Inadequate models of socio-economic development

Name(s):

Uncoordinated multiplicity of development models

Competing models of socio-economic development

Uncoordinated multiplicity of global financial models

Inappropriate theoretical models of social development

Static models of social change by policy makers

Resistance to inclusive environmental models

Nature

Inept theoretical models of society and community in the face of rapidly changing economic, political and cultural trends leaves decision makers at every level dramatically unequipped to create effective solutions. Models of society tend to be static, implementation of plans tend to be sequential and linear, social components are envisaged in fragmented ways, and reflections on progress focus on establishing blame or praise.

Policy makers and their advisors tend to use inappropriate static models of social change. These models include: the divine right of rulers, the responsibility of the chosen few to make decisions on behalf of the inept many, and belief in eternal principles of social interaction. The results of these static models of society include: fragmented and protectionist policies, rigid laws and traditions and injustice.

Large international corporations have created financial planning models with global perspective; but they largely exclude national corporations from the planning process, even though the national corporations are also dependent on the global situation. The needs of the consumer are seen only from the vantage point of the producers, which even further distorts meaningful planning.

Although there is accumulating evidence of environmental interdependence, the majority of people only give thought to their immediate environmental situation rather than directing energy to long-range, more inclusive, environmental planning. This concentration on individual circumstances avoids purposeful action on local and global environmental issues and leads to fears for the future as evidence on environmental issues grows.

Incidence

In Europe, for example, the basic economic model of the postwar period is increasingly recognized as being incapable of delivering the combination of steady rising living standards and the comforts of cradle-to-grave welfare. It is believed that this crisis is not cyclical but structural and that basic rethinking is required. In the transition period, however, Europe is expected to suffer from levels of unemployment once considered unacceptably high. The expected cuts in welfare state benefits are expected to be deep, painful and demoralizing.

Claim

1. Existing socio-economic models for social change in a turbulent environment are woefully inadequate in the face of the policy challenges of the next decades. A new set of policy models is essential to deal with the emerging crises.

2. In 1994 Russia was coming to the view that advice from western international organizations and visiting experts was founded on the illusion that a western model of market institutions could be replicated in post-communist Russia. Such advice had proved intellectually questionable in that even in the West it was challenged as sectarian and discredited, but also as being politically frivolous and highly dangerous in the Russian situation. The truth is that it is not possible to determine what mix of economic policies and institutions is most appropriate for the Russian people. But they will not be solved by the importation of bankrupt western models which, following the Cold War, may not themselves prove appropriate to the future of their own societies.

Broader

Inadequacy

Outdated paradigms

Absence of tactical methods

Inadequacy of economic doctrine

Narrower

Atomism

Anthropomorphism

Anthropocentrism

Inadequate social innovation

Economic bias in development

Overgeneralized policy models