agstar77, what consultations, decisions,etc. about the status-quo railroads have benefitted the farmer?
The farmer?
We can chose to name-call and balk and fight over your focused continuation of what has failed farmers, which is the absolute status quo.
Do you really make money on the system you've got, or are you making money on the fight itself?
Grace Skogstad writes about: The Dynamics of Institutional Resilience and Transformation, and she says:
==The Wheat Board is a large institution, with sales in the amount of $6 billion, selling Canadian grain in over 70 countries, and eminently equipped with the financial and expert resources to defend itself. Like other well established institutions, over its lifetime the Wheat Board has also generated a coalition of active supporters with a vested interest in the institution's continuation.===
Keep the system intact, you maintain, agstar77. Fight change every inch of the way, is what you do. So farmers can finance experts fighting in public?
Skogstad says:
======
The institution persists because it is supported by social actors who benefit from its rules and outcomes and who are sufficiently powerful to promote its continuation (Mahoney 2000: 521). Beneficiaries are not necessarily those who had power prior to the institution's creation; they may well have been subordinate to an alternative group at the institution's genesis. However, they subsequently become empowered by its rules and outcomes and support its continuation and even expansion.======
aka:
political appointments, bureaucrats, civil servants,professionals,advisors.
She ends with her high-falutin' message which essentially says, I want my blankey:
Even when contextual changes undermine the institution's ideational foundations or impede its capacity to deliver optimal outcomes, social actors risk aversion may still leave them loathe to abandon a familiar institution.
Here blankey. Where is it?
Parsley
The farmer?
We can chose to name-call and balk and fight over your focused continuation of what has failed farmers, which is the absolute status quo.
Do you really make money on the system you've got, or are you making money on the fight itself?
Grace Skogstad writes about: The Dynamics of Institutional Resilience and Transformation, and she says:
==The Wheat Board is a large institution, with sales in the amount of $6 billion, selling Canadian grain in over 70 countries, and eminently equipped with the financial and expert resources to defend itself. Like other well established institutions, over its lifetime the Wheat Board has also generated a coalition of active supporters with a vested interest in the institution's continuation.===
Keep the system intact, you maintain, agstar77. Fight change every inch of the way, is what you do. So farmers can finance experts fighting in public?
Skogstad says:
======
The institution persists because it is supported by social actors who benefit from its rules and outcomes and who are sufficiently powerful to promote its continuation (Mahoney 2000: 521). Beneficiaries are not necessarily those who had power prior to the institution's creation; they may well have been subordinate to an alternative group at the institution's genesis. However, they subsequently become empowered by its rules and outcomes and support its continuation and even expansion.======
aka:
political appointments, bureaucrats, civil servants,professionals,advisors.
She ends with her high-falutin' message which essentially says, I want my blankey:
Even when contextual changes undermine the institution's ideational foundations or impede its capacity to deliver optimal outcomes, social actors risk aversion may still leave them loathe to abandon a familiar institution.
Here blankey. Where is it?
Parsley
Comment