Why the Polycrisis can also be a Polytunity

IF 1.4 3区 经济学 Q2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Yuen Yuen Ang
{"title":"Why the Polycrisis can also be a Polytunity","authors":"Yuen Yuen Ang","doi":"10.1111/dpr.70032","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Motivation</h3>\n \n <p>The term “polycrisis” has become a buzzword of the 2020s. Elite responses are trapped in doom because they fail or decline to diagnose the root causes of crisis in the first place. Yuen Yuen Ang argues that the polycrisis is only paralyzing for those attached to the old, Western-centric order. For others, especially in the Global South, it presents what she coins as a polytunity—a generative and truly global moment to rethink the intellectual foundations of development.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>Ang coins the term polytunity to invert the gloomy, Western-centric framing of the polycrisis. She identifies its intellectual root as the industrial-colonial paradigm, inherited from past centuries of modernization, and highlights its distorting effects. Ang introduces an alternative paradigm: Adaptive, Inclusive, and Moral (AIM) political economy.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Approach and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Drawing from her years of research on adaptive, coevolutionary development (Ang 2016, 2024), Ang critiques the industrial-colonial paradigm that underpins mainstream development. She contrasts “thinking in machine mode” with the realities of adaptive social systems, and the imposition of “one-size-fits-all” templates with the everyday practice of “using what you have” across the developing world. She illustrates with cases from China, Africa, and Indigenous communities.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Findings</h3>\n \n <p>AIM shifts development thinking and practices in three key directions: Adaptive: From machine-thinking to adaptive political economy. Inclusive and moral: From a colonial logic of assimilation to indigenous innovation. Ang also reframes the role of the state not as top-down planning, but as directed improvisation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Policy Implications</h3>\n \n <p>The polycrisis appears doomed only when viewed through the lens of Western decline. By contrast, polytunity calls attention to openings for institutional and intellectual transformation. Ang's AIM political economy offers both new research and policy agendas—particularly for actors who are not beholden to the legacy of domination but aspire to build a more just future.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51478,"journal":{"name":"Development Policy Review","volume":"43 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dpr.70032","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Motivation

The term “polycrisis” has become a buzzword of the 2020s. Elite responses are trapped in doom because they fail or decline to diagnose the root causes of crisis in the first place. Yuen Yuen Ang argues that the polycrisis is only paralyzing for those attached to the old, Western-centric order. For others, especially in the Global South, it presents what she coins as a polytunity—a generative and truly global moment to rethink the intellectual foundations of development.

Purpose

Ang coins the term polytunity to invert the gloomy, Western-centric framing of the polycrisis. She identifies its intellectual root as the industrial-colonial paradigm, inherited from past centuries of modernization, and highlights its distorting effects. Ang introduces an alternative paradigm: Adaptive, Inclusive, and Moral (AIM) political economy.

Approach and Methods

Drawing from her years of research on adaptive, coevolutionary development (Ang 2016, 2024), Ang critiques the industrial-colonial paradigm that underpins mainstream development. She contrasts “thinking in machine mode” with the realities of adaptive social systems, and the imposition of “one-size-fits-all” templates with the everyday practice of “using what you have” across the developing world. She illustrates with cases from China, Africa, and Indigenous communities.

Findings

AIM shifts development thinking and practices in three key directions: Adaptive: From machine-thinking to adaptive political economy. Inclusive and moral: From a colonial logic of assimilation to indigenous innovation. Ang also reframes the role of the state not as top-down planning, but as directed improvisation.

Policy Implications

The polycrisis appears doomed only when viewed through the lens of Western decline. By contrast, polytunity calls attention to openings for institutional and intellectual transformation. Ang's AIM political economy offers both new research and policy agendas—particularly for actors who are not beholden to the legacy of domination but aspire to build a more just future.

为什么多元危机也可以是多元机遇
“多元危机”一词已成为本世纪20年代的流行词。精英们的反应陷入了厄运,因为他们未能或拒绝从一开始就诊断出危机的根本原因。昂元元认为,多重危机只会让那些依附于旧的、以西方为中心的秩序的人瘫痪。对其他人来说,特别是在全球南方,它呈现了她所创造的多元机会——一个重新思考发展的智力基础的生成性和真正的全球性时刻。目的安创造了“多元机遇”一词来扭转以西方为中心的悲观的多元危机框架。她认为其思想根源是工业殖民模式,继承了过去几个世纪的现代化,并强调了其扭曲的影响。Ang介绍了另一种范式:适应性、包容性和道德(AIM)政治经济学。根据她多年来对适应性、共同进化发展的研究(Ang 2016, 2024), Ang批评了支撑主流发展的工业殖民范式。她将“机器思维模式”与适应性社会系统的现实进行了对比,将“一刀切”的模板与发展中国家“所有物”的日常实践进行了对比。她用来自中国、非洲和土著社区的案例来说明。AIM在三个关键方向上转变了发展思维和实践:适应性:从机器思维到适应性政治经济学。包容与道德:从同化的殖民逻辑到本土创新。Ang还重新定义了国家的角色,不是自上而下的计划,而是直接的即兴发挥。只有从西方衰落的角度来看,多元危机似乎注定要失败。相比之下,多元主义要求人们关注制度和知识变革的机会。Ang的AIM政治经济学提供了新的研究和政策议程,特别是对于那些不受统治遗产影响但渴望建立更公正未来的参与者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Development Policy Review
Development Policy Review DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
87
期刊介绍: Development Policy Review is the refereed journal that makes the crucial links between research and policy in international development. Edited by staff of the Overseas Development Institute, the London-based think-tank on international development and humanitarian issues, it publishes single articles and theme issues on topics at the forefront of current development policy debate. Coverage includes the latest thinking and research on poverty-reduction strategies, inequality and social exclusion, property rights and sustainable livelihoods, globalisation in trade and finance, and the reform of global governance. Informed, rigorous, multi-disciplinary and up-to-the-minute, DPR is an indispensable tool for development researchers and practitioners alike.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信