Complex government spurred growth of ancient nations

Red tape, bureaucracy, and the nanny state have all been blamed for stifling progress and holding us back, yet it turns out a bureaucratic administration is just the thing if a nation is looking to expand.

The heart of a modern bureaucracy - inside, it's piled high with red tape. Image: Jedyooo/Wikimedia

The research, carried out by an American researcher, compared the archaeological remains in the Oaxaca Valley of Mesoamerica with the remains of five other ancient nations in Peru, Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus Valley, and China.

These are known as primary states – ones that formed without encountering other nations – and they are ideal places to study the original creation of nation states without worrying about outside influences.

The six primary states all show a distinctive pattern of growth, where expansion of each nation’s territory happened at the same time as the development of the bureaucratic government offices required to govern the growing nation. The researcher thinks this is no coincidence: only a bureaucratic administration and could support expansion, and only expansion could provide the resources needed for a fledgling state to support a bureaucracy.

Taking this one step further, the research suggests that even modern bureaucratic governments may be based on this need to expand, and we need to watch international politics very carefully if we are too keep this ‘predatory’ urge in check.

Bureaucracy is rarely seen as a good thing, adding layers of complexity and time to even the simplest of tasks, yet it seems to be an essential part of the growth of any nation. Academics have always recognised the necessity of bureaucracy in forming nations, but previous work suggested the bureaucratic processes were created before nations expanded. The new study seems to contradict that idea.

Of course, this raises a question for this blogger of whether the creation and growth of bureaucratic government can go too far, and what happens when it does? Answers to be submitted in triplicate on form XS42b by the third Tuesday of next month!

Paper Reference: Spencer, C (2010). Inaugural Article: Territorial expansion and primary state formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 107(16), pages 7119-7126. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1002470107

Know your mind before writing to Santa

You might want to pause before asking Santa for that exciting new gadget this Christmas as you probably won’t use it as much as you think, according to a team of American researchers.

Exciting now, but will you actually use them? Image: Hypothesisnow

It seems that a stranger asked to guess how often you’ll use an item will give a much better indicator of how often you will use the gift, particularly if they know how often you think you might use it.

The study asked a group of people to estimate how much they would use a gift before Christmas, and checked with them a few months later to see how much it was actually used. According to one of the researchers “Fifty-nine percent of gifts were used less frequently than the recipients had expected to use them.” In many cases, the researchers found that people thought they’d use gifts twice as often as they actually did!

The researchers think this happens because people are rather optimistic about their own choices, while a stranger won’t show the same optimistic bias. If the stranger knows a person’s own estimate it allows them to guess more accurately: strangers who didn’t know the estimates of the participants came up with estimates almost as inaccurate as those made by the original participants.

So if storage space is at a premium this Christmas, or you’re unsure whether you actually want the latest shiny thing, you might want to seek a second opinion.

Paper reference: Vietri, J.T.,   Chapman, G.B., & Schwartz, J., (2009). Actor–observer differences in frequency-of-use estimates: Sometimes strangers know us better than ourselves
Social Influence, 4(4), p298 – 311. DOI: 10.1080/15534510902857862

Economy shrinking? Restoring the environment might help

Pristine tropical forest - for now...

As the world starts to emerge from the grip of recession, governments are looking for ways to grow their shattered economies. New research suggests that investing in the environment can provide both an economic and ecological boost.

The research, published in the journal Science, has shown that by fixing ecosystems damaged by human activity we restore vital “ecosystem services”.

Ecosystem services are those things that we depend on the natural world to supply, such as the air we breathe, clean drinking water and even somewhere green and pleasant to visit on holiday. Improved ecosystem services can boost the economy of an area as it becomes a more attractive place to live. A clean, healthy environment also supports businesses founded on tourism and recreation as more people will visit and spend money locally.

The team of Spanish and British researchers analysed 89 studies of ecosystems that had been restored. They found that restoration boosted biodiversity – the number of different plant and animal species – by around 44%, and this correlated with a 25% improvement in ecosystem services. It seems as though restoring the environment, despite being costly in the short-term, can provide a long-term benefit to the economy.

But a word of caution: the researchers also found that restored ecosystems were less beneficial than pristine ones, which had never been damaged in the first place. By protecting the remaining pristine environments around the world we can ensure a steady supply of ecosystem services such as new pharmaceuticals from natural sources, food and clothing, and even carbon capture and storage, that can support high-tech, high-value industries. These are just what we need, in fact, to support the economy in future.

For once, the goals of government, industry, and the environmental lobbyists might all point in the same direction!

Don’t sack the manager

Faith in a manager can lead to victory. Image: Wikimedia Commons/Jameboy

When sports teams do badly, the finger of blame is often pointed at the manager, who is quickly sacked.

New research suggests this may be a bad idea. Researchers from several UK universities have shown that the best-performing football teams (or soccer teams, if you prefer) in the UK Premier League are those with the longest-serving managers.

Teams such as Manchester United, Arsenal, and Everton have had long-serving managers, and have reaped the rewards. In contrast, Newcastle United had several different managers last season, which may have contributed to their relegation from the top division.

Several defeats and the associated fear of relegation often lead to the sacking of a football manager. Relegation from the Premier League can cost a team tens of millions of pounds in lost revenue so they make short-term changes to try and stop it happening. The latest research shows this may not be the best strategy. Instead, a team’s results are more likely to improve in the long-run if they give the current manager time to make a difference. Lead author of the study Mat Hughes, from the University of Nottingham, said

“We don’t dispute that change is often needed — but it should not be a rash response to performance declines.”

Experienced football managers build up a store of knowledge about the team, which helps them perform well. When they leave, their experience is lost; as is that of the coaching staff they take with them. Although teams often see one or two better results when a new manager starts, this is probably due to a boost in confidence, rather than an actual improvement in performance.

“Clubs who chop and change their managers — often with no opportunity for the manager to implement real change — tend to experience a long-term downturn in results, even if they have initially experienced success following the appointment of a new manager.”

said Paul Hughes, from Loughborough University.He added,

“Our findings suggest that sacking a manager often deflects from the real underlying issues at clubs, which need to be addressed before continuity and success will be achieved.”

The research suggests new managers need at least a year to make any significant changes to how a team plays. With the average football manager in place for just 1.38 years, many teams are actually harming their own chances of victory.

Monkey see, monkey do – why mimicry matters

Some things are easier to mimic than others...

Here’s a simple trick to expose the power of mimicry: next time you’re sat with a small group of people, start stroking your chin. After a while, you’ll notice others start doing the same. This sort of unconscious mimicry is something we all do in social situations, but is this a uniquely human trick, or did we learn it from others?

A new study by an American and Italian team of researchers has shown capuchin monkeys also rely on mimicry to form social bonds. Their work, published in the journal Science, is the first study to suggest mimicry is an important social tool for primates other than people.

To test how the capuchins responded to mimicry, the researchers introduced two people, each of whom was holding a small ball identical to one possessed by the monkey. One of the people copied everything the monkey did with their ball: the other played around with the ball without reference to the capuchin. The researchers found that the capuchins spent more time sitting near the imitator than they did near the other person: they also interacted more with the imitator when given the chance to exchange tokens for marshmallow treats.

Their close proximity and more frequent interactions suggest the capuchins were more comfortable with the imitators, leading to a stronger social bond. Mimicry would benefit wild capuchins by cementing the social bonds between members of the large groups in which they live. As capuchins face many natural predators, living in large groups has its advantages as each individual monkey is at much lower risk of being caught. It also means more pairs of eyes on the lookout for danger. Any behaviour, such as mimicry, that reduced the number of conflicts between individuals and increasing cooperation would keep the group together.

Mimicry may also have led to the formation of human society as it helped us to cooperate with our neighbours, turning strangers into allies and friends.

Image: Wikimedia commons/Michelle Reback