BALANCING INDIVIDUALISM AND COLLECTIVISM: USER CENTRIC POLICY DESIGN TO ENHANCE EVOLUTIONARY DEVELOPMENT AND TO ADDRESS COMPLEX NEEDS Janet McIntyre-Mills1
[email protected] ABSTRACT Do we have a choice between isolation in zero sum competitive nation states or multilateralism? I argue that based on an understanding of our common, intermeshed fate (Held et al 1999) that rational responses need to be systemic. This paper is exploratory. It considers the implications of ongoing research on the relevance of participation for testing out ideas for science, ethics, and democracy. Testing enables the better match of development responses to context, thus enabling ‘evolutionary development’, rather than ‘development for growth’. This is the difference between: • Development for growth which is unsustainable, because it ‘forgets’ the ‘externalities of poverty’ and pollution and • Policy adaptation (Giddens, 2009) that is based on responding to the environment by adapting and evolving designs that are socially, economically and environmentally sustainable. INTRODUCTION Greed has ‘boomeranged’ as pollution and poverty and selfishness has ‘boomeranged’ as war and conflict (Beck 1992, 1998, 1999 cited in McIntyre Mills, 2007 a, b, 2006 c, 2009 a, b). The argument developed in this paper starts where Habermas ends in the ‘Postnational Constellation’ (2001). Habermas argues that we can no longer limit democracy within the boundaries of a nation state. Giddens (2009) warns that localized efforts, whilst important for prefiguring change are insufficient to hold the market to account, unless they are applied regionally and internationally. The challenge remains how do we work across conceptual boundaries (cultural, political and professional) and spatial boundaries (organisational, community, regional, international)? 1 I acknowledge the outstanding contributions of Dr Denise De Vries, Flinders University, a Chief Investigator in the current CRCAH grant and the joint proposals on which we are working.