Archive for 30 March 2007
Jargon Watch: Buckets, Not Silos
| Peter Klein |
I’ve never liked the term “silo,” as used in business administration to describe closed spaces like functional areas, research topics, or approaches. “Economists and sociologists need to come out of their silos and work together.” What are we, sacks of grain? Intercontinental ballistic missles? I long for simpler and less pretentious terms like “areas” or “topics.”
From Tuesday’s WSJ we now learn that silos are out. The new preferred term is buckets. Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris says that ethanol “doesn’t help the conservation efficiency bucket — it helps the diversity of supply bucket.” Cingular Wireless thinks its new rate plan helps customers “dig into their big bucket of night and weekend minutes.” Is the combined India and US market best conceived “as a whole, or as two buckets?” asks a Citigroup analyst. Why do such silly terms proliferate?
Readers are invited to supply their own favorite examples of business and academic jargon. Perhaps we can hold a contest to choose the silliest.
See also previous entries on adjacencies, wikis, bad cover letters, and bad academic writing.
The Kaleidic Career
| Peter Klein |
Old-timers may remember Ludwig Lachmann’s metaphor of the kaleidoscope, popularized in his 1976 essay “From Mises to Shackle: An Essay on Austrian Economics and the Kaleidic Society” (Journal of Economic Literature 14, no. 1: 54-62). Lachmann borrowed the metaphor from G.L.S. Shackle, who wrote of a society “interspersing its moments or intervals of order, assurance and beauty with sudden disintegration and a cascade into a new pattern.” In this fundamentally disorderly system, Lachmann maintained, there are no systematic equilibrating tendencies. As Roger Garrison succinctly put it, “In a kaleidic world, one pattern of prices gives way to another, but there can be no claim that a given pattern is any closer to a general equilibrium, or represents any higher degree of coordination, than the one that preceded it.”
Personally, I find the kaleidic metaphor rather unhelpful. As I’ve noted before, I see the Kirzner-versus-Lachmann debate over the “tendency toward equilibrium” that dominated Austrian economics during the 1980s as a big distraction. The point is not whether markets actually converge to some kind of long-run equilibrium, but whether in the absence of any change in the underlying data prices would tend to converge toward “final” equilibrium values. The founding Austrians such as Menger, Böhm-Bawerk, and Mises thought the profit motive was sufficient to establish such tendencies, but they were not primarily interested in long-run equilibrium prices. Instead, they sought a framework for explaining the actual, day-to-day prices that unfold in historical time. (Look for a paper on this soon.)
Anyway, the kaleidic metaphor eventually fell out of favor with Austrian economists. But now it’s back, in the context of the “kaleidic career.” (more…)
Organizations and Markets 
Recent Comments