A Supervisory Control Theoretic Approach to the Analysis of Democratic Progress

Regular Paper Control Theory and Applications
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper, we show that supervisory control theory of discrete event systems can serve as a methodology to analyze the principle of democratic progress. For this purpose, we address a new supervisory control problem in which each local supervisor is designed with its own private specification, and an additional progressive specification is given as a global objective for a system to follow. We present the controllability and power-observability as the main conditions for a controlled system to meet a progressive specification in the sense that the number of local supervisors meeting private specifications increases as the controlled system evolves. We then demonstrate that the developed theory can be used to analyze the principle of democratic progress in a systematical way through a case study of labor unions in the Unites States.

Keywords

Automaton democracy discrete event system supervisory control 

References

  1. [1]
    P. J. Ramadge and W. M. Wonham, “Supervisory control of a class of discrete event processes,” SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 206–230, 1987. [click]MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    N. Wu and M. Zhou, “Colored timed Petri nets for modeling and analysis of cluster tools,” Asian Journal of Control, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 253–266, 2010. [click]MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    A. A. Afzalian, S. A. N. Niaki, M. R. Iravani, and W. M. Wonham, “Discrete-event systems supervisory control for a dynamic flow controller,” IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 219–230, 2009. [click]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    T. Kelly, Y. Wang, S. Lafortune, and S. Mahlke, “Eliminating concurrency bugs with control engineering,” IEEE Computers, vol. 42, no. 12, pp. 52–60, 2009. [click]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    V. V. Phoha, A. U. Nadgar, A. Ray, and S. Phoha, “Supervisory control of software systems,” IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 1187–1199, 2004. [click]CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    F. L. Baldissera, J. E. R. Cury, and J. Raisch, “A supervisory control theory approach to control gene regulatory networks,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 18–33, 2016.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    S.-J. Park, “Supervisory control for dynamic monopoly,” IET Control Theory & Applications, vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 992–999, 2012. [click]MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Q. Zhou, H. Li, and P. Shi, “Decentralized adaptive fuzzy tracking control for robot finger dynamics,” IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 501–509, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Q. Zhou, P. Shi, Y. Tian, and M. Wang, “Approximationbased adaptive tracking control for MIMO nonlinear systems with input saturation,” IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 45, no. 10, pp. 2119–2128, 2015. [click]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    S. Roy, S. Nandy, R. Ray, and S. N. Shome, “Robust path tracking control of nonholonomic wheeled mobile robot: experimental validation,” International Journal of Control, Automation and Systems, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 897–905, 2015. [click]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    S.-J. Park, “How economic inequality has increased by tax cuts? Power-based modular supervisory control of discrete event systems,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 2843–2848, 2014. [click]MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    W. Chao, Y. Gan, Z. Wang, and W. M. Wonham, “Modular supervisory control and coordination of state tree structures,” International Journal of Control, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 9–21, 2013. [click]MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    L. Ouedraogo, A. Khoumsi, and M. Nourelfath, “A new method for centralized and modular supervisory control of real-time discrete event systems,” International Journal of Control, vol. 83, no. 1, pp. 1–39, 2010. [click]MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    W. M. Wonham and P. J. Ramadge, “Modular supervisory control of discrete-event systems,” Mathematics of Control, Signals, and Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 12–30, 1988.MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    F. Liu and H. Lin, “Reliable supervisory control for general architecture of decentralized discrete event systems,” Automatica, vol. 46, no. 9, pp. 1510–1516, 2010. [click]MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    F. Lu, W. Wu, H. Su, and J. Chu, “Non-blocking decentralized control of discrete event systems based on Petri nets,” Asian Journal of Control, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 323–335, 2010. [click]MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    T.-S. Yoo and S. Lafortune, “A general architecture for decentralized supervisory control of discrete-event systems,” Discrete Event Dynamic Systems: Theory and Applications, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 335–377, 2002. [click]MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    R. D. Putnam, “Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 65–78, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    B. T. Hirsch and D. A. Macpherson, “Union membership and coverage database from the current population survey: Note,” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, vol. 56, no. 9, pp. 349–354, 2003 (http://www.unionstats.com/).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    T. Piketty and E. Saez, “Income inequality in the United States, 1913-1998,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 1–39, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. [21]
    G. O’Donnell and P. C. Schmitter, Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1986.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    L. J. Diamond, “Toward democratic consolidation,” Journal of Democracy, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 4–17, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    D. Acemoglu and J. A. Robinson, “Why did the West extend the franchise? Democracy, inequality, and growth in historical perspective,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 115, no. 4, pp. 1167–1199, 2000. [click]CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    American Political Science Association Task Force on Inequality and American Democracy, Inequalities of Political Voice, May 13, dy2005.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    J. E. Leighley and J. Nagler, “Unions, voter turnout, and class bias in the U.S. electorate, 1964-2004,” Journal of Politics, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 430–441, 2007. [click]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    B. Radcliff, “Organized labor and electoral participation in American national elections,” Journal of Labor Research, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 405–414, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    L. Troy, Trade Union Membership, 1897-1962, New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1965.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    H. Zinn, A People’s History of the United States, Harper Colophon Books, 1980.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    National Labor Relations Act, http://www.nlrb.gov/ resources/national-labor-relations-act.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    G. R. Neumann and E. R. Rissman, “Where have all the union members gone?,” Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 175–192, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. [31]
    R. A. Dahl, On Political Equality, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
  32. [32]
    F. Solt, “Economic inequality and democratic political engagement,” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 52, no. 1, pp. 48–60, 2008. [click]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. [33]
    D. Baker, The United States since 1980, Cambridge University Press, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Control, Robotics and Systems and The Korean Institute of Electrical Engineers and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Electrical and Computer EngineeringAjou UniversitySuwonKorea
  2. 2.School of Electronics EngineeringKyungpook National UniversityDaeguKorea

Personalised recommendations