Lably
Skip to content

Unintended consequences

Unforeseen outcomes of an action

  • 18 min read
  • 4 chapters
Erosion caused by rabbits in a gully in South Australia.
Own work by Tannin · CC BY-SA 3.0

Related on Lably

Through Social science, Sociology and Irrigation

Unintended consequences can be grouped into three types:

  • Unexpected benefit: an unexpected benefit (also known as serendipity).
  • Unexpected drawback: an unexpected detrimental effect, occurring in addition to the desired one. For example, while irrigation schemes may provide farmers with water for agriculture, they may also lead to a rise in the prevalence of waterborne diseases such as schistosomiasis.
  • Perverse result: an effect contrary to what was originally intended. For example, while irrigation schemes intended to increase yields may improve water availability and increase agricultural yields in the short term, they might also lead to soil salination and the depletion of freshwater resources, decreasing yields in the long term.

History

John Locke

The idea of unintended consequences dates back at least to John Locke who discussed the unintended consequences of interest rate regulation in his letter to Sir John Somers, Member of Parliament.

Adam Smith

The idea was also discussed by Adam Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment, and consequentialism (judging by results).

The invisible hand theorem is an example of the unintended consequences of agents acting in their self-interest. As Andrew S. Skinner puts it:

"The individual undertaker (entrepreneur), seeking the most efficient allocation of resources, contributes to overall economic efficiency; the merchant's reaction to price signals helps to ensure that the allocation of resources accurately reflects the structure of consumer preferences; and the drive to better our condition contributes to economic growth."

Marx and Engels

Influenced by 19th century positivism and Charles Darwin's evolution, for both Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, the idea of uncertainty and chance in social dynamics (and thus unintended consequences beyond results of perfectly defined laws) was only apparent, (if not rejected) since social actions were directed and produced by deliberate human intention.

While discerning between the forces that generate changes in nature and those that generate changes in history in his discussion of Ludwig Feuerbach, Friedrich Engels touched on the idea of (apparent) unintended consequences:

In nature [...] there are only blind, unconscious agencies acting upon one another, [...] In the history of society, on the contrary, the actors are all endowed with consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working towards definite goals; nothing happens without a conscious purpose, without an intended aim. [...] For here, also, on the whole, in spite of the consciously desired aims of all individuals, accident apparently reigns on the surface. That which is willed happens but rarely; in the majority of instances the numerous desired ends cross and conflict with one another, or these ends themselves are from the outset incapable of realization, or the means of attaining them are insufficient. Thus the conflicts of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the domain of history produce a state of affairs entirely analogous to [...] the realm of unconscious nature. The ends of the actions are intended, but the results which actually follow from these actions are not intended; or when they do seem to correspond to the end intended, they ultimately have consequences quite other than those intended. Historical events thus appear on the whole to be likewise governed by chance. But where on the surface accident holds sway, there actually it is always governed by inner, hidden laws, and it is only a matter of discovering these laws.

— Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (Ludwig Feuerbach und der Ausgang der klassischen deutschen Philosophie), 1886

For Karl Marx what can be understood as unintended consequences are actually consequences that should be expected but are obtained unconsciously. These consequences (that no one consciously sought) would be (in the same way as it is for Engels) product of conflicts that confront actions from countless individuals. The deviation between the original intended goal and the product derived from conflicts would be a marxist equivalent to «unintended consequences.»

This social conflicts would happen as a result of a competitive society, and also lead society to sabotage itself and prevent historical progress. Thus, historical progress (in Marxist terms) should eliminate these conflicts and make unintended consequences predictable.

Austrian School

Unintended consequences are a common topic of study and commentary for the Austrian school of economics given its emphasis on methodological individualism. This is to such an extent that unexpected consequences can be considered as a distinctive part of Austrian tenets.

Carl Menger

In "Principles of Economics", Austrian school founder Carl Menger (1840–1921) noted that the relationships that occur in the economy are so intricate that a change in the condition of a single good can have ramifications beyond that good. Menger wrote:

If it is established that the existence of human needs capable of satisfaction is a prerequisite of goods-character [...] This principle is valid whether the goods can be placed in direct causal connection with the satisfaction of human needs, or derive their goods-character from a more or less indirect causal connection with the satisfaction of human needs. [...]
Thus quinine would cease to be a good if the diseases it serves to cure should disappear, since the only need with the satisfaction of which it is causally connected would no longer exist. But the disappearance of the usefulness of quinine would have the further consequence that a large part of the corresponding goods of higher order would also be deprived of their goods-character. The inhabitants of quinine-producing countries, who currently earn their livings by cutting and peeling cinchona trees, would suddenly find that not only their stocks of cinchona bark, but also, in consequence, their cinchona trees, the tools and appliances applicable only to the production of quinine, and above all the specialized labor services, by means of which they previously earned their livings, would at once lose their goods-character, since all these things would, under the changed circumstances, no longer have any causal relationship with the satisfaction of human needs.

— Principles of Economics (Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre), 1871

Friedrich Hayek and Catallactics

Economist and philosopher Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992) is another key figure in the Austrian School of Economics who is notable for his comments on unintended consequences.

In "The Use of Knowledge in Society" (1945) Hayek argues that a centrally planned economy cannot reach the level of efficiency of the free market economy because the necessary (and pertinent) information for decision-making is not concentrated but dispersed among a vast number of agents. Then, for Hayek, the price system in the free market allows the members of a society to anonymously coordinate for the most efficient use of resources, for example, in a situation of scarcity of a raw material, the price increase would coordinate the actions of an uncountable amount of individuals "in the right direction".

The development of this system of interactions would allow the progress of society, and individuals would carry it out without knowing all its implications, given the dispersion (or lack of concentration) of information.

The implication of this is that the social order (which derives from social progress, which in turn derives from the economy), would be result of a spontaneous cooperation and also an unintended consequence, being born from a process of which no individual or group had all the information available or could know all possible outcomes.

In the Austrian school, this process of social adjustment that generates a social order in an unintendedly way is known as catallactics.

For Hayek and the Austrian School, the number of individuals involved in the process of creating a social order defines the type of unintended consequence:

  1. If the process involves interactions and decision making of as many individuals (members of a society) as possible (thus gathering the greatest amount of knowledge dispersed among them), this process of "catallaxy" will lead to unexpected benefits (a social order and progress).
  2. On the other hand, attempts by individuals or limited groups (who lack all the necessary information) to achieve a new or better order, will end in unexpected drawbacks.

Robert K. Merton

Sociologist Robert K. Merton popularised this concept in the twentieth century.

In "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action" (1936), Merton tried to apply a systematic analysis to the problem of unintended consequences of deliberate acts intended to cause social change. He emphasized that his term purposive action, "[was exclusively] concerned with 'conduct' as distinct from 'behavior.' That is, with action that involves motives and consequently a choice between various alternatives". Merton's usage included deviations from what Max Weber defined as rational social action: instrumentally rational and value rational. Merton also stated that "no blanket statement categorically affirming or denying the practical feasibility of all social planning is warranted."

Everyday usage

More recently, the law of unintended consequences has come to be used as an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system tends to create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.

Akin to Murphy's law, it is commonly used as a wry or humorous warning against the hubristic belief that humans can fully control the world around them, not to presuppose a belief in predestination or a lack or a disbelief in that of free will.

Sign in to keep reading

3 more chapters are free with a Lably account.

More in Sociology