O-rings in Community

The O-ring model in economics offers an explanation of a production weakness.

The O-ring theory of economic development is a model of economic development put forward by Michael Kremer in 1993,[1] which proposes that tasks of production must be executed proficiently together in order for any of them to be of high value. The key feature of this model is positive assortative matching, whereby people with similar skill levels work together.[1]

The model argues that the O-ring development theory explains why rich countries produce more complicated products, have larger firms and much higher worker productivity than poor countries.[2]

The name is a reference to the 1986 Challenger shuttle disaster, a catastrophe caused by the failure of O-rings.

WIKI

However, this model understates the possible results, as its production is thought to be positive. In communal markets, the weakest link can fail in their task and draw against the resources other teammates offer.

At Home Economics, we like to distinguish between two types of products: some are more conducive to private transactions, and others are more conducive to communal or public transactions. Those in the first category benefited greatly from the division of labor, for instance. Every worker in the chain focuses on one job, and the line produces a fabulous model T. The second category includes activities such as the ‘eyes on the street’ method of public safety, which was developed by urbanist Jane Jacobs. If a community is mindful of on-goings outside their front doors and reports as necessary, then residents benefit from reduced crime.

Now consider two forms of education delivery. Say one involves students completing modules of schoolwork from a home computer. The overall score of the class will harmed by the weakest link, but each individual performs independently. Now consider a classroom setting. Say one child often misses the bus. They regularly arrive late to class. This disrupts the teacher’s material delivery and causes friction between the students. In this communal situation, it is not only the tardy child who suffers but the whole class. This scenario is one most often given in explanation of why some high-poverty elementary schools suffer from below-average performance.

With items suited to private goods production, the o-ring model implies fewer products that meet perfection. If a company builds laptops and one worker fails to meet standards, fewer laptops are sold. But in a group scenario, where the leaders, perhaps of a certain age, are unwilling to adopt an electronic methodology, say a new accounting feature, they create more work for employees effectively pulling negative productivity.

The negative impact potential in the o-ring model for communal products is underestimated.

A form seen in highlights

Albert Hirshman describes an economic motion in his book Exit, Voice and Loyalty (1970). Parties can withdraw if they do not care for a product or arrangement. They may attempt to impact the process by exercising their voice. Over time, loyalties develop, which influence the superstructure of relationships.

It seems Hirshman would agree with his contemporary, Milton Friedman, about the benefits of school vouchers. Should a family be displeased with a pedantic school district, they could collect a coupon for their tax dollar input and cash it in at another more vibrant district. Since schools are tied to geographies, consumers always have the choice to relocate their homes to attend elsewhere. Vouchers make the process more fungible.

Hirschman outlined the logic of the exit option and how noted how increased competition could improve government performance. But competition didn’t solve all problems, and the exit option had several important drawbacks. The freedom to exit was often used by the most ambitious, educated, or well-to-do users of a particular service, and once they exited, those remaining were even poorer, less educated, and less demanding. Moreover, Hirschman pointed out, the possibility of exit weakened the effectiveness of voice, that is, the ability to directly change the management’s behavior through feedback, discussion, and criticism. 

As Frank Fukuyama explains in his American Interest piece, Hirshman didn’t believe vouchers were the answer to improving a school system. Unlike other commodities, the departure of the stronger students from the classroom has a negative impact on the remaining students. This observation gives a new form to education. Casting the product in this light projects a little amber glow onto all members of the school community. The mission is to educate everyone. If not an educator or a student, the role may be to voice praise or criticism.

A school does not produce widgets on an assembly line, but a group process produces educated students. Changing the composition of the pool of players can have both positive and negative effects on the outcomes. And there are roles for an audience as well.