In complex systems involving multiple constituencies where variety generation and control distribution is uneven, the differing distributions and dynamics of generated and controlling variety create a structural basis for power asymmetries and differential control over the system's structure, evolution, and distribution of benefits and costs.
Explanation:
Power in complex systems emerges from the topology of variety generation and control distribution across constituencies. Power differences follow from who controls which varieties, who can generate new varieties, and where variety-processing relationships are positioned within system hierarchies.
Key structural relationships:
- Power follows variety topology: Constituencies controlling critical varieties or occupying strategic positions in variety-generation networks accumulate power
- Control capacity determines influence: Those who can process more variety types have greater influence over system outcomes
- Benefits flow with control: Resource distribution follows variety control patterns rather than formal authority alone
- Structural change requires variety redistribution: Transforming power relationships requires changing who controls which varieties
Examples across domains:
Colonial systems (Iraq 1920s): British controlled military and administrative varieties but lacked religious and cultural varieties. Shia mujtahids controlled religious variety. Power distributed according to variety topology: British dominated where they had variety superiority, religious authorities dominated where they controlled variety, leading to unstable power-sharing requiring constant negotiation.
Technology platforms: Platform companies (Google, Amazon, Meta) control infrastructure varieties (servers, APIs, data processing) that other businesses depend on. This variety control translates to power over pricing, features, and market access regardless of user numbers or revenue. Power emerges from variety control position, not market share alone.
Healthcare systems: Specialists control diagnostic and treatment varieties in specific domains. Primary care physicians, despite seeing more patients, have less power because they lack specialist variety. Power accumulates with variety control (specialist knowledge) rather than transaction volume.
Labor relations: Management traditionally controlled hiring, firing, work assignment varieties. Union formation aggregates worker varieties (skills, numbers, coordination) creating countervailing power. Power balance shifts based on which side controls more relevant varieties, explaining why unions succeed in some industries (high worker variety aggregation) and fail in others (workers easily replaced, low variety).
Academic systems: Researchers controlling methodology varieties (novel techniques, unique datasets, theoretical frameworks) gain influence over their fields. Power accrues to variety controllers regardless of institutional rank - a postdoc with unique methodological variety can influence field direction more than senior professors using standard approaches.
Implications:
This framework provides:
- Analytical tool: Map power structures by identifying who controls which varieties
- Explanatory power: Understand why formal authority and actual influence often diverge
- Strategic insight: Identify leverage points where variety redistribution could shift power
- Design guidance: Structure systems with awareness of how variety distribution shapes power outcomes
The framework explains patterns such as:
- Why reforms often fail to shift power (variety topology unchanged despite policy changes)
- Why some technological changes redistribute power dramatically (they create or eliminate variety control positions)
- Why collective action can challenge concentrated power (aggregates distributed varieties into coordinated control).