WA-GA Category expansion: Economic Development

[Knootoss]

Observations

It is my observation that popular resolution categories have the following things in common:

1. They promote a clear main goal with an obvious trade-off.
2. The trade-off between the main goal and the negative side-effect is framed in positive terms.
3. They make a positive contribution to the nation

Popular resolution categories have clear goals to improve something about the world. The most popular resolution categories have goals with a universal appeal: "increase the quality of the world's environment", "improve worldwide human and civil rights", "reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare" or "increase democratic freedoms".

Conversely, ill-used categories merely promise to force a policy change on Member States: they "legalize or outlaw gambling". They "ban, legalize, or encourage recreational drugs" or "tighten or relax gun control laws". These categories are not aspirational and resolutions for these categories are hardly ever seriously proposed, much less passed. There is no clear goal behind the policy changes, the change is not framed in positive terms, and aside from the law change, there are no desirable changes to the nation itself.

The qualities of popular resolution categories are particularly lacking in the "Advancement of Industry" series, which is hardly ever used. There are ZERO resolutions on the books from the "Environmental Deregulation" and "Labor Deregulaiton" categories and "Protective Tariffs" and "Tort Reform" both have only a single resolution on the books. Using the commonalities that I mentioned above, I'll demonstrate why:

1. Advancement of Industry, at present, is not about the goal of advancing industry but about specific policy instruments. "Environmental Deregulation", "Labor Deregulation", "Protective Tariffs" and "Tort Reform" are all very specific means to get to the goal of economic development. This forces writers to try and create a resolution that fits a particular policy instrument, rather than getting their creative juices flowing around the goal of developing the worlds' economies. This is extremely limiting. The category with the opposite effect, Environmental, is not bound to such restraints. Anything that improves the environment will do. Authors who want to improve national economies do not get this freedom.
   
   
2. The issue framing for Advancement of Industry is horrible. It is sold to us as advancing "Industry", which is all about smokestacks spewing pollutants into the air and evil corporations doing evil things like squashing environmental legislation. The subcategories also put the emphasis on the dirty means (stomping on unions or restricting workers' rights) rather than the shiny ends (jobs, prosperity, developing nations becoming developed nations...)
   
   
3. "Environmental Deregulation" and "Labor Deregulation" and to a lesser extent "Tort Reform" are all about the WA mandating that the government NOT do things. It is extremely difficult to write resolutions that mandate a negative. Indeed, it's probably impossible to do so and also have it be about an international issue. Advancement of Industry does not allow authors to make a positive contribution to economic development, merely to write "reverse blockers" that prevent Member States from doing things. This only holds theoretical attraction for a very right-wing IntFed, a creature that is slightly rarer than the purple-winged three legged dodo.

Restoring the Balance

To restore the balance, we need to change the "Advancement of Industry" category.

The solution I propose is simple: replace "Advancement of Industry" with "Economic Development - A Resolution to develop the world economy, at the expense of the environment."

There is no need for subcategories. Any proposal around the goal of enhancing the world economy will be acceptable. Economic development inherently harms the environment some, so the proposal needs not specifically be anti-green.

If nothing else changes, it could be a mild-significant-strong type resolution category. However, if the environmental resolution is reformed, I would suggest that the "Economic Development" category be an exact mirror of the Environmental resolution category.

[Sanctaria]

This is something I could get behind. A mild-significant-strong type of set-up would be preferable.

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm rather fond of the industry sector Area of Effect model, but as Knoot suggests, only as a balance if Environmental changes get implemented.

If this is to replace Advancement of Industry, we either have to leave the two existing resolutions and their A of Es intact, or find a new home for them. It's not fair to the authors to suddenly convert them to "industry versus environment" in the event of a repeal ... and game coding won't permit abandoning the old A of Es without making adjustments.

All that said, more balance is a good thing. Discuss.

[Sanctaria]

If this is to replace Advancement of Industry, we either have to leave the two existing resolutions and their A of Es intact, or find a new home for them. It's not fair to the authors to suddenly convert them to "industry versus environment" in the event of a repeal ... and game coding won't permit abandoning the old A of Es without making adjustments.

If there are only two, I don't see an issue with grandfathering them. Like Bookkeeping, they could just be there for ornamental/sentimental value.

[Frisbeeteria]

If there are only two, I don't see an issue with grandfathering them. Like Bookkeeping, they could just be there for ornamental/sentimental value.

I don't think [violet] would agree with you. It's one thing for Max to have an unrepealable resolution. It's an entirely different story to single out two player-submitted resolutions for permanent inclusion. No, they'll need a home, even if it means (thinking out loud) leaving the AoEs intact and hiding them. No idea if this is feasible, but they can't simply be abandoned.

[Sanctaria]

If there are only two, I don't see an issue with grandfathering them. Like Bookkeeping, they could just be there for ornamental/sentimental value.

I don't think [violet] would agree with you. It's one thing for Max to have an unrepealable resolution. It's an entirely different story to single out two player-submitted resolutions for permanent inclusion. No, they'll need a home, even if it means (thinking out loud) leaving the AoEs intact and hiding them. No idea if this is feasible, but they can't simply be abandoned.

I never said that they could be unrepealable.

[Knootoss]

This is a technical question and it'd be nice to have [violet] or Salusa speak out on this. I'd personally be all for keeping them in the current categories but hiding them to prevent new resolutions being written.

[Sanctaria]

This is a technical question and it'd be nice to have [violet] or Salusa speak out on this. I'd personally be all for keeping them in the current categories but hiding them to prevent new resolutions being written.

This is what I was saying. I don't think it'd be a major thing, it's only two resolutions.

[Unibot II]

I like the idea of an "Economic Development" category but I don't think it needs to replace the "Advancement of Industry".

Economic Development
A resolution to transition member-states' economies for the sake of their economic and social wellbeing
Mild | Significant | Strong

If it's dealing with improving a nation's economy and aimed to promote a better standard of living, but not really concerned with trade, protectionism, environmental deregulation, tort reform or labor deregulation -- this is your baby.

An example would be a resolution establishing a World Bank or a resolution offering loans to finance member-nation's debt -- really this is the macroeconomic stuff that the WA should be paying attention to but the categories have limited the discussion.

[Knootoss]

Keeping these categories, which have never been used (okay, two exceptions, on only two of the four possibilities) would effectively block off any pro-economy resolution that actually has a clear trade-off with anything else. For simulation purposes, that is a shitty idea. It means that Economic Development resolutions could only ever revolve around arcane economic theory.

As I see it, Economic Development should be about anything that promotes Economic Development. Just like Environmental resolutions can include any idea that promotes the environment.

[Unibot II]

As I see it, Economic Development should be about anything that promotes Economic Development. Just like Environmental resolutions can include any idea that promotes the environment.

That's not true though, Economic Development is very much concerned with social and economic wellbeing -- doing what the Advancement of Industry category does.. reducing wages and destroying the environment would lower a country's economic development rating within reason. Economic Development is about the transition of an economy in a manner that's healthy for citizens.

I think you may be confusing Economic Development with Economic Growth.

I also question which doctrine is the more "arcane" economic theory; just because your doctrine sounds ridiculous when it's said for what it is doesn't mean you should be allowed to take a legitimate and well-renowned economic theory and hijack its name.

[Frisbeeteria]

Everyone needs to recognize that NationStates requires trade offs. You can't have a category that simply increases stuff with no negative repercussions. If you want a pure Economic Development category, come up with the downsides too. Environment is an obvious choice - what else could we use?

[Glen-Rhodes]

I think the current dichotomy the category system has regarding economic development is pro-business and pro-economy. These are my own terms. Maybe it would be better to say protectionism and free market/trade. We already Free Trade. Advancement of Industry is current part protectionism and part deregulation. It could definitely stand to be reformed.

What we clearly need is a free market aspect, which we currently lack, aside from labor and environmental deregulation. Essentially, we should have a domestic counterpart to Free Trade that protects domestic economic freedoms. Although, National Economic Freedoms would actually prevent us from ever using this category, considering how incredibly over-broad it is.

On a side note, I don't think we should avoid changing existing categories just because there are existing resolutions in them. Especially since there are so few in Advancement of Industry. I still don't understand why that keeps being ruled out, especially when we're currently talking about changing the entire way the voting system works, which has to be a more complex change than reconfiguring a category. If the benefits outweigh the costs of putting two resolutions in a new category, there should really be no question.

Everyone needs to recognize that NationStates requires trade offs. You can't have a category that simply increases stuff with no negative repercussions. If you want a pure Economic Development category, come up with the downsides too. Environment is an obvious choice - what else could we use?

Increased income inequality is an obvious one, for promoting free market economics.

Re: Economic development and environmental degradation, I do think some terms are being mixed up here. Economic development, which is a concerted effort to develop an un- or under-developed economy, usually included preventing environmental degradation, because that ultimately costs an economy. For example, a fledgling economy is probably going to be based off of natural resources. Economic development is going to focus on the sustainability of those resources, because the mindless use of them will simply speed along their depletion and cause an economic depression.

Economic growth is simply a rise in GDP and an increase in productivity. It's part of the goal of economic development. But the policies that are only considered with economic growth are probably going to be your classic free market policies, rather than economic development policies that often go against a totally free market.

[Unibot II]

Everyone needs to recognize that NationStates requires trade offs.

What are the trade-offs to "Human Rights"? None if you agree with the Human Right.

[Embolalia]

Everyone needs to recognize that NationStates requires trade offs.

What are the trade-offs to "Human Rights"? None if you agree with the Human Right.

I've never paid too much attention to the statistical side, but the "moral decency" category would be the opposite, proposal wise. I don't know how this is implemented on the back end, but if I'm not mistaken there are some parts of the statistics that take into account the "morality" of your "people". Even if not, it would be the sole exception to the rule that essentially defines this game.

I think Knoot is absolutely spot-on. One could argue that not all pro-economy legislation is anti-environment, but one can equally argue that not all pro-environment legislation is anti-economy. (See: green energy subsidies) It's a good enough approximation for this game, I should think. Regarding GR's suggestions, I don't know that they'd really work within the context of the GA. For one thing, things like "free market" and "income inequality" can't be made to apply to communist nations. (Like he said, "economic freedoms" might be an overly broad term.)

Personally, I'm in favor of the approach Knoot mentioned initially: A mild/significant/strong, pro-economy, negative-environment category. The two existing resolutions get a repealable grandfathering, while the category itself gets closed off.

[Mousebumples]

I could totally get on board with this idea. I'd prefer to have the strengths to select from here, versus AoEs, but I can understand making it a direct counter to what are (likely) going to be eventual changes to the Environmental category.

[Moronist Decisions]

We like this idea in general - with the proviso that the damage to the environment will not need to be direct, as Knootoss suggested. We also prefer strength rather than area of effect.

[Snefaldia]

I actually really like this, much as I liked Knoot's original questions about the economic statistics when the analysis function was rolled out. Anything that can be done to increase the use of as many categories as possible is good.

[Knootoss]

Thanks for the support, guys. n_n

[Athfhotla]

I'm a huge fan of this idea as Knootoss initially stated it and I honestly think it's the only really good idea to change the WA that has been recently proposed. I hope it will be implemented.

[Knootoss]

So there was a bunch of "yay this is shiny" followed by siiiiiilence. Let me try and BUMP this because I still think it is a good idea!

[Auralia]

Support.