Manipulative Tactics in Budgetary Games: the Art and Craft of Getting the Money You Don’t Deserve

W.Martin de Jong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12130-001-1003-8

2001-01-01

Abstract:Evolutionary theory is expanding its sphere of influence in the explanation of phenomena such as the dynamics of social and conceptual change. This is promising in the case of organization theory and theories on financial budgeting in particular. Theory on budgetary processes has been dominated by two academic disciplines. On the one hand, there are abstract economic theories that use utility maximization by administrative actors (Downs 1957, 1967, Niskanen 1971, Jensen and Meckling 1976, Mueller 1989, Eggertson 1990). On the other, there are political scientists who give fascinating but strictly empirical (non-theoretical) descriptions of actual events and real-life manipulations (Wildavsky 1984, 1991, Schick 2000). Both strands emphasize the manipulative game context in which funding and funded actors do their work, but they pay no heed to how concepts are used by these actors in order to justify proposals. As a result, they clearly see the interactive aspects of the process, but miss an understanding of how the conceptual replication occurs (Hull 1988). It is on this that evolutionary theory, and particularly its (qualitative) game theory perspective can shed some useful light. From various sources in biology we know that creatures use manipulative techniques to fool enemies in their environment. Mimicry and camouflage are among the best known. Dawkins (1982) mentions a phenomenon called the rare enemy syndrome. Some imitations or manipulations are so rare that in the course of time it does not pay off for predators to evolve resistance to them. Among the millions of normative worms the ruse behind the incidental human use of real or artificial bait escapes all lineages of worms. The same happens to project proposals cleverly put together asking for funding when implementation prospects are in fact gloomier than sketched. Since Maynard Smith (1982), it is known that cheating and lying in both biology and economics can be illustrated with the aid of game theory, but that this field of theory needs to be worked out more. And finally Ruse (1998, 1999) claims that human and other beings only develop ethical norms and stick to them if this increases their fitness in some way.