Abstract
The papers included in this special edition were originally presented at the 2017 fourth international conference of the Exploring Leadership and Learning Theories in Asia (ELLTA) academic network. The theme of this special edition policy planning research for sustainability in Asian context emerged from a number of the papers which did not fit into other more specialised publication themes (i.e., from the general conference focus on perspectives on leadership, learning and social enterprise in Asia). The special edition theme emphasises how policy research and sustainability studies represent an interdisciplinary focus on topics of public and policymaker interest which all academics from different areas can collaboratively link their specialised studies, interests and disciplinary backgrounds.
So, this special edition represents an example of such interdisciplinary convergence and also how academics might seek to go beyond their normal specialised audiences—to both generate additional policy-related publications and engage in interesting and useful knowledge exchange in the policy domains of society and commerce as well as government decision-making and planning (Richards & Padfield, 2016). As epitomised by the importance placed on the sustainable development goals by global society as well as the United Nations and various national governments, ‘policy studies’ represents an increasingly important focus of the future university (Richards & Farokniah, 2016). It is an emerging interdisciplinary field which can complement or add to existing specialised academic knowledge, research and applied projects to generate additional publications and promote interdisciplinary collaborative projects (Richards, 2015). This helps to better communicate the importance of university knowledge and inquiry to a non-academic audience including decision-makers or policy-builders as well as the wider community.
The theme of policy planning research for sustainability in Asian contexts exemplifies a particularly relevant insight as well as practical programme of the ‘quadruple helix’ innovation theory model. This is how academics—and higher education institutions such as universities more generally—can be and perhaps should be seen as an important ‘macro stakeholder’ in the global challenge of optimising and innovating sustainable and integrated human responses to a changing world with endless leadership dilemmas, crises and challenges more widely (e.g., Richards, 2018). In the quadruple helix model of Afonso, Monteiro and Thompson (2012), the distinct audiences and cultures of markets, bureaucracy/governance, academia and civil society can, and should, be linked together to first discuss and then develop convergent solutions to the emerging challenges of the 21st century (Richards, 2012). Just as the academic articles of this special edition exemplify how academics can make authentic and valuable contributions to both ‘policy’ and ‘public’ audiences about authentic and complex challenges (i.e., ‘wicked problems’), the special edition too as a whole represents a valuable overall example of a selection of papers which sufficiently link together around the common theme.
For instance, linking the policy domains of industry, community, governance and academia, this edition has a recovery expert, writing about disaster management policy, a gastronomic scientist, writing about sustainable tourism, a governance researcher writing about water scarcity social challenges and an engineer writing about university research and innovation policies of national importance. This is all in relation to national, local and also regional case studies linking to the diverse contexts represented in particular by India, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, Bali and Pakistan.
The sequence of papers roughly traverses the distinct if ultimately inter-related policy domains of government (e.g., disaster management), industry (e.g., sustainable tourism), community (e.g., local crises caused by water scarcity) and others (e.g., university research and innovation for quality outcomes). The first paper in the series by Gerald Potutan focusses on how the Japanese ‘build back better’ policy is an integral part of national planning for disaster resilience. In this way, Japanese leaders are able to harness local support for building a ‘culture of resilience’. This compares with the different challenges faced by Indonesia—another Asian country particularly prone to a wide variety of natural disasters ranging from volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunamis through to regular flooding and landslides. The David Efendi et al. paper discusses how there are important lessons for the future to be drawn from a Yogyakarta case study. They suggest that this relates to how the national Indonesian government has generally failed so far to adequately build a private–public partnership and state–society relationship to effectively deal with natural disasters based on local community needs.
Rapid tourism development is an especially common syndrome in South-East Asia which has important lessons for all Asian countries and beyond globally. The Balinese case study by Natalie Koski-Karell focusses on how booming local tourism industries and sites can create massive waste problems which unavoidably require an integrated response for sustainable solutions. Such a challenge also exemplifies the waste problems facing fast-growing cities everywhere. With particular reference to Asian contexts of tourism, a related paper by Paulo Corvo focusses on how the growth of niche ecotourism initiatives reflect the changing tastes of increasing numbers of tourists as ‘consumers’. Applying ideas such as Latouche’s concept of ‘serene decreasing’, Corvo discusses how in the wake of the global financial crisis and other complex global challenges (i.e., reflecting a growing tiredness or disillusionment with that which is merely fast, fashionable and trendy) many tourists have become interested in a ‘return’ to nature, to rural themes and to a more sustainable model of ‘slow tourism’. Global as well as local interests (especially in Asian countries) in regional as well as national ‘food tourism’ epitomise such a distinction between resilient local or traditional interests and the unhealthy symptoms of merely ‘fast tourism’.
Water scarcity is a symptom of global climate change with devastating social impacts which crosses national borders to affect more and more areas and local communities in Asia and elsewhere. As Tariq Ali points out, in his Makran case study of this, the problem of water scarcity is also linked to food, health and other life security issues—thus a growing problem globally affecting the very foundation of local community and social ‘well being’. Tariq’s paper further discusses how, as agricultural production levels are drastically reduced by lower rainfalls and the drying up of rivers and dams, it is women in rural areas of Asia who are increasingly taking on the main burden at the domestic level.
The studies of ‘microhydro project sustainability’ in rural Indonesia by Wati Hermi Maryunani and of ‘sustainable rural water supply schemes’ in Sri Lanka by Lalith Wijesinghe both similarly represent a very different context to the Pakistan case study for approaching water issues. However, both directly address a related policy and water management challenge also informing the Pakistan case study. Wati’s paper focusses on the prominent roles played by local leaders in decision-making about complex issues affecting the community—how such leaders often act as (or should/need to act as) liaisons between governmental and non-governmental agencies and the community for financial and technical assistance and help to monitor and evaluate the proper implementation of projects. Likewise, Wijesinghe’ paper focusses on how the rural water supply schemes often funded by international donor agencies are usually managed by community-based organisations which need to ensure the sustainability of projects locally ‘on the ground’. Both papers usefully point in complementary ways to the larger policy and sustainability challenge of getting dialogical alignment between top-down decision-makers, planners and administration or management on one hand and authentic representations of bottom-up local community needs and aspirations in a fast-changing, increasingly complex and crisis-driven world on the other hand.
Just as local communities need to have sufficient autonomy and independence from international funding and/or project development agencies, the Sarintip Tantanee et al.’s paper too focusses on how developing country universities need better institutional policies to promote research and innovation (R & I) grounded in local contexts of relevance. This Thailand case study explores not only the barriers and gaps in current R & I capacity-building in Thai higher education institutions, but also the ‘possibilities for improvement’ to encourage local researchers to undertake research. (This journal special edition should help demonstrate how policy and sustainability research can be a useful part of this process—to satisfy local academic requirements for publications and specialist problem-solving, but also to help orient research agendas in terms of collaborative, applied and complex problem-solving which can also be directed additionally at both policymaker and public interest audiences). The importance of local innovation is also the theme of Anupama Gupta’s comparative study of sustainability policies for the Indian fashion industry. After analysing the top-down sustainability policy (i.e., also ‘politically correct’) tendencies of European brands, Gupta usefully identifies that whilst Asian brands may be still catching up in certain respects of industry sustainability policy, they are more directly and relevantly addressing issues that are perhaps more fundamental to local contexts, such as work conditions, labour rights and welfare.
The forces of economic globalisation do not just affect markets, academic programmes and ideologies of management and governance (as the public domains of infrastructure, education and communications become increasingly privatised, corporativised and arguably more ‘paralysed’ as well by indecision, confusion and conflicting interests). As touched on by many of the papers in this special edition, these forces also greatly impact the cultural identity, habits and general ‘well-being’ or ’happiness’ of local, national and regional communities. Georgia Daleure’s United Arab Emirates (UAE) study (the last paper in this special edition issue) focusses on the universal challenge facing every local community, nation and region to preserve aspects of local integrity in the face of great, rapid and complex changes promoted by economic globalisation. This study explores how a ‘holistic sustainability strategy’ has been useful in guiding the leadership of UAE to have come up with ‘modern policies and legislation’ which somehow find a reasonable degree of balance between traditional cultural identity and uniqueness on one hand and the challenge of thriving ‘in the global social and economic environment’ on the other hand. Although the forms of such policies and practices may not always translate well into other social or cultural contexts, there are interesting insights in this paper about how a holistic commitment of some kind to sustainability strategies and plans is a useful foundation for all.