The evaluability dimension is prob ably the most underappreciated variable in political analysis. When I think about why Singapore feels navigable despite centralization, it's exactly that transparency point - rules are clear even if contestation is limited. The Axionic admissible region concept is useful because it sidesteps the usual ideological debates and focuses on whether agents can actually model the system. That structural approach makes way more sense than endless left-right arguments.
Evaluability isn’t about transparency or democratic contestation so much as whether people can actually model the system. You can have heavy centralization and still preserve agency if the rules are stable and predictable.
That’s why Singapore is a useful boundary case: centralized, but locally modelable. When systems drift into opacity or discretionary enforcement, things break fast, regardless of ideology.
The evaluability dimension is prob ably the most underappreciated variable in political analysis. When I think about why Singapore feels navigable despite centralization, it's exactly that transparency point - rules are clear even if contestation is limited. The Axionic admissible region concept is useful because it sidesteps the usual ideological debates and focuses on whether agents can actually model the system. That structural approach makes way more sense than endless left-right arguments.
Agreed. “Navigable” is exactly it.
Evaluability isn’t about transparency or democratic contestation so much as whether people can actually model the system. You can have heavy centralization and still preserve agency if the rules are stable and predictable.
That’s why Singapore is a useful boundary case: centralized, but locally modelable. When systems drift into opacity or discretionary enforcement, things break fast, regardless of ideology.