Worldviews and “the Common Good”

Blog by Huib Wursten and Fernando lanzer

Urgent developments like immigration, climate change and energy transition strongly affect our minds. It is becoming clear that we must tackle these urgent global problems by forming complex, adaptive coalitions. 

However, the “WE” in this statement is actually a problem. To put it simply, “There is no we.“

There are different power players at work with different value systems and different “rules of the game.”                                                                                                        

Therefore, the first important issue is understanding policymaking in the context of this diversity.

One element of this diversity is democracy, which determines how “the common good” is defined and by whom.

Democracy is not simply about “the will of the people”. It is about accepting that different groups have different interests and outlooks on life in every society. 

Democracy is about a system that “balances” diverse interests and finds peaceful solutions for tackling problems. It requires that people from different groups feel represented.

How decisions are made is culturally sensitive.

This point is often overlooked in global agreements and national policies. For instance, a policy that works in Sweden, with its egalitarian and low power distance culture, may not be effective in a hierarchical society like India or China. Countries characterized by low-context communication styles (where information is conveyed explicitly) may find it easier to discuss the facts of climate change openly. On the other hand, in high-context cultures (where much is communicated indirectly), such as Japan or China, the language of climate change policy needs to account for subtlety, sensitivity to “face” issues, and relational dynamics.

Culture and defining the common good

Politicians tend to profile themselves by claiming they aim for the common good.

The way the common good is decided upon and legitimized differs per culture. The Seven Worldviews is again a useful framework for explaining the differences.

A short overview:

Contest: the key reference of the common good in the Contest countries is well-understood self-interest. Policy decisions are made by a simple majority after voting. Half plus one wins. The minority accepts that “the winner takes all.”

Network: The definition of common good is ” shared interest.” It is defined by consensus arrived at by the participation of all stakeholders. Decisions are ideally made by involving all important stakeholders, regardless of their level and status. In the end, all relevant stakeholders should support the decision.

Well-oiled Machine: Key reference: Principled, balanced interest as formulated by experts. Decision-making is systematical and procedural. Experts and expert information play an important role. The key is principled, balanced, and informed proposals by experts. 

Solar System: The key reference in the Solar System is the common good formulated by people at the top of the leading party, including acceptability regarding the “narrow” rule of law, guaranteeing individual rights. 

Family: The common good is formulated by the top of the dominant in-group.: System: rewarding loyalty, trust, social control. Frequently, Long-Term Orientation also influences policies. 

Pyramid: Key reference: common good formulated by the top and acceptable for the dominant group. 

Japan: Common interest is defined as a dynamic balance between the interests of all (in-group) stakeholders in society. Decision-making involves intensive top-down and bottom-up consultations(Ho-Ren-So) and carefully weighing proposals.