Why the Polycrisis can also be a Polytunity

Yuen Yuen Ang

Development Policy Review, 2025, vol. 43, issue 5

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.

Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/dpr.70032

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:devpol:v:43:y:2025:i:5:n:e70032

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... bs.asp?ref=0950-6764

Access Statistics for this article

Development Policy Review is currently edited by David Booth

More articles in Development Policy Review from Overseas Development Institute Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().