elaborate our

examples. While recognising that our approach is inevitably rather speculative and will be

inadequate on various counts, we shall attempt to set out a brief characterisation of the

standpoint which we are attempting to work from, and which has already flavoured much of the

previous discussion.

Adequate accounts of social change are here as being necessarily materialistic, in that they must

refer to the transactions within and between societies and between society and nature – that is not

to draw upon influences that are extra worldy or cannot themselves be identified in terms of

material processes. Central to such accounts of social change are analyses of the labour

processes whereby people produce their life and satisfy their needs in common. Individuals are

not pre-social creatures whose needs are innately determined, but are themselves agents

constituted in specific social formations. The social relations which characterise these formations

determine both specific organisations of needs and specific organisations of labour processes, in

intimate relation. Thus history is a social product, but rather than the result of agglomerations of

individual choices, it needs to be seen as the result of social relations: among which those

governing the labour process are most salient, although no all-important, Particular structures of these relations of production – the place they assign to producers, non-workers, the means of

production – are termed modes of production: they condition the role of other factors in bringing

about social change.

In the present world system, a number of observations are in order: the dominant economic

powers are those founded on the capitalist mode of production, although even within the most

‘mature’ of these countries traces of other production relations may be located; it has been argued

that many Third World countries may fruitfully be seen as characterised by an articulation of an

imported capitalist mode of production (CMP) with other forms (sometimes modified versions of

extant local feudalism); while the ‘state socialist’ countries may be considered to be transitional

between the CMP and socialist production relations, although with no necessary trend towards

the latter, and a variety of peculiar features reflecting the prolongation of transitional processes

within a hostile environment (although others might find it more acceptable to view these

countries as evidencing as etatist CMP, and Asiastic mode, or an entirely mew node of

production). These observations have implications for a modelling strategy: for example, it may

21



be possible to build idealised models of significant features of the First world in some abstraction

from the global context, but this is unlikely to prove satisfactory for studying many aspects of the

Second and Third Worlds.

The sort of theoretical perspective outlined here (which often goes under the same name of

historical materialism) should keep us alert to the social construction of our world, and to the

historically transitory nature of particular patterns of social organisation. In terms of strategies,

it suggests consideration of class relations: of structures of hegemony and dominance in the

maintenance of oppressive features of existing social formations, and of the role of different

classes in the transformation of societies. Classes are defined relative to positions in the structure

of production relations, and in the CMP the central differentiation between classes is between

capitalists (who own and control the major means of production) and the proletariat (who are

dependent on the sale of their labour-power for subsistence, and thus engage in the labour

process which renders the means of production, productive being exploited in the process by

creating more value than the are returned). Other classes exist, however, by virtue of the

elaboration of certain pre-capitalist social relationships within the CMP and/or its incomplete

development – eg peasants, petty bourgeoisie etc. and other important cleavages exist in society:

the sexual division of labour (structured around reproduction rather than production),

cultural/regional divisions, ethnic groups, etc. The point is, not to take these as given, but tounderstand what forces maintain divisions along these lines and what processes such divisions in

turn mediate.

This brief exposition would need to be elaborated to be much more than a caricature, but it

provides a starting point for a discussion of modelling. For example, it readily leads us to agree

with the position stated in the GMM paper that GPID models should go beyond the economic –

thus we must consider making explicit use of variables beyond those typically employed in

econometric studies or in recent world models. Indeed, this approach throws into question the

whole notion of ‘economics’ as isolated from other areas of analysis: we see that at heart

‘economic’ variables involve social relations. This is not the approach taken in other world

models. All of these models are fundamentally models of capital accumulation, which is certainly

a vital feature of the CMP, but they treat this in a reified way, as an economic phenomenon, albeit

one with ecological and sociological implications. For us, however, capital accumulation is no

mere technical process of the self-expansion of capital, but is itself a process of class conflict

(embodying exploitations, ideology struggles over workplace control and productivity levels, the

22



role of the state in providing the necessary social conditions etc). The dynamic tendencies of

capital accumulation are abstract postulates whose empirical realisation is dependent upon a wide

ranging, structured, but contradictory, set of social factors19. By analysis of capital accumulation

in terms of social relations, we also embark upon analysis of two other vital processes: class

conflict and crises (viz Fine and Harris, 1977).

What does this imply about the use of ideas or indeed whole systems from previous modelling

within the GPID project? We would suggest that the problems are posed most deeply by

considered the case of a historical materialist approach, precisely because this approach

represents the most radical break with the conventions of orthodox approaches; however, they

are likely to be confronted by other tendencies within the GPID project. No world model which

we are aware of (including the existing specifications of the Chichilnisky-Cole North-South

model) is adequately constructed for the approach we have just outlined, although some have

more in common with it than others. Furthermore, existing models have (on the whole) more to

offer in respect of epoch I than of II and III. (Bariloche is the exception).

If resources were limitless, there would be little reason not to recommend developing our own

approach de novo. As they are not, we should consider whether the best strategy is to make use

of models at most only in very highly delimited circumstances, or whether to set out to makeadvantage of existing modelling work. The feasibility of this latter strategy is a mater for

discussion and experiment, but some preliminary thoughts may be entered here.

First, it could be possible to make use of ‘conventional’ economic variables and relationships

under certain strictly defined conditions. They must, of course, be relevant; and it will be

necessary to introduce variables not as self-evident categories, but as variables interpreted within

a particular theoretical framework. This may mean deciding not to use, or to restructure, certain

variables, either on practical or theoretical grounds. Population estimate, labour supply, per

19We may also raise the point here that it may prove inappropriate to place much emphasis on mathematical

formulations that treat variables as if they were discrete entities, related only by causal links. Whilecorresponding to well-established atomistic practices in Western philosophy, such an approach has come under sharp attack (from, for example, some systems theorists and modern physicists), and it has been cogentlyargued that a historical materialist approach to social analysis would be best founded on an account of the‘internal relations’ of variables. (See, especially, Ollman, 1976, and Pannekoek, 1975). Fuzzy set theoryappears as a possible mathematical candidate for dealing with such formulations – but we suspect a) tha as as‘technical fix’ it carries its own ideological commitments that require close scrutiny b) involvement infashionable and complicated methods of this sort is likely to mean devoting far too much energy on technical

issues. Hinrichsen (1976) argues that fuzzy set theory is liable to lead to fuzzy theories of society of appliedtoo liberally to systems modelling

23



capita income levels, nutritional standards, productivity - at appropriate levels of (dis)aggregation

we might choose to use these. On practical grounds one might reject an indicator as irrelevant -

as in the Bariloche model, where per capita income was judged less important that the

consumption of basic goods. Likewise, the definitions of sectors may be unconventional for

sound theoretical reasons: the North-South model, for example, uses 'basic', 'luxury' and 'capital'

goods sectors rather than the more usual industrial classifications or 'primary', 'secondary' and

'tertiary'. It may be possible to retain relationships from other models, too, providing their uses is

suitably qualified by a sound rationale for expecting 'superficial' asiciations to continue to hold

true, and by appropriate warnings to those to whom the results are presented. Demographic

models may be a case in point, wher very little change would be needed for many purposes.

Second, it seems reasonable for a GPID model to make extensive use of 'economic' variables,

both because these are relatively well quantifies (although often premises that are theor etically

faulty) and because we would see the development and deployment of productive forces as being

central to an analysis of world development. However, many of the critical processes which we

would wish to discuss operate at a level removed from empirical fluctuations and trends - namely,

processes in terms of values rather than prices. It may be possible to develop models in value

terms which would illustrate relatively abstract tendencies, and more complicated (and possible

interactive) models to represent some aspects of their empirical working-out. A related point

here is that most modelling efforts (the North-South model, and Forrester's recent work (1977)

being exceptions, and these being cast in the framework of 'cycles' rather than 'crises') have had

the remarkably property of representing capital accumulation without reproducing the capitalist

crises which form part of this process.

Given the significance of crises in the restructuring of sectors, national economies, and the world

system, and in conditioning the possibilities for social and political transformations, the GPID

project should be prepared to take this issue on board in modelling work.

Third, despite their neglect of underlying structures, conflicts, and crisis tendencies in the world

system, some aspects of existing world models may still be relevant for developing GPID models

and sub-models. For example, in formulating images of future tendencies in respect of 'basic

needs' (or such categories as welfare, security, identify and freedom), it may prove useful to

consider how existing models have attempted to grapple with questions of international and

domestic income distribution (where the data problems may be less intractable). In Appendix 1

24



we present a brief account of world models of interest. Only the North-South model relates

inter- and intra-national distribution, and that at a very aggregated level.

Fourth, it may be possible to build upon existing models for some purposes, or to use an

interactive approach of sorts. It is not strictly necessary to explicitly incorporate all of the factors

of interest within the structure of submodels. Often it may be preferable to represent the

possible role of variables which are themselves difficult to quantify in terms of adjustments to

more traditional parameters. Workers' resistance to technical changes, for example, might be

incorporated via exogenous modifications to the rate of change of productivity coefficients in a

model of capital accumulation. Re-distributional struggles could be represented by changing

income or consumption distribution patterns. The rationale for such exogenous adjustments to a

formal model would need to be spelled out explicitly: perhaps we would be making use here of a

number of scenarios of possible developments in class relations.

Our fifth, and final point is that going beyond conventional 'economic' variables and assumptions

is bound to provoke criticism from orthodox economists and other discipline-bound social

scientists. To some extent their criticisms may hold, in that it may be difficult to find adequate

data (or even to elaborate adequate theory) to produce a quantitative model. This has not

prevented modellers in the past trading on the spurious precision that can be produces by

simulation modelling to give their studies the air of great rigour. Suck work needs to be

approaches or embarked upon with great care - and often must be rejected as mystification.

Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that some 'sociopolitical' factors could be included in models

in a more direct fashion that the parameter-adjustment approach outlined above. The purpose of

this may general be simply to represent abstract tendencies, but there are probably circumstances

where it is worth develo ping simulations of concrete circumstance. These may include macro

social processes - eg 'dependency' relationships between countries - or smaller scale phenomena -

eg educational patterns within a country20. Often it will be necessary to use surrogate data of

indicators that are at best approximations of those that interest us most21.

8. Speculation Models: Some Statistical Modelling Approaches

20When we come to consider such specific issues we see another advantage of the 'family' of models approach: by dealing with these issues in submodels where possible, we do not evolve a single structure

that stands or falls with each of its elements. We have several layers of substantiation, rather than all of our eggs in one basket.

21See, for example, the various data and cautions presented by Irvine and Miles (1978) in their 'Alternative Ways of Life' paper - eg 'security' is represented by a multiple operationalidation approach, in terms

of ownership of economic resources, housing situation etc.

25



Much of our discussion has used a terminology suggesting that simulation modelling is

appropriate for the GPID project. Computer simulations do form a sophisticated attempt to

represent analyses of social systems, but we should nevertheless bear it in mind that relatively

simple techniques may be quite effective ways of dealing with quantified variables. Even

projection can be very useful, if we free ourselves from the notion that it necessarily involves a

deterministic extrapolation of unexplained trends. If we have an argument (other than

historicism) for expecting trends to take a particular form in the future, then a straight forward

projection of variables can be a method of analysis or illustration which is unlikely to arouse

unwarranted expectations of precision of forecasts. Nevertheless, it may prove to have

remarkable power to impress - as in Malthus' extrapolation of food and population trends - and

this example points to the utility of contrasting projections of different variables.

Population projections, and especially those that take into account the structure of societies, are

familiar enough components of development research, and may be useful in indicating the labour

supply and scale of 'basic needs' requirements in a country or region. As such they are relevant

both to planning and to criticising development strategies (or existing trends) which fail to

provide the infrastructure or inputs to give employment and needs satisfaction. But many other

processes may be used in projection: for example, the thesis that there has been a historical

tendency towards the increasing concentration of economic power in a country could be

illustrated with statistics, and such a trend might even be extrapolated (not as a forecast, but as an

indication of the long-term direction of one set of current tendencies, ignoring the possible

counter-tendencies that may be theorised and, indeed, realised). Projections can find a place in

many research reports, but quantitative projection can only be used to provide a starting point for

discussion or an indication of unfolding contradictions between trends, and is only really

applicable to the study of fairly broad tendencies where it may be meaningful to speak of smooth

rates of change.

Other approaches to modelling GPID issues involve more of a focus on relationships between

variables. (Projection related to the quantitative course of a single variable over time). At the

very simplest extreme, we might simply seek to use correlation or regression analysis to

demonstrate the existence of some postulated relationship, and to determine the extent to which it

is moder ated by other factors in a concrete situation. An example of this sort of analysis is

provided by Wright and Perrone (1977). These authors first distinguish between four social

26



classes on the basis of positions in the social organisation of production, and proceed to

operationalise these so as to be able to record data from occupational classifications (table 2).

(Of course, this work does not make any empirical distinction between big and small capitalists,

blue and white collar workers, which would be meaningful in a more detailed analysis of social

relations of production. In some analyses these authors distinguish between employers with more

than less than ten employees; between black and whites, men and women.)

27



Table 2 Conceptualisation and Operationalisation of Class Positions in the United States

by Wright and Perrone (1977)

CLASS POSITION

Petty

CRITERIA Capitalist Manager Worker Bourgeoisie

Ownership of means of production X X

Purchase of others' labour power X X X

Control of others' labour power X X

Sale of own labour power X X

OPERATIONALISED CRITERIA

Self-employed X X

Having employees X X X

Having subordinates on job X X

Employed X X

PERCENTAGE CLASSIFIED 7.4% 37.4% 49.2% 4.3%

IN CLASS

The theoretical position adopted in this study is simply that class is an important determinant of

income level. Regression and covariance analysis was used to demonstrate that class differences

in income levels wer e substantial, and could not be accounted for in terms of occupational status,

age, job tenure, sex, or race. It was also demonstrated that the returns to education differ across

classes: higher education levels bring greater rewards to managers than to workers, which is here

inter preted in terms of a system of social control. Class differences between workers and

employers were considerably greater than income differences based on sex or race within the

28



working class, and within class categories sex accounted for greater differences than race.

We should make it clear that this paper is not being singled out for special praise: it is simply a

convenient example of a relatively simple piece of modelling, illustrating the proposition

Class Position Relative Income Level

and going on to consider the role of education and other factors in mediating and structuring this

relationship. Of course, we may often want to present rather more elaborate analyses, and again

it is possible to construct statistical models which represent these analyses in terms of their

consistency with empirical data. A currently popular approach, causal path analysis is employed

in a recent study by Walleri (1978). Walleri derives his propositions from dependencia

perspectives and derives a simple 'causal model' of dependence and underdevelopment (in the

postwar boom phase of neocolonialism) (figure 2). An example of the operationalisations and

statistical analyses he carries out in order to substantiate the dependencia analysis is provided in

figure 3. (It should be noted that panel analysis, involving time-series date, is also brought into

play in order to argue for the particular directions of causality cited).

Thinking about statistical models such as this one reinforces many of the points made earlier in

the paper. The model of a particular process only gains its meaning from the theoretical

perspective, the non-statistical, relatively informal model (dependencia analysis) within which it

was framed. Only in these terms does the particular choice of variables make any sense, and only

with this broader perspectives can we see that these are in many respects relational: the model

relates to the situation of a component of the world system, or to an isolated object of analysis,

and that trade dependence is a product of specifiable historical processes, not of original sin.

(Indeed, ‘trade dependence’ is no more the cause of underdevelopment than is low GNP per

capita). The statistical model is not a general portrait of development processes, but rather and

illustration of some structural aspects of underdevelopment in the world system in one historical

conjuncture (abstracting, furthermore, from issues of class formation and conflict in the countries

studied)22. The model is not itself dynamic, dealing as it does with variables operationalised for

22 For an informative debate concerning a similar study – Robinson’s (1976) demonstration that incomes

inequality within countries was related to national locations in the world economy, see the notes by Bach, Irwinand Robinson in the American Sociological Review 42(5). The causal path analysis technique involves anumber of ‘technical’ assumptions that may often have theoretical significance, even beyond the necessity to

propose a causal ordering of variables in the first place. See Bibby and Evans (1978) for a detailed critique;also, Forbes and Tufte (1968)

29



30

Figure 2 Walleri’s Causal Model

Rise of International Capitalism (eg Colonialism)

Feudal-CapitalistOrder in PeripheryStates

Neo Colonialism

Clientalism,Aid, MNCs

Vertical and Feudal Interaction

Structures Between Centre andPeriphery States

Low Level of Domestic Capital Accumulationand Uneven Development Across Sectors

Increasing Inequality between Centre andPeriphery and Within Periphery

Figure 3 Causal Path Analysis of Determinants of GNP Per Capita

Capital Formation1965

Vertical Trade1960

GNP per capita1970

Sectoral IncomeDistribution, 1960

-u

-14

-42.71

-43.33

Notes: Vertical trade index based on Galtung’s work, relates to location of country in international division of labour as raw material exporter,

manufactures importer. Sectoral Income Distribution based on Kuznets Gini Index, relates to sectors, not classes. Capital formation is fixedcapital (ie not a Marxian definition) as a percentage of GNP. The data refers to 88 countries, including 15 OECD members



particular years. There is no good reason to expect a rigid time lag of the sort portrayed in this

particular operationalisation to adequately model any real process.

Duvall (1978) has discussed issues of this type in the context of dependencia analysis, which he

describes as ‘fundamentally dynamic’. He argues that ‘what is needed is a formulation that

reflects slow, historically-extended processes, because the theory is ‘historical’ in the sense that it

entails arguments that long-term processes of conditioning and determination have worked…over

time to set the contemporary scene. Thus contemporary features of the economy and polity of a

peripheral country affected…by the extent and form of capitalist penetration of the country over

the past 25, 50 or even 100 years…we can represent this kind of argument by a model of the

following form:

(1) t y = 0

∞t

x + t t t t x x x µ α α α +++

∞−∞−−...

2211

where yt is the current value of some conditioned feature of the peripheral country

xt..xt- are the current and past values of the conditioning phenomena

∞α α ...0 are the parameter values which represent the determining effect on y of each of the x’s

and

t µ is an error term representing the imperfect character of the conditioning relationship

Using a simple formula to represent the diminution of effects over time, and problems of

producing adequate historical data or efficient estimates of structural parameters, Duvall

simplifies this model to

1

*

1)1(

−−−+−+=

t t t t t x y y λµ µ λ α λ

(where λ relates to the decreasing relevance of past states to the present). Discussing methods of

incorporating context variables which condition the causal relationship between x and y, Duvall

outlines his hopes for developing an adequate formal model of some dependencia postulates in

31





simple statistical techniques may often be quite sufficient to make one’s point – perhaps its only

concerning issues where there has already been much working-over of the ground from different

theoretical perspectives that complicated data processing is brought in to demonstrate the

superiority of one or another approach. Furthermore, empirical data can only have a direct

bearing on what already is (state I); in the GPID project we are also concerned with what could

be (II and III).

9. Speculative Models: Conceptual and Computer Approaches

Forecasters have often used matrices as ways of trying to grasp complicated sets of issues.

Perhaps best known here is the cross-impact matrix, in which the mutual effects of a number of

possible future events are set out (on the basis of ‘expert judgement’) so as to be able to produce

scenarios of possible future ‘histories’. Typically this approach focuses on the more obvious

products of a social system while neglecting the texture of whatever underlying structures are at

work. The same criticism applies to those attempts to build ‘world problems’ checklists, in which

people concerned with one problem issue can identify other issues related to it. But the GPID

project might be able to achieve something more with matrix approaches – after all, it is already

structures as a matrix, and, even id the groupings that are formed thereby are pragmatic rather

than theoretical, perhaps it would be worth experimenting with attempting to ‘write into’ thedifferent cells (formed by listing the subprojects are rows and columns of a matrix) what we see

as constituting the salient links between each component.

Matrices which are purely arithmetic are likely to be unuseful for our purposes. A simple theory

concerning the relationships between a set of variables might be set out in matrix form, but it runs

the same sorts of risk as the cross-impact matrix. Multiple contingencies, for example, are

excluded – that is, the way in which changing two factors together might change a third, the way

in which changes in one variable may change the relationship between others25. Overcoming such

problems, beyond the most simple sets of relationships, means sacrificing the simplicity of the

arithmetic matrix approach26. But as a concrete representation of a theoretical model, it is

possible that we could make use of matrices in which verbal formulations (which can express

25 Recall the historical materialist framework discussed earlier. Here not all variables are of equal status, as is

suggested by arranging them as rows and columns in a matrix, and simply showing within the matrix elementsthat some bear more quantitative influence is insufficient. We need to be able to grasp causal hierarchies, totake into account structured combinations of variables.26 For example, by dividing the matrix into different ‘levels of analysis’

33



qualitative shifts, historical specificities, etc) are written into the elements or cells. Such matrices

relating subprojects or issues could be useful for stock-taking and dialogue within the project;

relating variables could be useful to specific pieces of research. The use of such a matrix can also

make apparent whether or not sufficient theoretical clarity has been achieved to proceed to

construct formal models, and can point to ‘under-developed’ areas of theory.

Earlier in this paper, with reference to simulation modelling, we proposed that rather than an all-

purpose juggernaut model, modelling work would best be organised as a family of submodels

around a parent model. The discussion of statistical models in the previous section also leads us

to think that such models would best be developed – within the context of a powerful general

theory – as issue-specific contributions to an integrated work. A matrix formulation could prove

to be an effective way of organising submodels together for analytic and expositional purposes.

Submodels would form the rows and columns of the matrix, whose elements would then

summarise the sorts of exogenous determinants that need to be borne in mind (or experimented

with) in interpreting submodel results. (This might be the most satisfactory formulation of the

GMM aspirations to consider all variables relevant to ‘the future development of the world’

together ‘in a single model’).

Computer simulation is not necessarily an alternative to matrix approaches and statistical models,and certainly not for the hard work of analysis and debate. A powerful and fairly flexible means

of representing analyses of empirical or imagined circumstances, it does not seem to have been

such a rich source of insight as has often been claimed. In principle practically and quantitative

verbal statement of relationships between discrete variables would be handles by a language like

DYNAMO. This enables the use of look-up tables in addition to equations, and allows for the

representation of dynamic, non linear, multivariate and recursive relationships (with attendant

opportunities for the unwary users to become confused). While any particular simulation now

requires precise specification of relationships and initial values, it is possible to vary these in

sensitivity analyses, thus ensuring the strain to credulity implied by precision in the absence of

adequate theory and data.

Simulation approaches are most familiarly applied to represent accounts of social reality that

ignore the fundamental role of conflict in producing and structuring social change. Exceptions do

exist, however, for example Moy’s ( ) simulation of Barrington Moore thesis concerning the

advent of bourgeois democracy. In general, following Stinchcombe ( ), we might set out

accounts of the development of institutional phenomena out of a process of class conflict, as in

34



figure 4. Like Moy, Stinchcombe is concerned with the forces acting to form the particular

institutions of bourgeois democracy, but the general representation pictures above could be

employed to represent the establishment of other institutions or components of the social

‘superstructure’ – or indeed to focus on such elements of the ‘base’ as technological innovations.

Four points should be raised concerning such a model. First, if one is not to reify class relations,

it is important to bear in mind that classes are relational, and that class boundaries may

themselves be in part determined by practices in the institutional superstructure. Second,

coalitions and compromises are an integral part of a conflictual social world (eg the British state

system was shaped by an accommodation of bourgeois and feudal interests). Three, the general

form of a model such as the above concerning the formation and power of an institution may be

applied to analysis of the outputs of a given institutional system, for example to represent the

development of policies favouring various classes within parliamentary system – but the pitfalls of

mainstream political science must be avoided, and the determination of the state form in class

relations, which conditions the specific structures of its outputs (so that not only, say, are

‘welfare’ outputs unevenly distributed, but they also perform particular functions in maintaining

hegemonic structure) taken into account. A model of ‘policy outputs’ should be conceived of as a

submodel of a more general model of state forms, just as these have to be seen in terms of class

relations. Fourth, relating to the point about coalition and compromise, the modelling of a system

such as that in figure 5 may be deterministic or probablistic, but will not capture the learning,changing consciousness, and tactical moments which are involved in the social world. These

factors will certainly condition the form of the institution that is produced: there is not a clear-cut

choice between one of a few alternatives, and perhaps all that it is worthwhile to use modelling

for in the present state of knowledge would be to indicate certain broad possibilities.

The possibilities for further extension of models such as the above, relating together the

frequently fragmented political economic and cultural aspects of social formations, require testing

in practice. It is possible to speculate further concerning the forms of model that might be

developed. Figure 5, for example, represents a straightforward enough model of a ‘deviancy-

amplification’ process where gains accrue unevenly to groups who have most power to begin

with. A use of this sort of analysis, applied to income distribution within class society, within a

broader crisis theory (ie not one that sees the source of economic crisis as lying in the squeezing

of profits by wages) in a central country is suggested in figure 5.

35



36

Figure 4 Class Power and Institutional Forms

POWER OFNSTITUTION

ACTION OF CLASS A

ACTION OF CLASS B

ACTION OF CLASS C

ONGOING DETERMINANTSOFCLASS POWER

INTEREST OF CLASS A

POWER OF CLASS A

INTEREST OF CLASS B

POWER OF CLASS B

INTEREST OF CLASS C

POWER OF CLASS C



37

Figure 5 Some Aspects of Wealth Production and Income Distribution

Formation of scientific andtechnical elites and workforce

deskilling and degradationof work

Investment capitalintensive processes

unemployment level

Tendency for rateof profit to fall

Power of workers’organisations

Capital exports

Capitalist class

cohesiveness

Capitalistconsumption

Distributional conflictat workplace

Income of

workers

Working classconsumption

State income and welfare policies

imperialism Stateform Growth of bureaucracies

Monetary problems

Profits price levels



For the analysis suggested in figure 5 to be anywhere near adequate as a representation of crisis

tendencies and consumption differentials it would be necessary to take into account i) the

development of new products as well as new processes, and the related prospects for so-called

underconsumption ii) different economic ‘departments’ and class functions iii) the international

environment. Nevertheless, this representation hopefully indicates that in principle it is possible

to such issues of interest to GPID as inequalities and consumption levels, economic crisis and

problems of the ‘fiscal crisis of the state’, the growth of state and professional bureaucratic

interest groups, the worldwide expansion of the power of central ruling classes, and the like. It is

not in principle impossible to add to such a model explicit recognition of contradictory tendencies

including those which mediate class consciousness, anti-imperialism struggle and the like.

Models of dependent peripheral countries are also feasible. Figure 6 is such a model, with the

descriptive terms reflecting the current state of many Third world countries.

Whether such models are useful as more than devices to present and systematise one’s analyses is

a matter for experiment rather than speculation at this point. Rather than simply pointing to the

inadequacies of those outlined here, we would suggest that readers ask themselves: is it possible

to include the sorts of issues which concern us in such representations (with appropriate caveats

as to qualitative change and the like?) Can we specify the types of linkages between variables in

such a way as to be able to relate quantitative changes in one to those in another? And, perhapsmost intriguingly, can we move away from models of type I to developing type II models which

pose maters concerning the unfolding of contradictions and the possible strategies that these open

up?

On this latter point we might consider a network analysis type of approach in simulation.

Reasonably enough caricatured as ‘the science that tells you to put you socks on before you

shoes’, network analysis simply consists of determining the appropriate sequence in which steps

should be taken. In many situations one has little control over the sequence of events, and to

posit a rigid sequence may anyway overlook the possibility of dialectical processes. Even so, it

may be worthwhile to speculate about how we might proceed to take type II models on board.

38



39

Figure 6 The Situation of Dependent Countries

INTER IMPERIALIST

CAPITAL OUTFLOW

FROM CENTRE UNEQUALEXCHANGE

FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN PRIMARYPRODUCTS, EXPORTS, LUXURY

FAILURE OF IMPORTSUBSTITUTION

PRICE OF

COMMODITIES

INAPPROPRIATETECHNOLOGIES

POWER OF EXTERNALLYORIENTED BUSINESS

CLASS

STATE ECONOMICPOLICIES

SUPEREXPLOITATIO N

HIGHUNEMPLOYMENT

STAGNANTAGRICULTURE

LIMITED LOCALMASS MARKET



The example we will use here is based upon Ollman’s (1972) discussion of class consciousness, in

which he proposes some eight stages in the development of such consciousness and outlines

some of the factors conditioning each. Again, the substantive accuracy of the analysis here

(which we shall modify and elaborate in some aspects) is not the main point, we simply wish to

outline how this might be represented in terms which suggest what would be required for the

development of a formal model. Figure 7 gives an outline of some of the issues that could and

should be taken on board in such a modelling exercise. Only some general indicators of higher-

level determinations are given here and feedbacks are ignored. We would anticipate a series of

such models to be outlined for different class functions such as women, ethnic and regional

groups, workers with different positions in the social division of labour (including the

unemployed) and so on, and for the relations between these groups to be included, as well as to

the conscousness and action of superordinate classes (moving us towards a more elaborate form

of figure 5, in which both activity within and beyond given institutions may be included).

The same sort of interrogation of this approach is in order as for the simulation approaches

outlined above: is it possible to specify the moments in the development of a transitional situation

without unmanageable complexity or too restrictive conjunctural specificity? We have presented

this example with some trepidation, and would suggest that only GPID members working directly

on subprojects related to strategies can determine the value of proceeding with such an approach.

40



41

Figure 7 Towards a Possible Model of the Development of Class Consciousness

1. Recognition of own interests(as opposed to apathy, brutishness)

2. Recognition that own interestslocates in class interest

3. Recognition of class interestsas transcending economism,quantitative improvements

4. Recognition of class interestsas superordinate to sectionalinterests

5. Recognise exploitation anddominance by capitalist class

6. Recognition of possibility of qualitative restructuring of social activities

7. Recognition of efficacy asagent of change

8. Recognition of appropriatestrategies for social revolution

9. Recognition of opportunityto act (as opposed to fear of action)

Conditions of work

information flow fromeducation and media

privatisation and fragmentation

of workforce

cooperation at workplace andelsewhere

adequacy of gains won throughunionism, reformism

experience of alternatives working conditions,social facilities

strength of racism, imperialism, sexism

action of other class factions,including collaboration

stability and contradictions of bourgeois norms

legitimacy of dominant political order

experience of good models of alternative

social organisation-political organisations,coops etc

experience of bad models - eg degeneratedsocialist states

experience of partial struggles

scale and practices of organised parties of workers

incorporation of social democratic parties etc

proliferation of political ‘sects’sectarianism

level of repression and strengthof repressive forces

ties to family, property etc

Boom/crisistendencies

in economy

Internationalsituation

Class strategyof state





BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alford, Robert, R and Roger Friedland, 1974, ‘Nations, Parties and Participation: a critique of political sociology’, Theory and Society 1(3) 307-328

Atkinson, Pat and Johan Kusch, 1977, ‘Limits to growth or Limits to Capitalism?’, Science for People no 33 12-14

Bibby, John, 1977, ‘Must Models Mystify?’, Radical Statistical Newsletter no 8, 10-11

Bibby, John and Jeff Evans, 1978, ‘Statistical Models: a social construction of reality’, mimeo,Middlesex Polytechnic, London

Bodenheimer, Susanne J, 1971, The Ideology of Developmentalism, Beverly Hills: Sage

Chichilnisky, Graciela and Sam Cole, 1978, Technology, Domestic Distribution and North-SouthRelations (progress report), New York: UNITAR

Clark, John and Sam Cole, Global Simulation Models: a Comparative Study, New York: JohnWiley

Clark, J A, J M McLean and P Shepherd, ‘The General Purpose Model’, Futures, (June) 229-233

Cole, Sam and Graciela Chichnilnisky, 1978, ‘Modelling with Scenarios: Technology in North-South Development’, Futures (August) 303-321

Cole, Sam, and Roy Turner, 1979, ‘Arbitrariness, Uncertainty ands Social Welfare in Planning:the case of urban shopping models’ in Tom Whiston (ed) Uses and Abuses of Forecasting,London: Macmillan

Cole, Sam, 1977, Global Models and the International Economic Order, New York: Pergamon

Duvall, Raymond, R, 1978, ‘Dependence and Dependencia Theory: notes toward precision of concept and argument’, International Organisation 32 (1)

Fine, Ben and Laurence Harris, 1977, ‘Surveying the foundations’ in R Miliband and J Saville

(eds) The Socialist Register 1977, London: Merlin

Forbes, Hugh D and Edward R Tufte, 1968, ‘A Note of Caution in Causal Modelling’, AmericanPolitical Science Review 62, 1258-64

Forrester, Jay, 1977, ‘New Perspectives on Economic Growth’, in Dennis C Meadows (ed)Alternatives to Growth – 1, Cambridge Mass: Ballinger

Freeman, Chris and Marie Jahoda, (eds), 1978, World Futures: The Great Debate, London:Martin Robertson

43



Golub, Bob and Joe Townsend, 1977, ‘Malthus, Multnationals and the Club of Rome, SocialStudies of Science 7, 201-222

Gough, A J, 1976, ‘Social Physics and Local Authority Planning’, in Housing and Class in Britain(London: Conference of Socialist Economists)

Griffiths, Dot, John Irvine and Ian Miles, 1978, ‘Social Statistics: Political Perspectives’, in JIrvine, I Miles and J Evans (eds) Demystifying Social Statistics, London: Pluto Press

Gutman, Herbert G, 1975, Slavery and the Numbers Game, Urbana: University of Illinois Press

Herrera, A (ed), 1977, Catastrophe or New Society?, Canada: IDRC

Hindrichsen, Diedrich, 1976, ‘Some theses Concerning the Application of Mathematical SystemsTheory in the Social Sciences’ in H Bossel, S Klaczko, N Muller (eds), Systems Theory in theSocial Sciences, Basel: Birkhauser Verlag

Hoos, Ida, R, 1972, Systems Analysis and Public Policy: a critique, Berkeley: University of California Press

Irvine, John and Ian Miles, 1978, ‘Alternative Ways of Life in Britain’, paper prepared for SID/GPID project on ‘Alternative Ways of Life’

Irvine, John, Ian Miles and Jeff Evans, 1979, Demystifying Social Statistics, London: Pluto Press

Keat, Russel and John Urry, 1976, Social Theory as Science, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul

Leontief, W et al, 1977, The Future of the World Economy, Oxford: Oxford University Press

McLean, J Michael, 1978, ‘Simulation Modelling’ in Jib Fowles (ed), 1978, Handbook of FuturesResearch, Dorsey, Illinois: Greenwood Press

McLean M, P shepherd and R Curnow, 1976, Techniques for the Analysis of system Structure,Occasional Papers of the Science Policy Research Unit, no 1, University of Sussex, England

Meadows,D et al, The Limits to Growth, 1972, New York: Universe Books

Mesarovic, M and E Pestel, 1977, Mankind at the Turning Point, New York: Dutton

Miles, Ian, 1975, The Poverty of Prediction, Farnborough: Saxon House, Lexington, Mass:Lexington Books

Moy, Ronald, F, 1971, A computer Simulation of Democratic Political Development, BeverlyHills: Sage

Nardin, T, 1971, ‘Violence and the State: a critique of empirical political theory’, SageProfessional Papers in Comparative Politics, vol 2 series no 01-020

44



Ollman, Bertell, 1972, ‘Towards Class Consciousness Next Time’, Politics and Society 3 (1) 1-24

Ollman, Bertell, 1976, Alienation (2nd ed), London: Cambridge University Press

Pannekoek, Anton, 1938, Lenin as Philosopher, reprinted London: Merlin (1975)

Rubinson, Richard, 1976, ‘The World Economy and the Distribution of Income Within States: aCross-National Study’, American Sociological Review 41 (4) (38-659)

Sayer, R. Andrew, 1978 (July), ‘Some comments on Mathematical Modelling in Regional Scienceand Political Economy’, Antipode

Stinchcombe, Arthur, 1968, Constructing Social Theories, New York: Harcourt Brace

Tuomi, Helena, 1977, ‘Dependency Models in Western Development Research’, in Eeva-LiisaMyllymaki and Brett Belingers (eds) Dependency and Latin American Development, Special

issue Rauhaan Tutkien May-June 1977

Walleri, R Dan, 1978, ‘Trade Dependence and Underdevelopment’, Comparative PoliticalStudies 11 (1) 94-127

Wright, Erik Olin and Luca Perrone, 1977, ‘Marxian Class Categories and Income Inequality’,Americal Sociological Review 42 (1) 32-53

45



46



TABLE A1 – A SUMMARY COMPARISON OF SELECTED GLOBAL MODELS AND WORLD FUTURES STUDIES

Study Relation of Social andPolitical Variables to the

Model

Assumptions aboutTechnology

Assumptions aboutTrade

Domestic Distribution No of Regions

Assumptions aboutMarket Behaviour

PerspectivesGenerally

Supported by theStudy

Limits to Growth(System Dynamics)(Meadows 1972)

A ‘holistic’ approachwith variables andsubmodels dealing withselected sociological phenomena

Based on historical USexperience withanticipated futurediminishing returns toinvestment

Not considered butimplicitcontinuation of pasttrends

Not considered butimplicit continuation of past trends

1 Prices increasing asresources become depleted. No other explicit marketassumptions

World stagnation

World Integrates

Model (HierarchicalSystems Theory)(Mesarovic & Pestel1974)

‘Political’ Judgements are

introduced as exogenous policy variables

Fixed capital-output

ratios calibrated to givemodel internalconsistency for the baseyear

Exports and

imports are a fixedshare of total worldtrade per region

Not considered but

implicit continuation of past trends

10 Constant prices supply and

investment bound toavailable consumption

World stagnation

plus elements of liberal and NIEO

Fundacion Bariloche(Herrera 1976)

A conceptual modeldescribes social & political aspects of thesociety, whose physicalviability is demonstrated by the mathematicalmodel

Cobb-Douglas productionfunctions withexponential change parameters used tocalibrate model over 1960-1970 period.Optimisation is used toallocate capital andlabour inputs

Imports and exportsare a fixed share of gross output

Egalitarian distributionof basic goods

4 Constant prices except for land

Collective self-reliance + unequalexchange

UN Input-Output(Leontief 1976)

Almost no discussion of social and politicalfactors, although it isclaimed that the modelcan be used to analyse awide range of scenarios

Technical coefficientsassumed to depend on per capita regional income.Largely based on USexperiences

Exports fixed shareof total worldexports, imports afixed proportion of regionalconsumption of the

good imported

Not considered butimplicit continuation of past trends

15 Prices of raw materialsand pollution abatementincrease with growth

Northern liberal plus Internationalist NIEO



RIO (Tinbergen1976)

Mainly discussion of transnational politicaland economic institutionsand desirable humangoals

Qualitative sector bysector analysis of major transnational issues

Discussion of trade.Different strategiesfor different issuesincludinginternationaldivision of labour,cartel formationand collective self-reliance.

Need for more NorthSouth equalisation upto ½ of presentinequalities, qualitativeconsiderations only

Notapplicable

Qualitative discussionsonly

Internationalist NIEO + someaspects of collectiveself-reliance

The Great Debate(Freeman & Jahoda,1978)

Analysis of economicdevelopment ‘profiles’ based on competingsocial theories. Aconstruction of corresponding ‘images of

the future’

No macro-economic parameters assumed.Specified industries andtechnologies consideredin relation to economic profiles

Differentassumptions for different scenarios

Alternativeexplanations of changes in domesticand internationaldistributionhypothesised semi-

quantitativeconsiderations only

From 2 – 8dependingon issue

Critique of differentassumptions andimplications derived fromthem

Northernstructuralist





Catastropheor a NewSociety

(Herrera etal 1976)

Catastrophe is aneveryday reality inLDC’s – extremeteconomic difficulty predicted in Asia andAfrica by 2000.Scarcity is not due to physical limits – population growth is notthe major factor. Mustachieve basic needs inLDC’s but without helpthis will not happen in areasonable time

Scarcity of LDC’s notattributable to physicallimits

Minerals can beextracted atdecreasing socialcost

Fossil fuelsdepleted innext 100 years – nuclear andfusion power is‘inexhaustible’

Increasing economydoes not necessarilymean increasing pollution

Technology growsfaster thanconsumption – if LDC’s hadtechnology production wouldoutstrip population

Highest 14 billion in 2050lowest 10 billion – sizedepends onsatisfaction of basic needs

New patterns of self-reliantsocialistdevelopmentworld-wide weneed with limitedmutual aid. Thisrequiresfundamental soci- political reformsand an end to theideology of growth

The Future of the WorldEconomy

(Leontief 1977)

Second developmentdecade strategy does not provide for sufficientrapid closing of incomegap between developingand developed countries – gap would notdiminish by the year 2000. Significantchanges in economicrelations betweendeveloped anddeveloping countries – high growth rates inLDC’s coupled withslightly lower rates inDC’s

Dramaticdevelopments bringnew land into production and doubleor treble yields

Tremendousgrowth inconsumption – nota problem of absolute scarcity – problem is how toexploit more costlyreserves

Coal isrelatively plentiful evenunder conservativeestimates

Technologically pollution is amanageable problem – economic costshigh but notunmanageable

By the year 2000developed countriesother than the USwill use the 1970technologies of North America – other countries willmove in thisdirection

Extremelysteep rise in population – UN estimatesused averageabout 10 billion

High investmentand brisk expansion of international trade – significantchanges in worldeconomic order.Far-reachingchanges of social, political andinstitutionalcharacter indevelopingcountries notdiscussed



TABLE A3 – OTHER WORLD MODELLING PROJECTS

Model Institution (Project

Leader)

Summary of Project Regions (or

countries)

Sectors Population Current State of Project

FUGIFuture of GlobalInterdependence

Japanese Club of Rome(Y Kaya)

Studies long-term economic relations betweenindustrialised and developing countries, especially thefuture role of Japan. International division of labour for agriculture, mining, light manufacturing, heavymanufacturing and knowledge intensive industryconsidered

9 6 Endogenous Results available (eg Kaya andSuzuki, 1974. Model beingfurther developed (Kaya, 1977)

MOIRAModel of InternationalRelations inAgriculture

Free University Amsterdam(H Linneman)

Long-term world agriculture model only usingexogenous inputs from UN study. Considers 10regions with 12 income groups in each (6 urban and 6rural). Aims to identify casual factors underlyingworld food situation

10 1 +exogenousinputs

Exogenous Results available (Linneman,1976). Work continuing

SARUMSystems AnalysisResearch Unit

UK Department of Environment (P Roberts)

Long-term model of international markets, containsrelatively detailed treatment of bilateral trade, pricemechanism and technical change. Based on profitmaximisation in neo-classical framework

3 13 Exogenous Schematic results only. Work continuing and includingextension of level of aggregation

SIMLINK WorldDevelopmentReport Model

IBRD Washington Medium- long-term model focussed on the evolutionof less developed countries. Analyse prospects for growth and development under alternativeassumptions about growth and inflation in thedeveloped world.

9 2 (14 products)

Not treated Results not available. Work on-going and further models being developed

LINK International co-operativeeffort (L Klein)

Combination of short-term macro-economic modelslinked through bilateral trade and capital flows.Relates short to medium term projections mainly for OECD countries.

26 various Not treated Regular analysis of results – work ongoing

UNITAR (Chichilnisky andCole, 1978)

Susses University UK Columbia University USA

A neo-Ricardian North-South equilibrium modeldemonstrating the impact of technology and itsorganisation on income distribution within and between countries

2 3 Endogenous Pilot study under completion – extensions of the modelunderway



TABLE A4 – A SUMMARY OF COMPLETED AND ONGOING MODELLING WORK IN THE NORTH-SOUTH MODEL

CHARACTERISTIS&

MAINRESULTS

PRESENTMODELLING

Main Issue of Study

Number of Sectors

Number of Regions

Number of IncomeGroups

OtherEconomic

Actors

MainReferences Basic Findings/Other Comments

NORTH-SOUTHMODEL

SUBMODEL I

SUBMODEL II

PRELIMINARYDYNAMIC RUNS

Background modelfor study of technologydistribution and North-Southrelations

Terms of trade anddomestic distribution

Growth of the Northand of the South

Effects of North-South aid in overallequalisation of welfare

Effects of

3: basicconsumption andluxury and capitalgoods

2: basicconsumption andluxury/investment

2: as above

2

3

2: North andSouth

2: North andSouth

2: as above

2: as above

2

3 in eachregion

2 in eachregion

As above

3: 2 incomegroups in the North. 1 inSouth

-

-

Governmentsand aninternationalorganisation

Appendices ( )& ( )

Appendix ( )

Appendix ( )

Appendix ( )

Appendix ( )

Reported in Submodels I and II and dynamic runs below

Conditions studies under which exports led policies of the south worsen or improve North-South terms of trade and domestic income distribution in the South:abundant labour and dualism in production as specialcases

More growth of the North increases exports of theSouth but may under certain conditions worsen terms of trade and total revenues of the south as well as domesticincome distribution of the south. In this case for samegrowth in the South must now produce moreinvestment goods domestically

Transfer of basic or luxury goods from the high incomegroup of the North to the South is shown to improve the North’s welfare and under certain conditions worsenthe South’s unless it worsens the welfare of the poor inthe North



simultaneouschanges intechnology,investment, population and trade

3 that effectstransfers

-

Increasing labour productivity and population growthtend in general to reduce welfare; investment increasesit. As in above models, trade may or may not increasewelfare depending on economic conditions

MODELLING INPREPARATION

SUBMODEL III

SUBMODEL IV

SUBMODEL V

SUBMODEL VI

ALTERNATIVEINTERDEPENDE NCE MODEL(AIM)

Vintage capital andembodied technicalchange

Long waveKondratieff cycle

Transnationalcorporation andfinancial advantages.

Product cycle

General backgroundmodel for future

issues of interdependence anddevelopmentalternatives

1

2:’traditional’ andnew

1

2

6 for international

trade, 3 for domestic

1 or 2

1

1

2

5

1

1

2

3

3 in each

region

-

-

Transnationalcorporations

Governmentand Firms

Governments

andTransnationalCorporations

Appendix ( )

Appendix ( )

Appendix ( )

Appendix ( )

Not yet

available

Illustrates importance of relationship between productivity and investment, suggests possibility of unemployment arising from labour shedding induced by foreign competition

Examination of the proposed relationship betweentechnical change and long-run cycles in unemployment

Conditions for direct investment and increase/ decreaseof share of returns of proportion of foreign production Not yet available

Not yet available

Not yet available





Appendix 1 - Some Models in Review

This appendix is based on Cole and Chichilnisky (1978), Chichilnisky and Cole (1978) and

unpublished material by Miles

1. What are World Models?

We are all used to the term ‘model’ being applied to toys – to scale representations like train sets,

model aircraft, and the like. Other scale models are more than toys, however; architects build

models of their designs so as to demonstrate their appearance and structural properties; aircraft

designers test out the aerodynamic properties of their designs by testing models in wind tunnels.

Full scale models are also often used in testing designs and in training exercises – for example,

‘simulations’ of aircraft cockpits give would-be pilots experience in controlling aeroplanes. The

‘model’ the behaviour of the system so that the trainee pilot can safely test out the actions

appropriate to various circumstances.

Computer simulations of social systems, in contrast, are rarely designed so as to look like

whatever is being modelled. Instead, they try to represent its behaviour in numerical terms: a

computer model of the world does not look like the world! Such models give numerical accountsof how the world would change given certain assumptions about its structure, they report on

trends in the world as far as these can be expressed in numerical terms – for example, population

levels, rates of economic growth, and the like are relatively easy to present in this way. The

computer reports on the behaviour of its simulation model of the world, and this is crucially

different from reporting on the world itself: the world model cannot hope to capture all of the

events in the world, nor even all of those that could be expressed in numbers. It only contains

those features of the world that the modeller conceives of as relevant.

The computer is a versatile and immensely useful tool. It can handle many calculations so that

more variables and relationships may be simultaneously taken into account than is generally

possible for the unaided human intellect. There are disadvantages associated with the power of

the computer: it may be difficult for even the modellers themselves to say which of a large

number of relationships are the crucial ones in determining the model’s behaviour. Another

feature of most existing modelling techniques is that they call for numerically precise

specifications of relationships and of data. In turn they produce very precise results, expressed in



figures rather than in more qualitative words. The adequacy of such a forecast however depends

primarily upon the validity of the assumptions used concerning the variables and the relationships

between them, and only secondarily upon whether it is presented in a numerical form. The

computer, despite its great power, lacks the ability to correct errors built into a model. A

computer model can only be as good as the assumptions on which it is based. Much of the

difference between the forecasts and prescriptions produced by different modellers is due to their

being based on different assumptions.

2. Notes of World Modelling Studies

The ‘first generation’ of world models, World Dynamics and The Limits to Growth, were very

much a product of the environmental debate. The world was treated as a single global system,

rather than as a set of interacting regions in which economic systems, pollution levels or resource

availability might vary from place to place. Their economic structure was straightforward

enough, relating to food and resources production without breaking these down into different

sorts of foodstuffs and different raw materials, for example. Later modellers would, in the main,

attempt to take into account more regions and detailed breakdowns of variables. Typically, their

models have become very detailed – the model used in Mankind at the Turning Point (Mesarovic

and Peste, 1974), which groups the world into ten regions, involves several hundred times thenumber of relationships involved in The Limits to Growth. None of the more recent computer

models predict the sort of ecological catastrophe forecast in Limits. Some do pint to continuing

problems of food supply in certain regions (notable South Asia), but they are generally much

more optimistic about overall resource and environmental issues, and focus much more upon

differences (and to some extent, relations) between regions – especially the rich industrial and the

poor underdeveloped regions of the world. Table A1 presents a comparison of some of the main

features of the modelling studies, with two non-modelling world futures works.

These modellers agree that a projection into the future of current trends would lead to widening

or, at best, constant and huge gaps, in income between rich and poor countries. The United

Nations World Input-Output Model (Leontief et al 1977) is most concerned with demonstrating

that there are no insurmountable physical limits to rapid growth in the third World. It estimates

what pollution abatement activities, resource availability, trade and investment would be needed

for the levels of economic and population growth involved in halving the income gap between

rich and poor nations. Perhaps the most distinctive model is that produced by the Bariloche



group (Herrera et al, 1977) which sets out to show that it would be possible to create a world in

which basic needs (for food, housing etc) were met all around the world. This is not a prediction

of the world’s future, but rather an illustration that, were incomes distributed more evenly within

regions and goods produced according to social need rather than for private gain, such a world

could be created.

Let us consider how these studies tackle social, political and technological factors. Current

global modelling studies exhibit a spectrum of approaches to the inclusive (or non-inclusive) of

social and political variables. These are compared in table . The systems dynamics approach

(used in the Limits to Growth Study), in principle, is to include important variables, however

uncertain their magnitude and relationships into the formal structure of a dynamic model. Thus,

sociological and psychological variables such as ‘health’ or level of urbanisation appear in some

system dynamics models and to a limited extent affect the results obtained. The results are

presented (with some caveats admittedly) with very little discussion of the political implications.

For example, in the Limits to Growth the authors propose a transition to a global ‘equilibrium’

society (although the institutional and other mechanisms for achieving this are not debated).

In most other studies ‘non-economic’ variables are excluded and treated as exogenous factors. In

the Hierarchical systems approach (Mesarovic and Pestel, 1974), for example, the ‘core’ model(and its submodels) is a simple macro-economic model which contains certain policy variables

which may be adjusted according to the wishes of the different operators of the model. This

approach does not succeed in the impossible task of rendering variables and indeed the structure

of the model itself would have to adapt if it is to be consistent with different interpretations and

judgements.

Greater recognition of this point is achieved by the Bariloche authors (Herrera, 1977) who unlike

most global modellers have a rather specific point to make and do not claim to be constructing an

analytic tool of policy. The ‘ideal’ society of the Bariloche study emphasises regional self-

sufficiency and basic needs. The ‘mathematical’ model containing largely economic variables is

seen clearly to be part of a wider ‘conceptual’ model of development which includes social and

political factors. However, even in this study it is often not clear how the parameters in the

economic model are related in detail to the verbal analysis of the conceptual model. In addition,

as in the Limits to Growth there is no discussion of how the ‘ideal’ society is to be reached. This

is especially important in these studies since significant changes in national and international



patterns of consumption are envisaged.

In contrast to the Latin American model, the United Nations model (Leontief, 1977) makes no

discussion at all of possible institutional reforms and social changes associated with the economic

policies they advocate. By implication considerable modernisation of developing countries

towards the Western model is involved.

To some extent such lack of discussion of social and political factors is justified on the grounds

that the model is merely being used to ‘demonstrate the physical viability’ (or otherwise) of the

path of development in question. (Parenthically it is also because discussion of these factors

destroys the credibility of any assertion that modelling studies are a-political). However, the

failure to take account of social and political factors in constructing models and interpreting their

results is serious given the fact (which we illustrate below) that the economic variables considered

in the models are very dependent on them. GPID would need to take a different stance.

The treatment of technology in these models especially demonstrates this. Almost no attempt is

made to relate assumptions about technology to the situation of different countries. Only the

Bariloche study assumes a model structure based on third World rather than industrialised

countries experience and recognises, for example, the importance of employment as aredistributive mechanism to reduce poverty.

The basic assumption regarding technology in the models is little more than eventually the whole

world will adopt technologies with the economic characteristics of those used in the United

States. Let us illustrate this with one of the more ‘data conscious’ studies (the United Nations

Input-Output model). For the 15 regions, 48 sector input-output model technical parameters are

estimated and projected as follows. A ‘reference’ matrix is constructed for the United States for

1970 by aggregating and adjusting a 1967 table. Future changes in the technical coefficients are

based on extrapolation. Differences in the coefficients for other regions as a function of capita

income are the obtained using a ‘by eye’ regression for different years based on eight countries (of

which only India 1960 and Columbia 1969 are Third World countries). No substitution between

capital and labour is permitted, so that technologies are fixed by the input-output coefficients – by

no means the least satisfactory method to be found. However, for many coefficients serious

errors and inconsistencies could arise.



An alternative approach to socio-political and technological factors has been not to use a formal

economic model at all but to let the conceptual model form to rigorous structuring device of

analysis. For example, in the Science Policy Research Unit studies of alternative scenarios of

global development a mathematical model was not used. Instead alternative ‘profiles’ of global

and regional economic growth were assumed and interpretations of these growth patterns

provided in terms of contrasting socio-economic theories or ‘worldviews’ (see Freeman and

Jahoda, 1978). The ‘profiles’ and ‘worldviews’ were then used as a basis for discussion of supply

and demand in selected sectors (eg food, energy, raw materials) and of the ‘appropriateness’ or

otherwise of particular technologies (eg hybrid seeds, breeder reactors, recycling methods). The

principle difference here, therefore in the treatment of technology was that since the discussion

was based largely on secondary analysis of detailed case studies, no attempt was made to deduce

in a formal way the impact of different technological choices on macro-economic performance.

The RIO project (Tinbergen 1976) also used a non-mathematical analysis relying on a series of

non-quantitative specialist analyses (for example, of food production and distribution,

industrialisation and the international division of labour, transnational enterprises) incorporated

into a summary analysis. In some sense this was not forecasting exercise, rather an analysis of

historical trends and current economic and political contradictions.

There are obviously both good and bad lessons to be learned from existing studies. The failure to

take account of social theory and of case studies of novel technologies or social institutions does

not always stem from an unwillingness of modellers to do so but from the very real problems

inherent in such an exercise. (That these difficulties often arise from the institutional and

individual organisational aspects of interdisciplinary policy research has been discussed elsewhere

– Clark and Cole, 1975 and see the body of this paper). In each study some balance has to be

found as to the weight to be placed on different variables and pieces of information.

We conclude this section of the appendix by presenting some further tables comparing different

aspects of world modelling studies: Table A2 reports on the main assumptions and results of the

models set out in Table A1, and Table A3 gives a brief summary of some other worlds models.

3. The North-South Model

One of the authors of the present paper is involved in a relatively recent modelling effort referred



to in Table A3: the North-South model. We propose to devote a little space to describing this

model, since working with it has informed some of the positions taken in this paper, eg in respect

of the use of submodels around a general model. In its present form, the general model is a

highly aggregated macroeconomic dynamic model of relations between Northern (central) and

Southern (periphery) economies – whether the term is accurate or not, it has been dubbed a neo-

Ricardian model due to its deviations from the neo-classical framework. The intention is to

eventually develop some alternative versions of the model, based on, for example, Marxian

theory.

A central objective of the study is to develop a model useful for the study of income distribution

within and between countries of the North and the South, as mediated through market behaviour.

The model developed emphasises the importance of productivity and consumption in basic goods

sectors (such as agriculture products) for production and distribution in the economy as a whole.

It is also directed towards the central questions of the role played by technology in the

determination, through market operation, of income distribution within and between the countries

of the North and South.

The specifications of the North-south Model used so far in the pilot phase of this study is

compared with submodels in Table A4. It has two regions, each one produces and exchanges indomestic and international markets three types of goods: basic consumption goods, luxury goods

and capital goods. There are two skill/income labour groups in each region which, together with

non-wage earners, make up for three income groups. These income groups are differentiated not

only by their earning patterns but also by their patterns of consumption of basic, luxury and

capital goods. This model has been calibrated with Brazil and UK data representing the South

and the North.

While the model is crude in terms of detail, it is relatively sophisticated in terms of its theoretical

content, which is important to the qualitative as well as quantitative behaviour we wish to

analyse. With a focus on central relationships between technology, trade and production and

consumption, within the context of alternative paths of global development, the level of

aggregation and an accompanying set of actors and variables is intended to help our quantitative

understanding while not hindering or obscuring our qualitative understanding. The model is used

not so much to give quantified estimates, in the first instance, but to look for tendencies in

variables under different sets of assumptions and to guide the analysis and further our



understanding of detailed issues and policies.

Submodels are developed to study special issues, in contrast to the more general practice of

developing submodels to deal with subsectors of the economy only. For instance, submodels I

was developed to study North-South terms of trade and domestic distribution; submodel II was

developed to study the possible effects of aid. The idea is always that, in order to study more

pointedly a particular issue, it is useful to single out the main actors and relations which are in

general only some of all those considered in the comprehensive model. In addition, a smaller

model allows for better analytical study and facilitates interpretation of the numerical computer

results of the larger models. Other submodels are being developed and are in different stages of

completion and of integration with the North-South model for the study of other issues.

Furthermore, in the future work these submodels and their results are being combined within the

larger 5-region, 6 market Alternative Independent Model (AIM), which is at present being

developed. An exploratory submodel of transitional corporations behaviour and two models of

technical change and innovation are also being developed.



In constructing the present model and submodels we focus on the crucial variables in order to

eliminate as much detail as possible from the model. In the pilot phase we have not attempted to

produce a detailed model calibrated on precise data, but rather to select the economic variables

considered to the important and to model, using available (or in some cases adequate ‘plausible’)

data, a caricature of the situation under consideration. The results so far are thus better suited to

indicate possible inherent tendencies in a given economic arrangement than to offer detailed

quantitative forecasts. However, since the larger existing world models offer little more, on

balance this seemed a better strategy.

Documents

Thinking about Models