Tag Archives: politics

Internal Discipline in Rebel Movements, Part III

26 Wednesday Jul 2023

Posted by in Politics for Worldbuilders, Revolution, War, Writing

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , ,

In previous blog posts, we discussed Jeremy Weinstein’s work on the internal dynamics of rebel groups, and how they lead some groups to commit indiscriminate violence against civilians. In a nutshell, groups with limited initial resources are forced to establish close relationships with civilian communities in order to survive, which forces them to discipline their forces and share significant power with communal leaders.

By contrast, groups with significant wealth at their founding (for example, due to state sponsors or involvement in the drug trade) have no strategic imperative to depend on civilians, and furthermore tend to recruit personnel who are in it for the money. As a result, personnel tend to abuse civilians, the leadership doesn’t want to incur the costs of disciplining them, and the groups tend not to share power with the civilian populace.

We are now at the crux of it. The foregoing processes tend to encourage “rich” rebel groups to use massive violence against civilians, mostly because their previous mistreatment of civilians leaves them with no other options. Let’s see why.

Rebel groups want civilians in (or near) their territory to cooperate with them—to provide food, tax revenue, recruits, and information about government troops and collaborators. Civilians, on the other hand, may or may not want to cooperate. Some might be government supporters or officials. Even if civilians oppose the government, they may not want to risk government reprisals. And they might view the rebels as worse than the government, and not want to cooperate with them even if they could do so safely. Therefore, rebel groups (and governments, for that matter) will sometimes want to harm civilians who cooperate with the enemy or refuse to cooperate with them—not least in order to frighten other civilians into complying with their demands.

A rebel group that has close ties with civilian populations (usually because it began its existence as “poor”) will have a much easier time using violence in a selective, targeted fashion. Because the populace trusts them, civilians are more willing to give information to the rebels. And because the rebels have close ties to the populace, they will be able to vet information they receive to make sure that their informants are telling the truth, so that they don’t harm an innocent party by mistake. Punishments are usually more graduated (such as kidnapping civilians and confining them for a time), giving rebels the chance to discover a mistake before harm becomes irreparable (i.e. the wrong person is shot). Finally, when mistakes are made, the rebels usually make amends to the populace and punish the offending personnel, reinforcing the trust that the population has in them.

As a result, “poor” rebel groups will tend to use violence selectively against civilians, seizing or assassinating government officials and collaborators and rarely harming the wrong people. The overall level of violence against civilians will be fairly low (at least from the rebel side; often government forces are less discriminate, for the same reasons we are about to discuss with reference to “rich” groups).

In contrast, we discussed how “rich” groups will tend to abuse civilians because they don’t bother disciplining their troops, and they will tend to exclude civilians from power arrangements. As a result, civilians will tend not to trust such rebel groups, even if they nominally support them over the government (and they may not). Rebel groups will thus receive less information from civilian sympathizers, making it harder for them to selectively target government collaborators or functionaries, or to punish civilians who are refusing to cooperate with them.

Worse, when they do receive information from civilians about potential targets, “rich” rebel groups will have a hard time verifying its accuracy (if they even care to). As a result, malicious civilians will frequently exploit the rebel groups to take revenge against their neighborhood enemies. Even without such deliberate deceit, rebels will frequently target the wrong people, ending up harming innocents. This will cause civilian trust to erode still further and causing information flows to slow or stop. In the end, even if rebel groups wanted to target civilians selectively, they will find it impossible.

But such groups still have a strategic need to force compliance by civilians. Unable to use violence selectively, they will instead resort to collective punishment, massacring people at random or even whole communities in order to frighten other communities.

Obviously this is a suboptimal outcome for the rebels, even setting aside moral concerns. Once you murder people indiscriminately, it becomes almost impossible to go back as no civilians will trust you or want to help you. “Rich” rebel groups are thus set on a path to continued massacre and bloodshed that ends only when they establish unchallenged control over a given community or population. (And even then, the pervasive acts of individual exploitation will continue.) Their ability to gain popular support will be very much hobbled, and their effectiveness in challenging the government and ruling the populace will be significantly less than it might have been.

Still, it’s not impossible to overthrow the government and rule a country while murdering indiscriminately. (Charles Taylor comes to mind in Liberia.) Less dramatically, in Mozambique, RENAMO managed to bring the ruling government to the bargaining table after a very long and bloody civil war.

In the final post of this sequence, we will discuss how external shocks can challenge rebel groups’ ability to operate, and how their responses to such shocks might change their pattens of behavior from “activist” to “rich” or (rarely) vice versa.

*****

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned fourth book in this series, working title War for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)

Cities, Money, Power, and Political Bargains

20 Thursday Jul 2023

Posted by in Politics, Politics for Worldbuilders, State Formation, War

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

For most of post-Roman, premodern history, Europe was hardly the most powerful region in the world. China and Japan were in many ways far more powerful than any European power and had more advanced technology. Africa too featured sprawling empires, such as that of Mali. Europe, by contrast, was something of a backwater, struggling with depressed trade, frequent war, limited education, and disease among other obstacles. And yet starting only a few hundred years ago, strong states emerged in Europe that were able to mobilize vast wealth and military strength sufficient to subdue most of the globe.

The question that scholars have grappled with is how this happened. The “state-formation” literature is generally more applicable to the discussion of state capacity (a topic to be covered in Book 3 of my series) rather than the economy per se; but it is still useful to us as we discuss worldbuilding models of the economy, because in one of the leading theories of state formation, economic development—and the growth of cities in particular—plays a central role.

In Charles Tilly’s Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992, he argued that European cities played a key role in the development of strong states because of their role in concentrating and deploying capital. While many states (such as Russia) were heavily coercion-intensive, states that featured a large amount of capital (such as the Netherlands) eventually found that they could mobilize more of that capital by sharing political rights with the merchant class. As a result, high-capital states that made political bargains with their populace were eventually able to build more powerful militaries than predominantly coercive states, and that particular model of state structure became common.

(It is worth pointing out that Tilly explicitly limited the scope of his theory to Europe due to the unusual concentration of urban cities and high populations found there, and did not apply the theory to other regions. For a while, there was a thriving literature arguing that Tilly’s argument failed in various other regions, or that it did not account for various factors even in the European experience. When the dust died down, I think the best evaluation is that Tilly’s basic thesis holds true even outside of Europe where its necessary conditions hold, such as in China. And where it does not hold, scholars trying to explain why have enriched the general theory by discussing the differing conditions that resulted in other outcomes, such as Jeffrey Herbst’s work on African state-building.)

Fundamentally, the driving force behind the development of strong states was the need to prepare for war. The first states were formed by men seeking to extend their control over others, and the states with the most power would extend their control as far out as it could go, stopping only when they reached the limit of their ability to project power—whether because of the limitations of available transportation technology, geographical barriers, or the opposition of other states. As a result, in each region, the most powerful state set the terms of coexistence—neighboring weaker states could either submit to vassalage or outright conquest, or else spend disproportionate resources on their defense. As Tilly puts it, “[M]ost rulers settled for a combination of conquest, protection against powerful rivals, and coexistence with cooperative neighbors.”

Within the constraints imposed by powerful rivals, states had to build structures to efficiently extract resources from their populations (or other populations forced to pay tribute or subject to plundering) and then translate those resources into military power. Tilly zeroes in on four variables to explain the variable success of a European state in doing so:

  • its concentration of capital,
  • its concentration of coercive power,
  • its need, and ability, to prepare for war, and
  • its position within the regional or international state system.

For Tilly, the key difference was between capital-intensive and coercion-intensive regions. In short, coercion-intensive states were able to mobilize larger armies, at least initially; but their advantage was nullified when warfare changed to require more and more money, to pay for professionalized troops, new weapons, and regularized logistics, and coercion-intensive states tended to have stunted economies as a result. Meanwhile, capital-intensive city-states had skilled professional armies, but small ones; they had not enough population to compete effectively with national states in the long run. The sweet spot was occupied by national states built around large, capital-intensive cities so that their political institutions tended to grant rights to the holders of capital. As a result, they could access large national populations and the money needed to fuel powerful armies.

Coercion

Tilly describes three kinds of European states during the period under discussion:

  • Tribute-taking empires tended to have relatively low accumulations of coercive power, but high concentration—that is, they might have had one or two armies that periodically swept through their vassal territories, demanding resources at swordpoint and punishing rebellions. Such empires were relatively fragile; if an adversary managed to accumulate significant coercive power, the empire’s ability to extract tribute might collapse entirely.
  • Systems of fragmented sovereignty typically included city-states as well as urban federations such as the Hanseatic League or the early Netherlands, which featured several loci of political power without a single clear sovereign. Such systems tended to have high accumulations of coercive power (usually because each of the constituent cities or other units was rich enough to afford its own army). This is almost true by definition; if a fragmented system were not able to accumulate a lot of coercive power, it would have been swallowed up by a competitor. However, such systems usually featured low coercive concentration, as the cities often cooperated poorly on defense and rarely subordinated their forces to a unified command.
  • Finally, national states were in the middle: featuring a high concentration of strong coercive power, but forced to bargain with their populations for their cooperation—typically by granting them political rights or participation of one kind or another.

Capital

Whether capital is concentrated or not depends heavily on the available technologies, and whether they tend to encourage distributed or centralized production.

In a subsistence economy, there is practically no capital at all as we are used to thinking of it. Even if there are a small handful of nobles living in castles, and merchants living in sturdy houses, most people have absolutely nothing to their names. Fernand Braudel (The Structures of Everyday Life, p. 282), writing of the centuries before the eighteenth century in Europe, notes that official inventories of possessions of the deceased almost invariably were restricted to “only a few old clothes, a stool, a table, a bench, the planks of a bed, sacks filled with straw.” That was all that most people had. Capital as we know it was the province of a very few people who engaged in large-scale trade or taxation. Labor-saving devices were few, even including such things as plows (many farmers were forced to use spades and dig by hand). The most readily available form of capital was living beings: livestock, slaves, professional hirelings, or peasants drafted for periodic corvée labor. (That is, the analytical distinction between capital and labor essentially breaks down.) As a result, to accumulate useful capital you had to command the labor of people, which is why rulers were often forced to rely on local landlords to muster their peasants.

In the “protoindustrialization” era of cottage industries, the available technology made production suddenly more efficient, but did not produce large economies of scale—at a time when the roads were just good enough for finished goods to be cost-effectively sent to markets, but not good enough for raw material and workers to routinely travel to centralized production. Capital flowed to labor, in smaller-scale workshops dispersed through cities and their surroundings or out in the countryside. This was the time of the putting-out system, of small workshops and manufacturies built around windmills and watermills, of largely local production. As a result, there was prodigious accumulation of capital compared to what had come before, but it was not excessively concentrated and was spread around relatively evenly. Still, cities served as nexuses for trade, and represented the most available “containers” for capital. City-based merchants and burghers became politically important, because they had the money that rulers needed to pay for their armies. (And sometimes, as in the case of the Hanseatic League, the burghers became rulers themselves.)

By contrast, industrialization featured massive centralized factories, encouraged by the coal boiler and the huge returns to scale that it created. Workers came to capital, concentrating themselves in the cities. The rewards of production became concentrated in relatively few hands and places, which consequently made it easier for governments to make bargains with such capitalists and appropriate some of that wealth in exchange for political privileges.

Effects on State Power

Tilly notes, “Two factors shape the process by which states acquire resources, and strongly affect the organization that results from the process: the character of the bottom-up hierarchy of capital [that emerges naturally from trade and exchange], and the place within that hierarchy of any location from which a state’s agents try to extract resources.” In other words, for a state to be capable of taxing individual incomes requires far more institutional capacity than a state that can only tax salt entering at a single port, for example. And conversely, a state that is dependent on a few sources of tax income must be more solicitous to the interests of the relatively few, relatively wealthy taxpayers.

As a result, states that emerged gradually during the early modern era developed in a clear pattern. The biggest cities with a lot of commercial activity and wealth often became their own city-states (such as in Italy and pre-Bismarck Germany). The regimes in these city-states were often thinly structured, able to easily collect customs duties and borrow money from bankers without large coercive bureaucracies. That, in turn, tended to discourage coercive government policies on the margin. Somewhat less powerful cities were typically incorporated into national states, but were able to negotiate political bargains with the developing state in exchange for their tax revenue (as in France).

By contrast, regions that were relatively poorer and had relatively few cities with weak commercial links with the hinterlands around them often were subject to straight coercion by the ruler, in states that covered a larger geographic area but a relatively dispersed and poor populace (such as Russia). Tilly writes, “In broadly similar ways, Russian, Polish, Hungarian, Serbian, and Brandenburger states formed on the basis of strong alliances between warmaking princes and armed landlords, large concessions of governmental power to nobles and gentry, joint exploitation of the peasantry, and restricted scope for merchant capital. Repeatedly, leaders of conquering forces who lacked capital offered their followers booty and land, only to face the problem of containing the great warrior-landlords they thereby created.” The only feasible solution was to rely on extensive force, which became less and less effective as the coercive states fell behind their neighbors on economy.

******

This has gotten quite long and somewhat disorganized, but the key ideas are still useful in your worldbuilding. States need to survive in a dangerous world, and need money and power to do so. In poor settings, highly coercive states have an advantage; but as capital accumulates, richer societies that made political bargains with their populaces end up pulling ahead. (On average!)

*****

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post will show up in the planned second and third books in this series, working titles Wealth for Worldbuilders and Tyranny for Worldbuilders respectively. No idea when they will be finished, but they should be fun!)

Internal Discipline in Rebel Movements, Part I

13 Thursday Jul 2023

Posted by in Politics, Politics for Worldbuilders, Revolution, War

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , , ,

We fiction writers often feature resistance movements in our stories. American culture in particular lionizes rebels and guerrillas, thanks in part to our rose-colored cultural memory of the American Revolution on the one hand, and some people’s idealized picture of socialist revolution in the Che Guevara mode on the other.

In real life, most resistance movements fail before they even get started. Of the ones that get established enough to fight a serious war against the state, most of them lose—and before they lose, many of them victimize civilian populations more brutally than the states they try to overthrow.

Yet some resistance movements are protective of civilians, and maintain internal discipline to ensure that their foot soldiers do not steal or murder with impunity. Some of them end up getting corrupted by success and start predating civilians; but a few manage to stay moral all the way to victory.

What makes the difference? Why do some rebel groups routinely harm civilians and others don’t? And more to the point, how can we writers use these concepts in our stories?

Jeremy Weinstein, in his book Inside Rebellion, provides an unexpected answer that becomes utterly compelling as he lays out his evidence. Weinstein argues, on the basis of considerable fieldwork in Peru, Uganda, and Mozambique as well as analysis of the literatures on several other civil wars, that the key difference is the level of resources available to the rebel group at its inception.

If a group initially has very few resources (primarily money, food, and weapons), then it must quickly build links to a broader civilian community in order to survive. The need to maintain relationships with the populace then impels the group to develop strong internal discipline and governance, and to behave well with civilians (except for selective killings done for strategic reasons, for example executing collaborators).

If, on the other hand, a group has access to significant resources—money from a state sponsor, or from the drug trade, or from natural resources, for example—then it has much less need to maintain good relations with the civilian populace. That, by itself, doesn’t force a group to harm civilians; but the easy availability of resources tends to lead a group to pay its members well, which attracts a different (and less savory) caliber of recruit than would agree to join a poor, weak resistance group without resources.

This is not a simple argument of “rich group kills civilians, poor group does not.” Weinstein carefully lays out the cascading effects of that difference in initial conditions as they bear on five distinct problems faced by rebel groups (and by governments too, although that is outside of Weinstein’s scope):

  • Recruitment;
  • Maintaining discipline;
  • Managing civilians in areas the group controls;
  • Punishing people for cooperating with the enemy or otherwise shirking; and
  • Resilience (that is, maintaining your membership and its governance structures over time)

*****

Before I explain these, let me just take a moment to rhapsodize about good theories. (Because this is my blog, and I can do what I want!) The world is full of thorny questions, and equally full of bad answers to those questions—as H.L. Mencken put it, “[T]here is always a well-known solution to every human problem—neat, plausible, and wrong.” It is a true joy to read a theory that suggests an answer that is utterly unexpected, and yet as you read the argument, it addresses so many features of the initial problem that the theory seems impossible to refute.

Obviously, later work can improve on even good theories. But some theories stand the test of time, and persist in their unaltered form despite the best efforts of later scholars. (Einstein’s theories are good examples. In a different domain, so is the work of Mancur Olson on collective-action problems.)

Not to suggest that Weinstein’s work is definitely in that latter category. But if it were, I wouldn’t be surprised.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program!

******

Weinstein’s model builds from the starting assumption that there are two kinds of people who might join a rebel movement: “investors” and “consumers.” Investors are willing to incur significant short-term costs for the sake of the long-term goal of victory. Consumers, on the other hand, are interested in gaining benefits today from their association with the rebel group: a salary, a gun, prestige, the chance to loot plunder, the chance to harm neighbors they don’t like. Which type of recruit predominates in a rebel group has powerful effects on the development of the group.

If a rebel group is poor, it cannot offer immediate benefits to members. As a result, consumers would tend not to join the group, having little reason to. The group’s only option, therefore, is to attempt to appeal to investors—that is, develop links to a civilian population with which it shares ethnic, communal, or ideological ties to which it can appeal to gain support and foster loyalty. This means that the group will have to build institutions of self-governance, so that the civilian populace has reason to trust that the group will protect civilians from the government and from its own members.

It is important to emphasize that getting the support of a civilian base is a strategic imperative for poor rebels, regardless of their political program, ideology, or even personal standards of morality. Those poor groups that don’t manage it will simply wither away from lack of recruits or lack of food. This task will be easier with a rank-and-file made up of investors, who are relatively more willing to submit to discipline that serves the group goals, than it would be if most members were consumers and therefore willing to break the rules for personal gain.

Weinstein also finds that poor rebel groups spend a lot of effort filtering out low-quality recruits, despite the difficulties in finding manpower. Such groups have far too much at stake to risk antagonizing civilians with undisciplined behavior, like the National Resistance Army in Uganda and the Shining Path in Peru (except for the Shining Path in the Huallaga Valley, which became enmeshed in the cocaine trade and therefore followed the “rich group” trajectory).

If a rebel group has significant starting resources, on the other hand, it will be able to rapidly gain recruits by offering them steady pay. This tends to attract a much higher proportion of consumers. It also means that the strategic imperative to gain the support of civilians is largely absent: the group can support itself even if it is hated and feared by civilians, as long as the money or guns keep rolling in. As a result, the group will spend far less effort appealing to the populace, and will also spend less effort on filtering out low-quality recruits because it incurs little penalty from undisciplined behavior that harms civilians.

Moreover, even if the group wanted to stop its forces from harming civilians, it would have a hard time doing so: because most of its members are consumers, i.e. out for immediate gain, they will tend to resist orders not to predate on the civilian populace. So the group will tolerate bad behavior by its troops towards civilians in exchange for demanding obedience on the battlefield.

Now, you might wonder what happens if a group with significant resources nevertheless managed to resist the temptation to behave badly—and instead managed to only recruit investors, impose strong discipline, build links to the populace, etc. In theory, this is possible. In practice, however, the tremendous risks that rebels take when opposing the government would make it almost impossible for them not to take the quick and easy way of recruiting a bunch of thugs to boost their manpower, if they had the cash available. Remember, most rebellions fail miserably. Immediate survival often weighs more heavily on the minds of rebel leaders that the problems of tomorrow that they are unwittingly setting into motion.

*****

The foregoing is only the first half of Weinstein’s discussion, and this post is already quite long. In future posts I will summarize his discussion of how “rich” and “poor” rebel groups differ in how they govern civilians under their control, how they punish civilians for resisting their control or for apparent collaboration with the enemy, and how they maintain their own membership over time. But you can already see where the trend is going.

******

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned fourth book in this series, working title War for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)

Building an Economy: Human Capital

06 Thursday Jul 2023

Posted by in Economics, Education, Politics for Worldbuilders, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Returning to the Labor component of the four factors of production in our quest to build a worldbuilding model of the economy, we will now discuss human capital.

Human capital, unlike other characteristics of one’s labor such as your health or general attitudes toward work, is often domain-specific. You may be a highly trained surgeon, but that would do you little good if you have to plant crops. You might be an expert at negotiating trade deals, but that doesn’t help you if you are trying to program your thermostat. In general, the value of your human capital depends on, and interacts with, the available opportunities you have to apply that human capital.

There are many kinds of human capital. In our model, we’ll focus on three:

  • Training,
  • Experience, and
  • Interpersonal skills.

Obviously, this categorization is artificial. Distinguishing between training and experience is not always easy or useful. And the development of interpersonal skills is influenced by training, but also by cultural context—both in terms of what is considered proper etiquette in that culture, and in terms of whether the culture encourages values like teamwork, taking responsibility, giving proper credit, and politeness or other values such as saving face, kiss-up-kick-down, dominance, and rigid separation of roles. So interpersonal skills should strictly speaking interact with the “Culture” factor of labor in our model. Nevertheless, as a scaffold for our thinking, we’re still going to use this three-part division.

Experience and interpersonal skills are fairly self-explanatory. (Some people develop particular skill in working with others, in a way that measurably shows up in company performance, and these skills can be learned; see Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High.) In the rest of this post, we will be discussing training in particular, and focusing on a key question that has wide-reaching implications: who bears the costs of a worker’s training?

(Note: “costs” include actual money, but also instruction time and effort, the frictions involved in assigning real work to a trainee, and the like.)

Following Kathleen Thelen’s book How Institutions Evolve, we can talk about three kinds of vocational skills: general, industry-specific, and company-specific. General skills are widely applicable, such as literacy or basic computer skills. Company-specific skills, on the other hand, are only useful within a particular company—how to use a custom inventory system, for example. Finally, domain-specific skills are useful within a specific industry.

Because general skills make a worker more valuable across industries, a worker who gains general skills is more likely (all else equal) to leave her current employment and find a better offer. As a result, employers will generally not want to pay for their employees to gain general skills (all else equal), because even though they would benefit from having skilled employees, those employees are likely to be poached away and the current employers are less likely to keep the benefits of such skills. The employees, on the other hand, will want to pay for general skills because the risk is low: even if their current job goes away, the skills will be useful to many other employers. Employees thus get the benefits of having general skills, and are willing to pay for them (if they can afford it!).

For company-specific skills, companies have a much easier time paying for workers to develop them; the skills only have value within that company, so training your workers makes them relatively less likely to leave. As long as the employer is confident that a worker will remain, and as long as company-specific skills would actually be useful, the employer is likely to pay for such training. The employee himself is relatively less likely to pay for company-specific skills, for that reason.

But when we consider domain-specific training, we have a problem. If the worker bears the cost of his own training, he also runs a relatively high risk that no one will hire him for that job even after he is trained (since it only applies to one industry). If so, the cost of the training will be wasted, since he would not be able to apply the specialized training in a different domain. As a result, the worker will be less willing to bear the cost of his own training unless he had some sort of assurance that the investment would pay off.

Conversely, if the employer bears the cost of training a new employee with domain-specific skills, she runs the risk that the employee will receive all the expensive training and then happily jump ship to a different employer, or strike out on his own, or simply underperform at his new job. The employer will be unwilling to spend lots of resources training employees unless she had some sort of assurance that they would remain with her, and perform up to par.

This is probably why medieval Europe featured long apprenticeships and state-sanctioned professional guilds—apprentices could devote years of their life (but did not have to pay money) to learning a trade secure in the knowledge that their master would employ them (albeit under bad conditions), and the master could invest the considerable effort needed to train an apprentice secure in the knowledge that the apprentice could not run off early and ply his trade elsewhere, because the apprentice could be imprisoned or even executed. The apprentice was locked into his contract for several years, long enough for his master to reap the benefits of his growing skill.

On the other hand, there are significant drawbacks to the apprenticeship system. First of all, the master is taking a big risk—what if you turn out to be really bad even with training, or dishonest, or just unpleasant to be around? Second, the apprentice has to sacrifice many years of his life toiling for someone else—and what if the master is cruel, or incompetent, or just bad at business or teaching? Why not take opportunities to abandon your master and improve your life?

Most of all, an apprenticeship system requires overpowering coercion to work—either from a powerful state that enforces contracts between master and apprentice, if you’re lucky enough to live under one, or else a social milieu that tolerates private violence by masters and guild enforcers against the hapless apprentices. Or perhaps both.

In modern times, we typically use other means, which have varying levels of success and different outcomes. Here, we’ll talk about two models, and call these a “liberal” labor system and an “organized” labor system.

In a stylized “liberal” labor system where workers can move between companies and industries without restrictions, companies have less assurance that they will be able to keep workers around after they have been trained; as a result, companies tend to invest relatively little in workforce training (except for company-specific skills), and workers themselves are encouraged to finance their own training.

Workers, for their part, will therefore tend to invest in general skills that do not depend on a particular employer or industry, as they have a higher likelihood of benefiting from such investment wherever they end up. They will also invest (where possible) in especially valuable skills that are industry-specific (such as computer programming), because the expected return from such investment is still positive even with the uncertainty of the payoff.

But less valuable industry-specific skills (such as trades) will tend to be neglected. Moreover, the skill development of the workforce as a whole will largely depend on the workers’ ability to invest in their own skills. If they lack the funds, the time, or the access to credit, workers will not be able to get all the skills they want. (This is a particular problem at the beginning of your career, when you have no money!) As a result, a “liberal” system will tend to produce a workforce with reasonably levels of general skills and highly valuable industry-specific skills, and a large gap of skills in the middle.

One way to address this gap is for the state to provide free or subsidized education to younger people, especially to fund the development of general skills. Unsurprisingly, in the United States over half of the workforce has college degrees, while only perhaps 35% of German workers do (and many of these are professional degrees, rather than what Americans would recognize as a liberal-arts degree).

Another way is for companies to offer strong incentives for employee loyalty, partly mitigating the poaching problem. Examples include the Japanese system of worker seniority, or the common practice among American startups to offer restricted stock compensation that vests over several years.

By contrast, in a regimented system of long-term employment with few opportunities to switch jobs (what Thelen calls an “organized” system, as one finds in Germany), companies will be assured that they can capture the benefits of training investments; each company will therefore train its employees to the level that the company needs (or thinks it needs). However, workers themselves will tend to underinvest in their own skills; because of the limits on job choice, they will not reap all the benefits of such investment.

As a result, an organized system tends to produce a workforce that has good basic and “middle” domain-specific skills, but lacks skill on the high end. (In Germany, for instance, nearly half of workers have attended vocational schools, often funded by their future employers. Germany also features industry groups that collectively manage worker training, and agreements between companies to manage worker poaching.)

****

The upshot is that a skilled workforce doesn’t spring from the ground fully formed. Someone has to bear the costs of training, and that someone has to be confident that she will reap the benefits of that investment. There are several ways to resolve the resulting problems, but each of them will result in a characteristic pattern of skill development—and such patterns can add texture to your invented societies.

*****

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned second book in this series, working title Wealth [Commerce?] for Worldbuilders, along with some overlap with the planned third book, working title Tyranny for Worldbuilders. No idea when they will be finished, but it should be fun!)

Factor Mobility and Political Conflict

25 Sunday Jun 2023

Posted by in Economics, Politics for Worldbuilders, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

In an earlier post, I mentioned the argument of Michael Hiscox that whether investment capital is mobile or immobile will play a big role in the way that political conflict over the economy plays out. The truth is, Hiscox argued that the same basic principle applies to all the factors of production.

Human capital too can be of general usefulness, like being able to read, or it can be highly specialized, like knowing how to audit the internal reports of a McDonald’s franchise. Empty land near a city could be used to grow crops or graze cattle, or it could be repurposed for housing or a factory; but land in the middle of a swamp can’t be used for much except fishing or peat harvesting. Even people themselves might be mobile or immobile, depending on how easy transportation is between where they are and where they might want to be. (Hiscox references the Law of One Price in describing this tendency.)

We noted in the earlier post that if capital is inflexible, then it cannot easily shift between industries and people will fight hard to defend their own industry against competitors; politics thus features intense lobbying and narrow sectoral factions, with the bosses and workers largely allied to defend their own niche. By contrast, if capital is flexible, then if one industry is having trouble, investors will simply shift their capital to a more profitable industry with a minimum of fuss. Thus, politics shifts its focus to broad, class-based coalitions (workers versus owners, haves versus have-nots). (Additionally, flexible capital is better able to serve as collateral for lending, while in its absence entrepreneurs are forced to rely on equity finance, which is more difficult to get.)

Essentially the same is true for the other factors of production. Labor and land, too, have different political effects based on how easily they can be repurposed. Ease of transportation plays a particular role in allowing resources to equalize between different regions or different industries. So does the state of technology; if workers can easily adapt to the machinery in different industries, it is much easier to shift people around than if machinery is highly specialized and takes a long time to master.

Hiscox notes that political conflicts over the economy thus follow some consistent patterns based on the level of technological development of a society. In a preindustrial society, the factors of production are relatively immobile: knowledge of a trade doesn’t transfer well, most industrial capital is immobile and difficult to repurpose, and transportation is slow and risky. In particular, money itself (e.g. gold and silver bullion) is tricky to move around, which limits the ability of investment capital to flow into poorer regions where there might have been good uses for it.

As a result, capital and labor do not readily shift between industries or regions, with the result that you often see guild rivalries and conflicts breaking along professional lines, with class conflict as such usually taking second place. (This does not mean that it never happens; for example, the Bauerenkrieg or Peasants’ War of c. 1524 was largely kicked off when German nobility put in place new laws on land ownership to force the free peasants into serfdom.)

Early industrialization, by contrast, makes factors of production much more mobile. Transportation gets much easier, reducing frictions in shifting factors of production between regions or from one use to another. Unskilled people can more easily move between industries, since basic factory work is similar across industries in this stage of industrialization. Similarly, advanced education becomes useful in a wide range of industries, and someone initially educated to be a priest could readily become an engineer, scientist, diplomat, and statesman. Capital likewise becomes much more mobile, as much industrial equipment is relatively multipurpose.

It is no accident, says Hiscox, that mass politics based on class divides becomes much more salient in the period of early industrialization. (For example, Marx’s argument about the role of unemployed workers as the “industrial reserve army” of capital would make no sense in a preindustrial economy; unemployed weavers could not magically become potters or shipbuilders.)

Later industrialization causes factor mobility to decline again in relative terms. Human capital becomes much more specialized (for example, a growing number of Americans today are seeking master’s degrees, professional degrees, and PhDs, finding that a “mere” bachelor’s degree is not enough for their needs). So does productive capital (for example, the cost of building a single semiconductor plant can be as high as $10 billion!). Also, specific forms of human and technological capital can only be used with each other—a computer programmer is useless without a computer, and an astronomer cannot function as such without massive telescopes. So, says Hiscox, class-based political struggles tend to decline, and industry lobbying rears its head again.

(Hiscox notes that government policy can improve factor mobility, as in Sweden, and allow class coalitions to persist—and at the time of his writing, Sweden was able to respond to economic shocks much more rapidly as a result, particularly through wage equalization between industries.)

Since Hiscox wrote, I would argue that we have seen a relatively unbalanced situation develop where parts of the economy are getting more flexible, and other parts of the economy are getting more inflexible. It is far easier today to invest in, say, a broad-based ETF of Chinese companies than it was thirty years ago, and just as easy to yank your money out with a few mouse clicks. But building a factory now requires highly specialized robotic equipment, some of which is impossible to use in any other industry. A general grounding in basic computer use or marketing skill can be applied in many different industries; and at the same time, to be a physicist or biomedical researcher now virtually requires getting a PhD first, where in earlier times you could get started with a bachelor’s degree or even be entirely self-taught.

No surprise that our modern politics feature a weird mixture of class-based politics and sectoral-lobbying politics, in a volatile and high-temperature mix that makes it much harder for any political conflicts to be resolved.

*****

At any rate, Hiscox’s model gives you a handy lens to think about how factor mobility can affect the politics of your own invented worlds. In particular, if you want to have class conflict in your story, make sure that the economic environment is conducive to such conflict, as opposed to conflict between competing guilds, for example.

*****

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned second book in this series, working title Wealth [Commerce?] for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)

Uncertainty and Institutions

04 Sunday Jun 2023

Posted by in Economics, Politics for Worldbuilders, State Formation

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

The world is a complicated place. Especially when you are dealing with lots of other people, it can be very hard to predict how other people will act. And that, in turn, makes it very difficult to plan what you are going to do. Which then makes it harder for other people to predict how you are going to act, and so on.

With all of this uncertainty, how do we manage to function during the day? And just as importantly, how do we make long-term plans for the future, such as building infrastructure or growing food? As Douglass North writes in his book Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance, we use institutions to reduce the uncertainty of our interactions with other people. As a result, the structure of a society’s institutions plays a huge role in its economic and social functioning.

(If you read my book Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders, you might remember that a good chunk of the book was inspired by Violence and Social Orders, by North/Wallis/Weingast; this is “North” of that trio.)

In a nutshell, here is North’s argument: in a vacuum, there is often too much uncertainty to permit voluntary interaction between people. Institutions are created to reduce uncertainty. Then organizations form or entrepreneurs make deals to take advantage of the possibilities created by the institutions, and the feedback from same gradually changes the institutions.

Some institutions are formal, such as laws, rules, regulations, religious doctrine, and the like. Some are informal—North identifies three kinds: (1) extensions or modifications of formal rules, (2) social norms, and (3) personally imposed standards. Either kind of institution can be created for many reasons, and formal institutions in particular often are created for self-interested reasons by those in power. As North puts it, “Institutions are not necessarily or even usually created to be socially efficient; rather they, or at least the formal rules, are created to serve the interests of those with the bargaining power to devise new rules.”

Nevertheless, institutions have the effect of reducing uncertainty, by giving us stronger beliefs about how other people will act in a given situation. Because of this, environments of high uncertainty (such as quickly changing social or environmental settings) often drive people to create new institutions, either formal systems or new belief systems.

(That need not always be socially optimal; a cultural belief that “my countrymen will deal honestly, but foreigners will always rob and murder me” would certainly reduce one’s felt uncertainty in both directions, but probably would not be helpful overall—unless the foreigners in question would actually do so!)

Reducing uncertainty has the effect of reducing transaction costs in commerce—particularly the costs of gathering information, forming agreements, and enforcing them. This is a significant issue; many of the weirdest parts of our own economy are the result of difficulties in gathering information. (Think of how hard it can be to find a job or hire people, for example.) Thus, lower transaction costs can dramatically encourage economic activity.

Okay, but what happens next? North is particularly interested in the feedback process between institutions and the people acting in light of them. In particular, entrepreneurs can sometimes perceive new opportunities that exist thanks to a given institution, take advantage of the opportunity, and therefore incrementally change the environment, creating new opportunities etc.

(For example, Jared Rubin writes about how a financial instrument first created in Muslim lands, the bill of exchange, was gleefully adopted by Christian merchants to evade currency controls between countries and served as a key impetus for the development of international banking in Europe.)

There are limits to such incremental feedback, however. North writes, “Individuals act upon incomplete information and with subjectively derived models that are frequently erroneous; the information feedback is typically insufficient to correct these subjective models.” Additionally, some institutions are designed not for economic efficiency, but to facilitate exploitation and oppression; these institutions actually raise transaction costs. Entrepreneurial adaptation can help ameliorate their effects, but only to a point. Finally, some well-meaning institutions are so flawed that no amount of adaptation can make them useful, and some kinds of adaptation can actually make them worse. (America’s short-sighted regulatory policies around housing finance, and how they sowed the seeds of the 2008 financial crisis, come to mind.)

Another key point that North makes is the importance of path dependence. In short, a given institutional environment will reward some kinds of activity and discourage others, which will in turn cause future development to lean in a particular direction. Examples:

  • If there is strong rule of law and enforcement of contracts, there will be more impersonal economic exchange. If rights are weak, on the other hand, people will tend to exchange only in trusted networks. This will weaken the future development of economic networks.
  • Insecure property rights will encourage the development of technologies that have low sunk costs, and are mobile. This also discourages long-term agreements.
  • The advance of knowledge is in large part path-dependent. Knowledge influences ideology, which guides the search for knowledge.

And once a given institution is in place, it is often difficult to change. As W. Brian Arthur pointed out, there are at least four processes that make it less likely for people to change systems once put in place: large fixed costs; domain-specific learning; coordination effects; and adaptive expectations.

*****

What are some takeaways, especially for worldbuilders? First, every time that you think of some new organization or new law or new environmental condition, spend time thinking about how self-interested people will react to it—and how other people will react to them, and so on. Second, remember the importance of reducing uncertainty.

*****

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned second book in this series, working title Wealth [Commerce?] for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)

Where Does War Come From, Anyway?

02 Tuesday May 2023

Posted by in Politics for Worldbuilders, War, Writing

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

Worldbuilders and fiction writers often feature wars in their settings, often many wars. This is natural, given the importance of wars and their consequences in humanity’s recorded history. But note that I said “recorded” history. There are still a handful of societies (predominantly foraging societies without formalized leadership) in which war and feud does not take place. That does not mean that such societies are peaceful necessarily; often, homicide rates are quite high. (In one society without war, the Gebusi, homicide was traditionally thought to account for almost a third of adult deaths!) But while individuals might kill individuals, and groups might attack and kill offenders as a form of capital punishment, no one in these societies kills another solely because of his or her membership in a group.

Usually, your invented world will feature social organizations complex enough that the idea of war already exists for your inhabitants. But it’s still worth taking a few minutes to think about what makes war possible, and what it requires.

As used as we are to the idea of war, it can be hard to step back and consider that when you think about it, war is really weird. I’m supposed to kill that man in a uniform over there not because of anything he has done, or might do, but just because he’s wearing a uniform? And he’s going to try to kill me for the same (lack of) reason?

A great review of the anthropology literature on the subject is in Raymond Kelly’s Warless Societies and the Origin of War. Kelly distinguishes war from other forms of violence, such as brawls or assassinations, with the following characteristics:

  • War is collectively carried out.
  • Participants deliberately use deadly force.
  • The “deaths of other persons are envisioned in advance and this envisioning is encoded in the purposeful act of taking up lethal weapons.”
  • War involves advanced planning.
  • The killing in war is seen as justified, morally appropriate, and praiseworthy.
  • Finally, and in contrast to collective executions which target a specific individual, in war the targets are any member of a group, regardless of individual guilt or innocence.

Kelly points out that the default is for people to assign responsibility to individuals—if A murders B, B’s family will try to kill A, but not A’s brothers or sons or cousins. For a society to come up with the idea of feud (punishing an entire family for the crimes of one of its members) requires the concept of what Kelly calls social substitution, that killing A’s brother is somehow “just like” killing A. The same idea applies to war: war can only exist if the targeted people are socially substitutable, and killing one of them is as good as killing another.

There are two basic ways this can come about. Kelly the anthropologist focuses on the more common one, which is the development of durable group identities such that for A to murder B is an offense not only to B, but B’s group—and the offense came not merely from A, but from A’s group. In this view, war (and its smaller-scale cousin, feud) is carried out between groups. But that requires the concept of the group to be present.

He finds that in almost every case where war is not present in a society, the society is unsegmented, meaning that social organization features only the bare minimum of group identities. People who live together will cooperate, but there are no forms of organization that go beyond the immediate local group; and if you leave one group and join another, there is no sense of lingering affiliation with your previous neighbors. Extended families rarely function as a unit beyond the immediate nuclear or polygynous family. Vague senses of regional belonging can develop from periodic shared feasting and the like, but not in the sense of a shared nationality. Even being in the same language group doesn’t necessarily create the conditions of collective action as a group. Finally, and unsurprisingly, strong political leadership does not exist in these societies.

By contrast, once the concept of extended families takes root, once people feel loyalty to a group as such, once strong political leadership welds people into larger units of action, then war and feud are usually on the menu. The group as such has social reality and can suffer injury when its members are harmed. Moreover, your neighbors are viewed through the same lens (often with reason), so that if one member of a neighboring tribe kills your compatriot, the entire tribe is blamed.

(This is not always, or even usually, irrational. Indeed, collective punishment can sometimes be the only way to avoid a situation where outsiders commit violence against you with impunity.)

But war does sometimes exist even in unsegmented societies. How does it start, even in the absence of group identities? That gets us to the second driver of war: the perception that all members of another group pose threats to you as an individual. For example, the unsegmented Slave Indians who once lived near the Great Slave Lake in Canada, were so called because they were frequently attacked by the Cree Indians, who killed the males and took the women and children as slaves. Despite this, astonishingly, there is no record that the Slaves ever engaged in retaliatory raiding against the Cree or developed the concept of warfare as such. But other unsegmented societies facing persistent violence, such as the Andaman islanders, did develop a concept of war in response even in the absence of strong group identities of their own.

Sometimes, such a perception of threat can arise even without previous violence. If two communities live nearby, and suddenly there is a drought so that there isn’t enough food for both, and there’s nowhere else to move to, the communities are suddenly locked into a battle to the death (through no fault of either side). Kelly argues that this was part of what happened in the Andaman case—war developed as a concept when some groups were squeezed into too small a space, and were forced to compete for food.

(Incidentally, the concept of war-as-threat-perception was a big part of my PhD dissertation, for any of you with a few weeks to kill and a craving for boredom…)

******

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned fourth book in this series, working title War for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)

Building an Economy: Ease of Transport

22 Wednesday Feb 2023

Posted by in Economics, Politics, Politics for Worldbuilders, State Formation, Writing

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

In our last post, we started building a model for how to think of a region’s geography with three major factors: population density, ease of transport, and natural resources. Here, we will discuss the second factor, ease of transport.

We’ve referenced the importance of transport several times before, including with regard to cities and touching on it briefly in Book 1 of my “Politics for Worldbuilders” series during the discussion of the Nobility. Now we’re going to discuss transport squarely. It plays vital roles for economic activity, the placement of cities, and politics.

Let’s begin by assuming that a given territory can be easy to cross, difficult to cross, or have particular constrained routes such as rivers or valleys that allow for easy transport but can also be easily controlled. Each of these options generates its own set of possibilities.

Trade

The easier it is to transport goods and people, the easier it is to trade—you have to be able to get your goods to buyers without too much cost, and on the flip side you have to be able to access raw materials. If transport is cheap and easy, a lot of trade becomes feasible and economic activity will tend to flourish. Cities will be supported by food transports and shipments of raw materials such as iron ore or coal, paid for by the goods and services they generate, and they can also trade finished goods with each other and with their surrounding rural areas.

Similarly, the easier that transport is, the easier it is to stay current on news from distant places. This is somewhat less of a factor in our modern era of instant communication, rather than having to wait for the latest ship from far-off shores; but even today, there needs to be people on site to report what is going on, who want to report it to you or to an audience that includes you. This is more likely when transportation is easy and cheap.

If transport is difficult—the territory is a rugged mountain range, for instance—trade becomes difficult as well. People will have to depend more on their own production, rather than producing for trade with distant buyers. Villages will be inward-focused, struggling to produce their own food, clothes, tools, and other goods. Traveling peddlers might come along every month or three, or not at all. Cities will be rare, placed in the few places where transport is relatively easier, and more likely to be administrative/garrison cities supported by the government than commercial or industrial cities, simply because it is so hard to produce anything and transport it out to buyers. Economic activity as a whole will be stunted as a result.

(Many scholars believe that this is one of the reasons for the relatively low economic growth of the inland part of the African continent and Eurasia. In contrast to Europe, which features long coastlines and many rivers that penetrate into the hinterlands, Africa and Eurasia are mostly landlocked and have few rivers. As a result, areas along the coast and next to rivers will tend to flourish more than inland areas that have a relatively difficult time getting goods to market.)

Trade and production in places with difficult travel will tend to focus on valuable and rare goods if they are present, such as gold, spices, uranium, and the like. If there is enough money to be made, governments or merchants will invest in roads or other transport at fantastical expense that go directly to the production site and nowhere else, in order to make extraction easier. This will create path-dependency effects that favor continued focus on the extractive industry, rather than allowing the economy to broaden and deepen in healthier ways. The region will likely become a supply region. If no such valuables are present, economic activity will simply stagnate. People will focus on producing their own needs, or else migrate to greener pastures if available.

If transport is possible through otherwise rough terrain down particular pathways such as rivers or valleys, we can expect these roads to become the focus of military conflict or economic competition. Whoever controls them will be able to profit from the trade that goes through them, and if the pathways are the key enablers of trade between vast regions then the rewards might be great indeed.

Note that if the transport situation changes—new roads are built, or somebody invents magical zeppelins, or the mountain pass suffers an avalanche and is blocked until spring—the effects on the society might be profoundly good or bad. There is certainly a story to be written here, about who would benefit from such changes, who would be threatened, and what they would do about it.

Politics

Just as trade is easier if travel is easier, so is power projection. It is no accident that the Roman Empire spent incredible effort on building its famed roads.

Political boundaries often map onto geographic boundaries such as rivers or mountain ranges, simply because it is hard to transport armies across, or to enforce laws or collect taxes on the other side. The more rugged the terrain, the more likely that an area will feature a patchwork of smaller domains rather than a unified government. (This is part of why Afghanistan continues to be the graveyard of empires.) As with trade, nominal distances as the crow flies matter less than travel time. This is particularly true with the transmission of information; the less information that can get through, the less likely that an empire or other political unit can maintain its control and the more likely that control will devolve to a more local level.

And naturally, the political situation will have effects on the economic one as well, good or bad. A vast regime might enable more internal trade, as Rome did, or it might ruthlessly squeeze its subjects, as Rome also did at various times. A patchwork of small principalities might be littered with obstacles to trade and feature frequent conflicts, or it might become a fecund region promoting creativity and economic development.

You can see how these factors interrelate. A government might build roads for military purposes, which then have the side effect of stimulating new economic activity. The interstate highway system in the United States, and the Autobahn in Germany, are good examples. So is the rail system in much of Europe. Or a transportation system built for commercial purposes might be adopted for military ones, such as airplanes.

*****

All in all, the ease of transport across a territory will dramatically condition what happens there and how people live. For worldbuilders, we can readily exploit some of the challenges that this presents in our stories.

*****

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned second book in this series, working title Wealth [Commerce?] for Worldbuilders, along with some overlap with the planned third book, working title Tyranny for Worldbuilders. No idea when they will be finished, but it should be fun!)

Building an Economy: Population Density

20 Monday Feb 2023

Posted by in Economics, Politics, Politics for Worldbuilders, State Formation, War, Writing

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

After a great deal of procrastination, it’s time to revisit the Land/Labor/Capital triad, identified by the classical economists like Adam Smith and the like as the key factors of production.

(Side note: modern economists consider entrepreneurship to be a fourth factor of production. I’m still trying to figure out whether there is a nice way to characterize entrepreneurship in our model, as it would obviously lend itself to strong stories.)

Remember, we’re not trying to explain everything about an economy from the ground up. We’re trying to build a relatively simple, yet powerful and flexible framework that worldbuilders can use to quickly mock up the contours of their invented societies. Once the bones are in place, you are then in a position to dive into all the cool little details, confident that they will be consistent with the structuring logic.

So when we talk about land, we’re going to focus on three broad variables—each of which can have surprisingly powerful implications:

  • Population density
  • Ease of transport
  • Natural resources

Really, these are interrelated. For example, you can’t have a dense population without lots of food, and and an easy way to get the food to people. Still, it’s useful to consider them separately to keep everything straight in our heads. Let’s begin with population density.

*******

If you want to have a country or region with a high population density, that implies several things. We already noted the need for lots of food and efficient transportation of it. On the other hand, you don’t necessarily need to have urban cities, if people are living in densely placed villages and growing their own food with intensive agricultural methods. (It will mean that animal husbandry will likely use methods that require little land, rather than pasture-grazing.) And the material standard of living might still be low if most people are producing food, rather than more specialized goods. Still, the more people there are living close together, the more opportunities for specialization and exchange, and the more likely that the economy will develop more complexity.

Conversely, if the population is thinly spread, the people might still be relatively prosperous. They could have large herds of livestock that move from place to place, or practice a carefree foraging lifestyle where they only spend a few hours a day gathering food and use the rest of their time making luxuries, playing games, fighting with neighbors (!), or relaxing. Or they might be desperately poor, if the land is not very productive and they all have to work hard to feed themselves, since there are few opportunities for trade. With a thinly spread populace that cannot sustain specialization and exchange, chances are that the energy surplus of the society will be small, which limits the development of their society and culture. (And you can see how the productivity of the land interacts with population density.)

So whether you choose to have a dense population or not, you can play around with what that looks like for you and your story.

But what about the political effects of a dense population, or its opposite?

Note that the more thinly spread the population, the harder it is to control the territory. If you are being oppressed by a ruler, or landlord, or moneylender, or cruel family members or whatever, you always have the option to pull up stakes and run; and all else equal, it is more difficult for a ruler to stop you if the population is thin. This is because fortifying the border to keep people in would be too expensive, compared to the number of people being contained. By contrast, if the society has a dense population, it is relatively more efficient to fortify the border even at great expense, because of the large number of people you will be able to contain and control.

Jeffrey Herbst argues that this is one of the key differences between the experience of Western Europe and of precolonial Africa; Western Europe, being densely populated and urbanized, made it worthwhile for rulers to fortify their borders, the better to control the moments of their people (as well as to defend against invasion!). In Africa, however, the landscape was so vast compared to the populace that there was little practical way to control the territory as such. Instead, African rulers focused on strategies to control people directly—ties of loyalty or marriage for some, enslavement and physical domination for others.

Let’s see why. When seeking wealth or other resources, a ruler must ask a key question: is it easier to exploit one’s own people, or someone else? If your people are easily controlled and restrained, it will be relatively easier to tax them. If your people can move around easily, however, then they will not tolerate heavy taxation. On the other hand, if your army can also move around easily, it becomes more attractive to invade your neighbors and cart away plunder, in goods or people.

So as a broad pattern, we see regions of high population density focus on fortification of borders and relatively high reliance on taxation or other means to generate resources from their own people (which does not exclude invading and pillaging neighbors, of course!); and regions of low population density feature relatively higher mobility, societies that feature relatively less political coercion and taxation, and lots of raiding of neighbors for treasure and slaves.

Of course, rulers can also change the population density of their territory. A very common pattern, as James C. Scott tells us, was for city rulers to concentrate the surrounding populations by force within the city walls, and have them cultivate fields that were within easy reach of the city (and the city’s military). This allowed them to tax their peasantry’s output more easily than if farmers were living in distant villages.

So when you’re creating a new territory, think about the population density of the land, and then consider what consequences flow from that. The implications for your story might be surprising.

*******

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post belongs in the planned second book in this series, working title Wealth [Commerce?] for Worldbuilders, along with some overlap with the planned third book, working title Tyranny for Worldbuilders. No idea when they will be finished, but it should be fun!)

Building a Worldbuilding Model for Military Effectiveness

17 Friday Feb 2023

Posted by in Politics for Worldbuilders, War, Writing

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Worldbuilders who plan for their stories to feature wars as a key plot conflict face a fundamental tension: the “bad guys” must be powerful enough to pose a serious threat, yet must still lose (usually!). How this happens is often fertile ground for stories.

A common fictional pattern is for the enemy to have overwhelming force, but be fundamentally stupid—tactically incompetent, strategically myopic, prone to getting distracted by personal feuds and such. I would tend to view such stories as being far too convenient and even a sign of lazy writing, but the current invasion of Ukraine shows that this can actually happen in real life.

Still, fiction has the burden of needing to make sense. How then should worldbuilders proceed? Essentially, if you want your enemies to have an exploitable military weakness, you should be able to justify it.

This post will not give you an entire theory for doing so (I plan to spend about half of Book 4 in my “Politics for Worldbuilders” series on that topic), but it will lay out a high-level framework. Essentially, you can view military effectiveness as a product of the state structures (or societal structures, in societies without strong states) built to support the military. Those structures, in turn, were created (in part) because the ruling regime (or ruling elites, or dominant societal ethos, or whatever) decided on specific political-military objectives and then decided to devote resources and create structures to achieve those objectives.

Hence:

  • Political-military objectives come first, and lead to
  • Strategic and organizational decisions for how to create a military that can achieve the objectives.
  • This leads to the creation of structures for generating and supporting the military, such as recruiting capacity, manufacturing base, logistics, scientific research, the development of doctrine, and the cultivation of a particular military mindset.
  • These then condition military success on the battlefield.

All of these can be discussed in great detail, and I plan to. Moreover, the arrow of causation isn’t in one direction. As Donald Rumsfeld famously said, “You go to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish you had at a later time.” So political decisions might be constrained by existing military weakness or institutional flaws.

But for a quick example, we can see how the political decision by the Russian regime to try and rush tactical success in Ukraine, as well as the long-standing policy of treating the infantry as a potential political threat that needs to be weakened and held in check, has led to drafted Russian soldiers being insufficiently trained. This means that they cannot execute complex tactics and are instead being thrown into the meat grinder in human wave attacks. So the seeming stupidity of Russian tactics is in fact rooted in a coherent (if equally stupid) set of political decisions.

For another example, the famed English longbowmen didn’t spring from the ground fully formed. English bowmen were required by law to spend their whole lives practicing; the English kings decided on this policy even though it made the peasantry more of a threat to the elites, while other states chose to disarm their peasants and rely on professional soldiers.

My aspiration is to give worldbuilders a clear structure that they can use to explain why their invented militaries look the way they do, think the way they do, and fight the way they do. In the interim, you can use the above model as a way to organize your thinking.

******

(This post is part of Politics for Worldbuilders, an occasional series. Many of the previous posts in this series eventually became grist for my handbook for authors and game designers, Beyond Kings and Princesses: Governments for Worldbuilders. The topic of this post will end up in the planned fourth book in this series, working title War for Worldbuilders. No idea when it will be finished, but it should be fun!)