IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/fky6t.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

What at power-with looks like and why we should choose it

Author

Listed:
  • Fussell, Cathy

Abstract

This paper starts the project of elucidating what a power-with looks like at a systematic long-term level and why it is preferable to a power-over. At an episodic, one-off level a power-over—that is, hoarding power and value—appears more profitable. However, the dynamic changes over the long term. Maximising our capacity to act (i.e. power) is inherently collective; enhancing our capacity to act requires combining with other things (e.g. people, objects, ideas). With human collaborators, future rounds of collaboration and value creation are jeopardised by past hoarding. Power and value hoarding erode reputation, trust, effective feedback, and partners’ capacity, limit innovation and resilience, and induce resistance and withdrawal from the partnership. In contrast, where value is shared (i.e. a power with) collaborators reinvest, and more value is created, a virtuous cycle. In this paper, alongside a simpler model demonstrating virtuous and vicious cycles of value creation or destruction, I demonstrate more complex systemic forms of power-with that I label ‘collective experimentation’ and ‘collaborative competition’. Collective experiments leverage diversity and, through experimentation, create new capacities (i.e. power) and resilience to change. They mitigate the groups’ risk of failure from experiments by sharing value from successes. Data is used as feedback from experiments rather than to judge and control. Facilitated by governing agents with protections against corruption and value hoarding, the capacities of all are enhanced, leading to collective flourishing. Real-world case studies will be provided and linked to theory to illustrate the applicability of these ideas to governments’ use of data.

Suggested Citation

  • Fussell, Cathy, 2023. "What at power-with looks like and why we should choose it," SocArXiv fky6t, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:fky6t
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/fky6t
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/64578e145715c40ebfffcfb4/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/fky6t?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Max Nathan & Neil Lee, 2013. "Cultural Diversity, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship: Firm-level Evidence from London," Economic Geography, Clark University, vol. 89(4), pages 367-394, October.
    2. Elinor Ostrom, 2010. "Analyzing collective action," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(s1), pages 155-166, November.
    3. Elinor Ostrom, 2000. "Collective Action and the Evolution of Social Norms," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(3), pages 137-158, Summer.
    4. Charlie Karlsson & Jonna Rickardsson & Joakim Wincent, 2021. "Diversity, innovation and entrepreneurship: where are we and where should we go in future studies?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 759-772, February.
    5. Jean Hartley & John Benington, 2006. "Copy and Paste, or Graft and Transplant? Knowledge Sharing Through Inter-Organizational Networks," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 101-108, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhu, Junbing & Grigoriadis, Theocharis N., 2022. "Chinese dialects, culture & economic performance," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    2. Paula Prenzel & Niels Bosma & Veronique Schutjens & Erik Stam, 2022. "Cultural diversity and innovation-oriented entrepreneurship," Papers in Evolutionary Economic Geography (PEEG) 2205, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Group Economic Geography, revised Feb 2022.
    3. Dinithi N. Jayasekara & Jonathan H. W. Tan, 2024. "How do intercultural proximity and social fragmentation promote international patent cooperation?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 421-445, June.
    4. Carina Cavalcanti, 2020. "On the Determinants of Denouncing Illegal Fishing: A Field Study in Artisanal Fishing Communities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 217-228, September.
    5. Tanja Baerlein & Ulan Kasymov & Dimitrios Zikos, 2015. "Self-Governance and Sustainable Common Pool Resource Management in Kyrgyzstan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-26, January.
    6. Karla Hoff & Mayuresh Kshetramade & Ernst Fehr, 2011. "Caste and Punishment: the Legacy of Caste Culture in Norm Enforcement," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(556), pages 449-475, November.
    7. Aurora García‐Gallego & Nikolaos Georgantzís, 2009. "Market Effects of Changes in Consumers' Social Responsibility," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(1), pages 235-262, March.
    8. Jinhua Xie & Gangqiao Yang & Ge Wang & Shuoyan He, 2024. "How does social capital affect farmers’ environment-friendly technology adoption behavior? A case study in Hubei Province, China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(7), pages 18361-18384, July.
    9. Dritan Osmani & Richard S.J. Tol, 2008. "Evolution in time of Farsightedly Stable Coalitions: An Application of FUND," Working Papers FNU-162, Research unit Sustainability and Global Change, Hamburg University, revised May 2008.
    10. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    11. Evans, Alecia & Sesmero, Juan, 2022. "Cooperation in Social Dilemmas with Correlated Noisy Payoffs: Theory and Experimental Evidence," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 322804, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Gonzalo Olcina & Vicente Calabuig, 2015. "Coordinated Punishment and the Evolution of Cooperation," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(2), pages 147-173, April.
    13. Robert Roßner & Dimitrios Zikos, 2018. "The Role of Homogeneity and Heterogeneity Among Resource Users on Water Governance: Lessons Learnt from an Economic Field Experiment on Irrigation in Uzbekistan," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-30, July.
    14. Erin L. Krupka & Roberto A. Weber, 2013. "Identifying Social Norms Using Coordination Games: Why Does Dictator Game Sharing Vary?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 495-524, June.
    15. Anne-Sarah Chiambretto & Hubert Stahn, 2017. "Voluntary Management of Fisheries under an Uncertain Background Legislative Threat," Working Papers halshs-01500543, HAL.
    16. Pilar Useche, 2016. "Who Contributes to the Provision of Public Goods at the Community Level? The Case of Potable Water in Ghana," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 34(6), pages 869-888, November.
    17. Patrick Bottazzi & David Crespo & Harry Soria & Hy Dao & Marcelo Serrudo & Jean Paul Benavides & Stefan Schwarzer & Stephan Rist, 2014. "Carbon Sequestration in Community Forests: Trade-offs, Multiple Outcomes and Institutional Diversity in the Bolivian Amazon," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 45(1), pages 105-131, January.
    18. Ethan Holdahl & Jiabin Wu, 2023. "Institutional Screening and the Sustainability of Conditional Cooperation," Papers 2311.02813, arXiv.org.
    19. Catherine C Eckel & Enrique Fatas & Sara Godoy & Rick K Wilson, 2016. "Group-Level Selection Increases Cooperation in the Public Goods Game," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-13, August.
    20. Friedman, Rachel S. & Guerrero, Angela M. & McAllister, Ryan R.J. & Rhodes, Jonathan R. & Santika, Truly & Budiharta, Sugeng & Indrawan, Tito & Hutabarat, Joseph A. & Kusworo, Ahmad & Yogaswara, Herry, 2020. "Beyond the community in participatory forest management: A governance network perspective," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:fky6t. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.