Complexity & Development
Term
Complexity & Development
Idea level
Others (emerging agenda / development policy discourse)
Definition
Complexity and Development is an emerging agenda that treats development problems as complex rather than complicated, rejecting cookie-cutter solutions in favor of localized adaptation and experimentation.
In Yuen Yuen Ang’s critique, however, much of this literature stops at prescribing adaptation as the solution, often ending in platitudes such as promoting innovation or being more tentative—a promising but theoretically and empirically thin shift she calls Complexity and Development 1.0.
By contrast, Ang identifies enabling adaptation itself as the problem and examines why some organizations are more adaptable than others, as well as what meta-institutional designs make effective adaptation possible in practice—a further step she calls Complexity and Development 2.0.
Sources
Theoretical & empirical foundation:
Ang, Y.Y. (2016). How China Escaped the Poverty Trap. Introduction; Chapter 2: Directed Improvisation; Conclusion
Ang, Y.Y. (2024). “Adaptive Political Economy: Toward a New Paradigm.” World Politics.
Policy-facing communication:
Ang, Y.Y. (2018). Complexity & Development 2.0. Presentation at Institute of Development Studies.
Ang, Y.Y. (2018). “3 fallacies of embracing complexity.” UNDP Transformation Series, 12 June 2018.
Ang, Y.Y. (2025) “Turning Polycrisis into Polytunity.” UNDP Expert Brief. June 2025.
Genealogy
[Paradigm] Industrial–Colonial Paradigm
→ [Pillar] Mechanical Thinking: treats development as a machine-like problem
→ [Critique] Complexity and Development 1.0: correctly rejects cookie-cutter solutions, but often stops at prescribing adaptation as solution without explaining how it arises
Contrast with
[Paradigm] AIM (Adaptive, Inclusive, Moral) Political Economy
→ [Pillar] Adaptive Political Economy (APE)
→ [Concept] Enabling Adaptation: the central problem is how to create conditions for effective adaptation
→ [Mechanisms] Variation, Selection & Niche Creation
→ [Concept] Meta-Institutions (as compared to institutions as fixed rules)
→ [Application] Directed Improvisation: empirical demonstration in reform-era China
→ [Iteration] Complexity & Development 2.0: translate theory and findings into policy-relevant insights
Quotes
[Adapting is easier said than done] Normally we are inclined to think about adaptation itself as the solution to all problems. Thus popular literature readily invokes buzzwords from complexity and adaptation to accessorize slogans: ‘Embrace experimentation! Muddle through purposively! Promote innovation! Celebrate diverse solutions! And above all, don’t fear change!’
Although adaptation is universally desirable, people often fail to adapt, and even if they try they may still fail. Experimentation and muddling through may not produce useful solutions or indeed any solution. Bottom-up participation may degenerate into shouting matches and gridlock, as is sometimes seen in democratic settings. And if promoting innovation were easy, then we would all have done it long ago, and all our problems would have been magically solved.
Obviously, it is easier said than done to adapt and to adapt effectively.
— Ang, How China Escaped the Poverty Trap (2016), Introduction, pp. 15–16.
[Ontological foundation: complex ≠ complicated] The conventional paradigm in political economy routinely treats living, complex, adaptive social systems as machine-like objects. This treatment has driven political economists to oversimplify big, complex social processes using mechanical models, or to ignore them altogether. In development, this has led to theoretical dead ends, trivial agendas, or failed public policies.
This article proposes an alternative paradigm: adaptive political economy (APE). It recognizes that social systems are complex, not complicated; complexity can be ordered, not messy; and social scientists should be developing the concepts, methods, and theories to illuminate the order of complexity, rather than oversimplifying it.
— Ang, “Adaptive Political Economy” (2024), abstract.
[From Complexity & Development 1.0 to 2.0]
EXISTING APPROACH: Complexity & Development 1.0 ▪ Points out development problems are complex, with no cookie-cutter solutions ▪ Prescribes adaptation (innovate, experiment, feedbacks, etc.) as solution to problems”
MY APPROACH: Complexity & Development 2.0 ▪ Points out in the first place, enabling adaptation is the problem ▪ Explains sources of adaptive capacity: Why are some organizations more adaptable than others? What conditions & designs promote effective adaptation?”
— Ang, Complexity & Development 2.0 (IDS slides, 2018)
[Avoiding pitfalls] While the turn towards complexity is extremely promising, certain pitfalls must be avoided. As complexity is new to development practitioners, there is little consensus, evidence, or even a basic demonstration case of what “embracing complexity” ought to look like in practice. Consequently, every organization believes it is embracing complexity by doing something different. Knowing what not to do is a useful first step toward determining what to do.
— Ang, “Three Fallacies” (UNDP 2018)
[Toward rigor, research, and data collection] “Although there is a growing body of writing that applies complex systems concepts to development, much of it stops at critiquing conventions, but offers no practical or systematic way forward. For example, [the authors of] Embracing Complexity conclude: “we will be more fluid and tentative in our approach.” That’s it? We become less sure? What different methods of inquiry, data, or findings does ‘embracing complexity’ produce?... Adaptive political economy goes beyond embracing [complexity]—it is about practicing… [For example] development is a non-linear process. But how does such a process actually play out? Answering this requires a lot of hard work collecting data.
— Ang, Turning Polycrisis into Polytunity (UNDP 2025)
Concept Constellation
Across Ang’s work, Complexity & Development consistently co-appears with the following concepts and analytic themes: