The point of my ponder was that there are structural analogies between the old rural village and modern corporations, private and public, of different sizes.

Exactly! The production units reflect the biological instincts of man – survival, reproduction - and the social instincts of man such as to co-operate and be useful for others, "actualize oneself". The "production game" is described since thousands of years.

Ian, in order to understand the production game we will have to introduce scientific tools such as simple models. The function of simple models is to create new ideas to be verified or falsified by further observations.

My best model of the production game is so far the followship around the football field of my youth, the Chaos Park.

Mockers had named the field. The game was often tight and tumultuous. It was difficult to see the over-riding tactics and strategies.

You are right, Ian! It is better to kindle a light than to curse the night. Let us note the general structures. There was a fixed capital, a football field with goals. There was a legal basis with rules and referees. There were two corporations, teams. There were a number of actors, who worked under competition-like conditions. Correct?

Chaos Park provides an excellent model for human co-operation, the interplay between individuals, the production game. Every individual player had to take employment in the team and in the position offered.

Every team had to organize itself for "victory", a kind of bench marketing. Every player had to accept the position and the task best fitted for the actual team quest. Fitting individual competence and team balance were essential. Prestige, rank and individual interests were less important.

Now we have a semantic problem, Ian. One original meaning of competition, "concurro", is "running together". However, in every activity there is a tension between the interest of different groups, and within a group there is tensions between individual interests.

In Chos Park, there was sometimes painfully evident that some actors were not co-workers but counter-workers. It should, however, be emphasized that "local competition" has become an honorable concept in modern economies.

In modern economies, it has often been difficult to evaluate the production of an individual actor. Should the employer reward his time spent at work, his sweating, running, pain or joy in work?

The Chaos Park model provided some clues to the solution of the problem. The net result of the team was the difference between profits in opponent goal and expenses in own goal. Nevertheless, among the winners, there were isolated losers. Likewise, among the losers, there were isolated winners.

In Chaos Park, every member was aware of the significance of both individual competence and the significance of co-operation. Some comments were never heard. "Only we goalkeepers know football!" "A good team contains eleven goalkeepers!"

No, Ian! Nor do I believe that time is ripe to apply the Chaos Park model to a huge corporation like health care. It must be tested, evaluated and improved in smaller contexts first.

Bo Norberg

Contrast literature

The Holy Bible. New International Version (1984)
Veblen T. The theory of the leisure class (1899)
Berne E. Games people play (1964)
Harris T. I´m OK, you´re OK (1969)
Popper K. Conjectures and refutations . The growth of scientific knowledge. Ed 4 (1972).