My work explores and advances new paradigms for a disrupted, multipolar world. “Paradigm” is a big word and often misused. What exactly does it mean?
Paradigm refers to a system of thought based on certain core assumptions about the nature of humans or societies. Peter Katzenstein applies the term “worldview,” defining it as “the unexamined, pre-theoretical foundations of the approaches with which we understand and navigate the world.” For a simple analogy, think of it as the operating system (OS) on your computing devices. If you change the OS, all the apps must change with it.
The default OS we’ve been using to study and manage political economies is what I term the industrial-colonial paradigm. It assumes societies operate like crude machines that technocrats can control by pressing the right button (think toasters). It further assumes that Western capitalist democracies represent a universal model of emulation, or what was once hailed as the “End of History.” Applied to global development, this has often produced blind spots and disempowered local communities. The gap between this default paradigm and the complexity of the twenty-first century is growing wider each day.
What could be an alternative? Polytunity sets the stage, defining the moment for ushering in a new paradigm. My proposal for that new paradigm is AIM: Adaptive, Inclusive & Moral Political Economy.
One of the three pillars of AIM is Adaptive Political Economy (APE), which understands political economies as living complex systems, not static machines. Paired with my Adaptive (A) lens are the Inclusive (I) and Moral (M) ones, acknowledging — and, more importantly, redressing — the impact of power imbalances in knowledge creation. The Inclusive (I) pillar champions “using what you have,” emphasizing that non-Western societies can harness what they have to innovate and tackle problems, without needing to conform to Western benchmarks. The Moral (M) pillar exposes double-standards, asking why some elites who scoff at “using what you have” also insist that foreign interventions are the only way to save the poor.
Through Polytunity, AIM, and its three integrated pillars (Adaptive + Inclusive + Moral), I’m proposing a holistic, nested, and generative paradigm for today’s Age of Disruption, grounded in an empirical foundation. AIM is simply the formal expression of principles I’ve practiced throughout my life’s work, which has produced award-winning books and scientific grants, a living forest of concepts and theories, and a still growing canopy of applications.
Paradigm
-
Polytunity
Polytunity is both a counter-narrative and constructive alternative to the buzzword polycrisis. Instead of reacting to today’s convergence of crises and disruptions with fear, polytunity reframes this moment as a generational opportunity for deep transformation of global institutions and thought.
-
AIM
AIM (Adaptive, Inclusive, Moral) Political Economy is a new paradigm I’m proposing for a disrupted, multipolar world - the polytunity. AIM reshapes the way we study and manage political economies through a unique blend of three pillars: Adaptive (systems thinking) + Inclusive (value diverse indigenous solutions) + Moral (reflexivity about power and ideas creation).
-
Adaptive PE
Adaptive Political Economy (APE) studies political economies as complex adaptive systems, rather than as crude machines. Instead of assuming away the inherently complex qualities of political economies, APE designs theories and methods to illuminate them. APE forms one of three pillars of AIM.
To make sense of complex problems, we rely on five kinds of ideas: concept, categories, theory, model, and paradigm. Below I explain their respective functions and how I’ve applied them throughout my thinking.
Concept: A concept is a coined phrase to help you grasp the defining characteristics of an important issue, in contrast to other concepts. Think of concepts as the building blocks of thought. Everyday, we rely on countless concepts we’ve internalized to navigate the world.
I coin the concept of polytunity (crises as an opening for deep transformation) in contrast to polycrisis (crises as overwhelming doom).
Through AIM, I’ve created or applied many other concepts to political economy. One example: meta-institutions, i.e., higher-level institutional mechanisms that facilitate adaptive processes.
Category: Categories (or typology) are a related set of concepts that help you notice and explain important differences.
In China’s Gilded Age (book) and Unbundling Corruption (article), I introduce a four-part typology of corruption: petty theft, grand theft, speed money, access money. This typology helps us distinguish among the four types of corruption and their effects.
The concept of access money, in particular, brings attention to the issue of institutionalized elite exchanges, often overlooked in global corruption metrics.
Theory: A theory explains a problem, paired with evidence or a method for demonstrating the answer. A theory should not be based simply on assertions (otherwise, it is an opinion).
How does development actually happen? Modernization theory says “growth first.” Institutional theory says “good institutions first.” My coevolutionary theory says: Neither is correct. Development is a three-step, coevolutionary process that begins with “using what you have.”
My evidence includes detailed process-tracing using qualitative and historical data, though other studies have validated aspects of my theory through statistical analyses.
Model: In the non-statistical sense, a model means a stylized description that removes extraneous details and distills the core patterns of a real-world phenomenon.
Caution: The word “model” is often misused to imply a static, copy-and-paste template, as seen in politicized debates about “China vs. America” models. I use “model” only in the heuristic sense, as stylized description.
In How China Escaped the Poverty Trap, I characterize reform-era China’s governance as directed improvisation: a blend of direction from the top and improvisation from below.
Paradigm: Paradigm refers to a system of thought based on certain core assumptions about the nature of humans or societies.
AIM is a paradigm, not a theory. It challenges both the analytic assumption of machine-thinking (APE) and the normative assumption of a single Western benchmark of good institutions (IMPE). Challenging these assumptions have opened up a “living forest” of new questions, theories, metrics, research projects, and dialogues.
Don’t confuse paradigms with frameworks! (see below)
Forest of Ideas: Now you can see the array of ideas I will introduce on this website.
Polytunity is a coined concept, specifically a high-level concept that opens the door to a new paradigm: AIM.
AIM is a paradigm, rooted in a set of redefined analytic and moral assumptions, that generates a family of new concepts, categories, models, and theories.
APE is a paradigm within the larger AIM paradigm, focusing on systems thinking.
Meta-Institutions is a mid-level concept within the APE paradigm, focusing on enabling adaptation.
Access Money is a micro concept within a four-part typology of corruption, nested within the Inclusive & Moral pillars of AIM.
Directed Improvisation captures a model of adaptive governance, applied to post-1980s China (in my recent teaching, I’ve extended this model to AI.)
Coevolutionary Development is a theory of how political-economic modernization occurs over a sequence of stages.
Framework: Personally, I don’t offer “frameworks.” It’s an overly loose term that often isn’t useful or explanatory.
Have you encountered “frameworks” that look like potpourris of boxes, arrows, and jargon? Ask yourself a practical question: Does this framework provide building blocks (concepts and categories), stylized descriptions (models), answers with evidence (theories), or systems of thought (paradigms)? If it’s none of the above, then the framework is probably just a messy diagram and not a thinking tool.