Dear all,

A few thoughts about the US National Design Policy Initiative:
 > I agree with Ken on the fact that policies are made for policy  
makers, and that their purpose is to set up actions, as well as  
possible means of measuring their impact. The policy makers (which  
are not necessarily the politicians themselves) have to coordinate  
different agendas, and to identify which instruments, in the existing  
range of instruments (laws, regulations, support schemes, etc.) can  
be used to implement proposals. Sometimes, this might require totally  
new instruments, or a solid readaptation of existing ones (e.g. IP  
rights for design, eco-tax, etc.).
Politicians have yet another role : endorse the proposal, approve it  
(and make it approved by the representatives of a nation), and  
benefit (possibly) from the success. The fact is that it is sometime  
difficult to match the "time-life" of a politician (between three and  
five years on average) and the results of a policy.

To me, the questions that the current initiative raises again (but  
this would be true also of the Indian design policy as well as most  
design policies) is of course its connection to economy and/or  
business. In other words, the design policy is de facto an economic  
policy. It would be interesting to know (in detail) the reasons for  
that. I will risk some hypothesis:
 > it is an opportunistic issues : declaring that design is at  
service of the economy allows a better buy in by the policy makers  
and the politicians. The (high) risk there is that indicators might  
simply be set by economists, and believe me —for having struggled  
with the issue for a while— this is not the kind of thing the  
profession is happy with ;
 > it reflects the place of design in the economy : this assumes that  
the design practice is well represented (or summed up) by the current  
activities of the design consultancies and —possibly— in house  
designers. The pitfall is that it leaves aside a whole set of design  
professionals that work with different practices : they might be  
numerically less significant, but symbolically very much (e.g. those  
that are "stars"). It also sets aside those who use design for other  
purposes (e.g. non for profit activities, social activism etc.), and  
might develop different practices. The risk though is that education  
programs might be shaped towards a prototypical practice that might  
deliver effective and operational young designers with frozen brains.  
So that, at the age of 45, when they reach senior positions and have  
the power to shape the landscape of future practice, they just  
replicate rather than anticipate and push paradigms —note the plural—  
shifts. (I always said to my students that my aim was to plant seeds  
that would blossom when they were that age — other teachers would  
teach them what they needed now. But my course was a minor option, so  
that's a fair position) ;
 > it shows the resistance of the profession to change. This might  
irritate some, and is difficult to explain, but I'll try. By  
suggesting that design is at the service of economy as it is today,  
and using the metonimy that the economy is the current economical  
agents and rules, design doesn't get out of the loop and its  
potential (?) to support (societal) transformation and contribute to  
the resolution of large scale problems (e.g. environment, etc) is  
kept minimal. Now, I shall be rather cruel towards the profession,  
but this comes also from my field experience : it might be unpleasant  
to be in a low position and feel that you could contribute more...  
yet it is also a comfort zone, as you don't have to live up with acts  
(and responsibilities) but rather with intentions.
In fact, if you want to contribute to change, you first have to  
question the orders you get, those that give them to you, and how  
they respect you. I know some (few) designers who can, in a meeting  
with their client, explain quite boldly that they are the (design)  
experts, and that if the client doesn't understand, (s)he takes it or  
leaves it.  These are neither stars, nor arrogant people, just people  
who are top professionnals and want to be respected. Would you go on  
questionning the work of an accountant (there is a difference between  
asking for explanations —which these people do provide with talent—  
and creation being treated as an easy thing) ?

This is why I think that the word "competitiveness" might be a  
necessity, but not the necessary objective of a design policy for the  
future. Competitiveness is the flagship of economical-social  
conservatism, as illustrated by the World Economic Forum.  
Competitiveness (in the economical agenda) is NOT cooperation,  
sharing of knowledge and ressources, supra national regulation,  
social inclusion. Competitiveness (in the economical agenda) is not  
the factor of MACRO-change, it prevents global issues of being  
adressed as it is aiming at keeping the same power structures, and  
governs primarily through fear (job losses, less comfort, etc.).  
Competitiveness (in the economical agenda) is not about celebrating  
what we have already, and thinking in terms of sharing, generosity  
and designing futureS. Competitiveness (in the economical agenda) is  
what prevents design thinking from being used for change.

This is also a question that this document raised to me : why was it  
elaborated mostly by designers and design users? I am not  
questionning the technicalities of organising the meeting in  
Washington, rather the fact that the design demand expertise seems to  
be set and defined by the profession itself, out of the limitations/ 
frustrations of the current demand, fostering an intention rather  
than backed up by the evidence of pilot actions. This reminds me of  
one speaker in a conference (who is very supportive of design), who,  
as a business leader, said: "how can you pretend to have somethig to  
say to CEOs about strategic thinking when most design consultancies  
are less than 20 people, and have no development strategy". And this  
makes me wonder about the fact that designers advocating design's  
potential as being greater then what they are often/mostly doing is  
more a of a dream than a reality that could come true. After all, if  
design is greater than what designers do (and that is my belief), the  
best way to reflect it is to invite other stakeholders to express  
their expectations not about what design could or should do, but  
rather about what are the material and symbolic worlds they would  
like to live in. It is up to us, then, to identify where design can  
contribute, and where designers can support.

This is somehow captured by the thing that I have found most  
interesting about the document is the use of the word "democracy".  
There is here an element, that, to my knowledge, has never been so  
clearly used in other design policy programmes that I know, and I  
wish I would see more design policies deliberatly adressing the way  
we live together. The little shadow that I would bring there is that  
it ends a bit with the traditionnal messianic phraseology of the US  
leading the enlightment of the world.

So I wish a lot of success to the initiative, and I believe that it  
is great for the new government to get such an excellent document  
ready without having to ask for it !

Jean