Abstract
It has become expected of policy makers, scholars, and commentators to refer to a whole raft of global challenge, from the economic downturn through terrorism and the resource curse to climate change, as complex. While indeed the complexity of these problems is staggering, only a small number of such articulations attempt to engage the analytical framework of what is increasingly referred to either as Complexity Theory or as Complexity Thinking (CT) for the purposes of explanation and understanding. Thus for most observers, complexity remains merely a descriptor for the intricate and interconnected nature of these challenges. In this respect, Complexity, Institutions and Public Policy makes a discerning intervention by addressing this lacuna. Graham Room’s analysis offers not merely a much needed discussion of the propositions of CT, but also emphatically spells out the implications of the complexity research agenda for public policy making.
In other words, Room’s intention is to demonstrate that CT should not only be considered “a fertile source of metaphors on which social sciences can draw,” but that it needs to be taken seriously because it offers unique opportunities to develop new frameworks for theory building and policy making (p. 16). While there is no single or uniform CT approach—in fact, it probably is more appropriate to speak of a range of approaches that draw on CT-inspired ideas and concepts—Room reveals that the dynamism, unpredictability, and dramatic changes observed across complex systems should not be considered surprising but a normal part of social, economic, and political life. The study indicates that what distinguishes the CT framework is that it takes the discontinuities of both community life and public policy seriously. In this respect, CT-inspired approaches proffer intriguing heuristic devices that both challenge conventional wisdom and provoke analytical imaginations.
As Room’s analysis aptly demonstrates, the pervasive randomness of global life should not be perceived as disempowering. As he indicates, the contingency of “self-organization does not release us from the fundamental choices of public policy” (p. 245). It is in this setting that CT promotes a model of governance which frames the policy maker as “tuner, energizer, and stewards” (p. 243). Thus instead of despair, Room emphasizes that policy making in complex contexts turns into an art of acting politically. In other words, policy makers seek to balance competing social projects in a community, while at the same time promoting the community “interests and goals within the larger world and reaching out for new opportunities and resources” (p. 242). Such policy-making skills require the development of relevant management abilities premised on the awareness that there are limits to the capacity for predictability and control. In this respect, the book goes on to expose the extent to which decision makers are willing to ignore the need to adapt (or change) failing governing practices only to maintain the mode of business-as-usual.
As Room indicates, the pandering to a truncated and reductionist representation of the reality of complex challenges has turned accepted public policy practices into a liability. The study convincingly indicates that mainstream governance models damage decision-making capabilities as a result of “inappropriate ‘world models’, outdated indicators of dangerous tipping points, inadequate capacity to act and an insufficiently well-defined view of the value choices and political trade-offs involved” (p. 291). The book rectifies this shortcoming by offering a thoughtful outline of the foundations of a CT-inspired public policy. The point of departure is that societies, just like any other system, are non-linear; that is, they are not subject to straightforward modeling, because of the inherent unpredictability of their interactions. Moreover, any society is itself embedded in and interacting with other systems. Consequently, the outcomes of such interactions are difficult to infer, let alone to predict.
In this respect, Room draws attention to the flaws associated with the decision-making mantra of “ceteris paribus: other things are equal or unaffected and serve as no more than context” (p. 5). The assumption is that policies can be modeled and tested, as if in a vacuum, and then applied to real life situations. In other words, the mainstream of public policy making has tended to propound explanations premised on assumptions of predictability rooted in the conviction that social life is a closed system, changing in a gradual manner and following linear trajectories, which can be elicited through discrete assessments of dependent and independent variables. Room, relying on innovative application of CT insights, clearly demonstrates the fallacy of such linear approaches, because “even if all the forces in play are known, the dynamics may be entirely unstable and unpredictable” (p. 126).
It is expected that the insights of Room’s proposition would benefit both the explorations of advanced undergraduate students as well as assist the inquiry of established scholars. In fact, Room’s book lends itself easily as a textbook for grappling with and demystifying the “complexity” of applying the complexity paradigm to the study and practice of politics as well as a manual for policy makers, informing them about the ways in which CT can help them develop relevant managerial practices and governance strategies. Equally significantly, Room has also produced the kind of public policy book that is bound to trigger debate and invite (if not beckon) its readers to pursue further the ideas discussed on its pages. In this respect, it is a timely and welcome addition to the nascent literature on CT-inspired policy making. Most poignantly, perhaps, Room’s book demonstrates that the cognitive crisis in the conventional study of public policy becomes the beginning of its complexification.