Feedback

Feedback on Jody Milder
Hi Jody!

I really enjoyed your blog - especially your 'shine a light'-joke! The first part on lightning efficiency was interesting to me, because I had never really thought about the issue. 
I have some remarks, hope they are useful!

- One of your explanations is that the general income has increased, so that consumers don't really worry about energy costs. In addition to that, I believe electricity has become cheaper. Maybe you can implement that factor as well?
- I miss some sort of short assessment of your different explanations. Which one do you think is most important?
- As for the second part, I have a remark on the structure. It would be easier for your reader if you could divide this section into paragraphs (as you did in the first part).
- Also, you might add some sort of positive remark (if you feel there is one). As a reader I got quite depressed, so it might be nice to conclude with a hopeful sign.


Hope this helps!
Maja

Feedback on Laurens B.
I really enjoyed your blog! I liked the personal touch to it and the comparison you made between medicine and food. Below, I'll try to give you some points of feedback.


- I like the fact that you try to make your blog as personal as possible, however, to me your start feels a little as if you really don't want to write this blog and that can put a reader of.
- The personal note in the end, where you link this assignment to your own bachelor thesis, really added value to your argument. I would suggest you use stuff like that in your introduction in stead of in the end.
- All your arguments are based on fear (fear for changing the natural world, fear for large corporations and fear for environmental/health risks. Therefore I'd suggest that you rename your third argument, fear into something else.


Hope this is helpful!
Maja


Feedback on Marco Meloni

Hi Marco,

Interesting topic! Didn’t know about this at all! I have a couple of comments on it though:

For me as a reader, the difference between rational choice and bounded rationality is not completely clear. In your paragraph on rationality you state that the 2 degree goal satisfied the need (a clear goal for politicians) and may have been optimal under the available information. But than you start your bounded rationality explanation by stating that it wasn’t the best choice, given the available information.

From what I understood of bounded rationality, this process takes place within an organization. In your blog, I miss dimension, you still treat the UNFCCC as a black box.

On your final remark, I agree of course with the fact that policy makers get complete/clear information, but you have just stated that in this climate issue there is not such a thing. Wouldn’t it be better if the UNFCCC would be open about the gaps in their knowledge (“Given the information we have today, the best possible target to achieve through policy measures should be …”).

Hope this will help you!
Maja

Friedman revisited
I like this part! Very Friedman of you!

However, I think that the point of these businesses is not that they intend to go bankrupt (aka that they don’t want to make any profit at all). The point is that money is not their sole motive, they want to contribute to the community as well. And even though this may seem vague and sounds a little like marketing, they do make fundamental changes in the way they run their businesses.

(Maybe this is not really a suggestion for you, but merely my opinion in this matter, sorry!)

Best,

Feedback on Jeroen Huisman
Hi Jeroen,

Saw your detailed reviews and was really impressed, so I´ll try to do you the same favour below. Overall, I found your example clear, but I feel that you can elaborate a little more on the bounded rationality theory. I think that you state it too simple here (basically it’s the rational model, with the addition of emotion).

Hope it´s useful!

[Introduction] – clear introduction, it might help to mention the leave of Weekers and the fact that Wiebes was presented as the new solution to all tax problems to stress the importance of the issue.

[RAM] – brief explanation that really helps your reader. Maybe add that this model is not supported by any evidence, either from controlled lab studies or empirical studies?

[Bounded rationality] – what I miss in your explanation here, is a second important feature of this model: the inclusion of interaction between decision makers. Also, there within bounded rationality there is a focus on the imbedded conservative behaviour of large organizations. Standard procedures and parallel processing of information may inhibit radically new decisions.

[Tax system & RAM] – detail: ration should be rational; maybe explain again who ‘they’ are.

[Tax system & Bounded rationality] – I like your explanation here. I think you can actually take it one step back: even the fact that there is such a rush to change the tax system is strongly dependent on the public opinion, that was undoubtedly fed by the same lobbyists that advised the government. Politics is essentially emotional and I think the Samson example illustrates that clearly. I think you can deepen your analysis if you briefly introduce the different actors (government, political parties, public opinion, lobbyists) and the fact that they interact.

Feedback on Theodoro Spathas
Hi Teodoro!

You can find my comments below 

Intro: I like the fact that you come up with a case in which you have played an active role. I do have some minor comments: financially unsustainable – shouldn’t that be unfeasible; unused cost – should be unused coast.

Ostrom’s framework: In general, I would advise you to explain a little about the framework, even if it is just a picture. For me it is unclear in the rest of your post why you are discussing these points and why you are using this order. Also, I’m missing the direct link between the framework and your analysis – what is the resource unit here, what is the resource system etc.

Provide information: Who failed to involve all parties? The national government right? I think you should make that clear in the first sentence! Also, I’m very sorry, but I have absolutely no clue what you mean with the final sentence of this paragraph.

Deal with conflict: You only describe conflict between the private company and the government here. But what about conflicts with other parties (like civilians, NGOs, etc.)?

Induce compliance with rules: I think this sort of states the same thing as the paragraph above – in your view the only controlling mechanism is the paper contract between the government and the private party. However, I can imagine that there are more mechanisms that shape the actions of the private firm; they probably don’t want to much bad publicity, which compromises their legitimacy. Maybe you can look into that a little.

Infrastructure: This is an interesting point! You would want to have such a huge project integrated in the surrounding.

Conclusion: Short and sweet! Maybe one suggestion: I would speak of a social ecosystem, not just a ecosystem.

Best,

Maja

Feedback on Chloë Dejeune

Hi Chloë!

I liked your blog, as it answered all question clearly and you had I for detail. I especially liked your remark on the fact that the audience of this documentary actually sees more than the Nokia team that visits the supplier.

My main point of feedback is on your last paragraph, where you seek other options for Nokia. I feel that you think Nokia should be stricter, so not asking the supplier to change, but to openly seek other suppliers/build their own factory, so that working conditions will change. I think that if you truly want to change the supply system, you have to change the way these suppliers see their employees. I feel the approach as they take right now is already too top-down and it doesn't bridge the huge cultural gap. Of course, should the supplier not be willing to change, than Nokia should seek other suppliers, but I don't feel immediately abandoning this supplier will lead to a more honest supply chain.

Hope this helps!

Best,

Maja

Feedback on Laura Lucas Trujillo

Hi Laura,

In this post, you were able to explain to me as a reader what the ethical issues regarding this documentary where, so that is a huge plus.

However, I have some comments regarding the way you describe how the supplier is striving for legitimacy. I feel that in this part, you couple their legitimacy only to Nokia, the company they supply to. However, they also strive for legitimacy among their employees. As a manager said in the documentary, the employees are getting better informed and start asking questions or even start to demand better working conditions.

An interesting point that you raise is that it is hard for Nokia to assess whether policies are actually executed, if the local government is not even monitoring its regulations. I'm looking forward to the update of your blog, as I think you will address this question in your 3rd part?

Best,

Maja

Feedback on Zinzi Wits and Sway Leung
No blogpost on last session´s subject

Feedback on Imme Groet
Hi Imme,

See below for some comments on your analysis of the ‘Waternet’ SES.

[Ostrom’s framework]: you refer to ‘framework’ in two ways in this paragraph: (1) as the overall theory introduced by Ostrom, and (2) the framework that is actually the outer shell in this framework (consisting of social and political influences).

You also write about the aim of the framework. I see your point, but I would like to add that the framework is used to identify the system boundaries, that are usually larger than one expects.

[Ostrom + Waternet]: I was wondering whether the rules are only based on VROM, European and WHO regulations or whether the municipality of Amsterdam has any part in this. 

Also, I think the resource unit should actually be the potable water. The river water and ground water may be part of the resource system, but are not deliberately used for consumption.

Moreover, I have no idea what you mean with your last sentence. What outcomes are produces here exactly? I’d say that there is a certain interaction between the way the SES is organized and the social, political and economic circumstances.

[Friedman + Waternet]: you stated before that Waternet is a private company and that there are various regulatory actors (WHO, Europe, national government) that set the standards for potable water. Within this playfield, Waternet, as a private company, tries to make a profit. That is basically the whole idea behind privatisation. I would say that this is actually in line with Friedman’s idea. That is, private companies have no further responsibility towards society than to comply with the laws and regulations.

Details:

-          [To give an example...] This sentence is not completely right

-          [Water from rivers are...] è water from rivers is

-          [The norms of portable water is...] è The norms for potable water are...

I hope this is helpful!

Best,
Maja

Feedback on Ella Baz
No blogpost on last session’s subject

Feedback on Carl Kühl

Hi Carl,

Really liked your post! You write in a short, but clear manner.

I can follow your line of reasoning for group 1 easily, however, your Extra Note is somewhat puzzling to me. You make a suggestion to vary the fish quota, but I do not think this would actually work in practice. You never want to exceed the sustainable yield, so varying would in fact mean lowering the fish catch. That means that you have to persuade the fishermen to catch less fish than possible, leading to lower profits. I do not think that’s feasible.

For the second group, I wonder what you mean by monopoly. Do you want one team of fishermen to catch the entire catch for a year and then rotate that? Or do you want to combine all teams into one large group that is regulated by a central government? I understand you wish for a monopoly, however, I think that you put huge pressure on the ‘leadership council’ in your idea. They have to resist the pressure that one large company and a government (both looking for high returns). If they do, you would have solved this tragedy though!

Hope this is in any way helpful,

Maja