Content uploaded by Otto von Feigenblatt
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Otto von Feigenblatt on Feb 26, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
This article is under the license CC BY-NC
Volumen 19 Número 3(Julio – Septiembre 2024)
Immediacy and Sustainable Development: The Perspective of Youth
Otto Federico von Feigenblatt
1
- Keiser University (Florida, United States of America)
Abstract.
International development and in particular the concept of sustainable development have mid to long
term time frames. Traditional international development studies have historically focused on macro
level economic growth with an emphasis on infrastructure and grand scale public policy formation.
It should be noted that the discipline has evolved and notions such as participatory development
have entered the theoretical mainstream to complement macro level public policy concerns.
Nevertheless, the time frame continues to be mid to long term. A youth perspective helps us explore
the poignancy of immediacy for this important demographic group. Development for youth has a
much shorter time frame than it does at the public policy level. The present paper explores how the
concept of human security, and a youth perspective can help bridge the disconnect between
mainstream international development studies, public policy discourse on sustainable development,
and short term needs and realities of millions of people all over the world.
Keywords: international development, human security, youth, sustainable development
1
Email: ofeigenblatt@alumni.harvard.edu
2
REMEF (The Mexican Journal of Economics and Finance)
Immediacy and Sustainable Development: The Perspective of Youth
1. Introduction
International development as a field has historically focused on economic growth and in practice, in
large infrastructure projects (Feigenblatt, 2007, 2009a, 2009b; Solymári, 2018). Public policy has
slowly mainstreamed important concepts from the discipline such as sustainable development,
human development, and participatory development. Nevertheless, there is a sharp disconnect
between international public policy in relation to development and the perspectives and needs of
youth as a demographic group. Recent efforts by the United Nations such as the appointment of a
Secretary General’s Youth Envoy and the subsequent creation of a United Nations Youth Office
(UNYO) are signs that global leaders recognize the importance of this demographic group and that it
is important for young people to understand the efforts undertaken by nation-states,
intergovernmental organizations, and other important stakeholders (Berents & Mollica, 2022).
In order to integrate youth into the global agenda and to empower them to participate in
decision-making and agenda setting it is necessary to understand the characteristics of this
important demographic group. Youth encompasses a demographic group that plays a central role in
economic development, demographic growth, or contraction, and many of the live events that take
place during this stage of life have a profound impact on important socio-economic processes.
Therefore, it is necessary to explore the socio-cultural aspects of this demographic group and to
assess how they fit into prevalent models of development and security.
2. Time Orientation and Indulgence versus Self-Restraint as a
Framework of Analysis
Anthropologists have studied time orientation as a cultural trait for many years (Faubion, 2007;
Macdonald, 2007). Time is one of the cultural dimensions identified by Geert Hofstede in his seminal
study conducted during his time working for IBM (Eldridge & Cranston, 2009). His cultural
dimensions theory falls under cross-cultural psychology but is compatible with an anthropological
approach. Originally the theory included only four dimensions, namely individualism-collectivism,
uncertainty avoidance, power distance and task-orientation versus person-orientation, however the
theory was eventually expanded to include two more dimensions, indulgence versus self-restraint
and long-term orientation. Even though Hoftede’s model was developed to evaluate cultural
dimensions based on national cultures, the model has proven to have considerable theoretical
traction beyond its intended focus. The model has had a profound impact on a varied array of fields
such as communication, psychology, business administration, and even political science.
From the perspective of research on intergenerational cultural differences two dimensions
are particularly useful because they focus on some of the characteristics that have been identified in
the literature as relevant to understand the general understanding of the different generations in
relations to the workplace and to their cosmovision. In other words, a review of the literature on
intergenerational differences results in the identification of two main categories which largely
coincide with the two previously mentioned cultural dimensions (Torche, 2015). Moreover, the two
3
Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas, Nueva Época, Vol. 18 No. 4
NOTAS, COMENTARIOS Y REFLEXIONES
dimensions can help us explore the challenges of bridging human security and sustainable
development from a youth perspective.
3. Bridging the Gap between sustainable development and
human security
One of the main criticisms of the concept of sustainable development is that it tends to be focused on
very ambitious, long-term goals, rather than on immediate needs (MacFarlane & Khong, 2006).
Moreover, even though certain strands of sustainable development pay attention to local efforts and
projects, discourse on sustainable development tends to focus on macro level efforts. On the other
hand, human security which can be defined as “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear” focuses
on the individual, bridges traditional security concerns with development issues (Hook, Gilson,
Hughes, & Dobson, 2005; Peng-Er, 2006; Wongboonsin, Pongsapich, Pongsapich, & Sookkhee, 2006).
Youth is traditionally defined as those between the age of 15 and 29 but some definitions are
more inclusive and include everyone from 15 to 35 (Harlan, 2016). From the point of view of
generations as units of analysis, the experiences and life events that take place in those two decades
of life tend to have a profound impact on the individual development and life chances of young people.
Therefore, exploring issues of sustainable development from the perspective of youth is not only
fruitful but necessary if the related policies are to have a beneficial effect on their live prospects.
There is a plethora of studies dealing with intergenerational differences (Molly, Laveren, &
Jorissen, 2012; Rick & Forward, 1992; Santos & Cox, 2000). Studies focusing on generation Z point to
ambition and money as an important goal (Dolot, 2018; Seemiller & Grace, 2015). Members of this
generation are digital natives and use their phones as their main hub of communication. Pragmatism
is a central characteristic of generation Z and they tend to be prone to questioning authority (Dolot,
2018). Entrepreneurial and concerned about the future, members of this generation have grown up
in an insecure world. Generation Z is less idealistic and more focused on short term goals related to
basic needs than previous generations. Even though the previous characteristics focus on generation
Z, namely people born between 1995-2010, youth in most historical periods has shared some
common characteristics richly encompassed by two dimensions of Hofstede’s model, time
orientation and indulgence versus self-restraint.
Time orientation is a core defining trait of youth as defined by people from 15 to 35 years of
age. Young people tend to have a short-term orientation. This is understandable taking into
consideration that youth coincide with a period of entering the job force and fighting for a position
in society. In general, young people lack the accumulated resources of older people and face a
constant struggle to identify opportunities to keep climbing the professional and social ladder.
Starting a family also implies immediate economic responsibilities such as providing for young
children. Due to the intensity and speed of changes and rites of passage during youth, there is a sharp
need for immediacy.
A second dimension, indulgence versus self-restraint is dependent on socio-economic
conditions but it is also related to the stage of life. Youth may experience a sharp transition from
indulgence to self-restraint when transitioning from dependents living with their parents to
independent single adults and then during the process of starting a family. In terms of context, the
4
REMEF (The Mexican Journal of Economics and Finance)
Immediacy and Sustainable Development: The Perspective of Youth
ebbs and flows of the global economy and the individual situation of each family influences the
poignancy of this particular cultural dimension. Nevertheless, studies of generation Z point to a sharp
turn to pragmatism and austerity which may be due to their formative years taking place during a
sharp economic downturn and a global pandemic (Ang, Shorey, Lopez, Chew, & Lau, 2022). Thus, self-
restraint can be considered to be a central trait to youth in this particular time.
Now that two central cultural dimensions for youth have been identified and the concepts of
sustainable development and human security have been introduced, we will turn to the challenge of
bridging the gap between sustainable development and human security by integrating a youth
perspective. There is a vast literature dealing with the differences between sustainable development
and human security (Akaha, 2009; Ashizawa, 2008; Battersby & Siracusa, 2009). Most studies point
to the unit of analysis as the main difference between the two concepts. Human Security focuses on
the individual while sustainable development tends to focus on the community level or macro level
(Battersby & Siracusa, 2009). Nevertheless, bridging the gap between the two concepts requires an
understanding of the underlying assumptions of each paradigm. Human Security has an underlying
assumption of immediate need and the securitization of the wellbeing of the individual implies the
non-negotiable nature of certain basic needs. On the other hand, sustainable development tends to
have a longer-term perspective with an emphasis on stability and planning. Therefore, bridging the
gap between human security and sustainable development requires the integration of youth
perspectives. In particular the immediacy of certain issues and the challenges posed by indulgence
versus self-restraint. The next section provides a few recommendations that can be used by
policymakers and leaders to bridge the gap between the two concepts.
4. Recommendations
Policymakers should take into consideration that youth perspectives differ from other groups in
terms of the important cultural dimension of time-orientation. Sustainable policies must include
intermediate steps which clearly connect with short term needs in addition to building up to long
term goals. One of the most important challenges faced by statesmen is to gain the buy-in of youth to
successfully implement their policies. Nevertheless, the open-ended nature of many policies and the
emphasis on long term goals can make them unpalatable and distant to youth. A simple yet effective
solution is to divide complex policies with long term time frames into clearly measurable
intermediate steps and goals. This simple approach is used by educators when assigning complex
projects (Ortiz, Aparicio-Gómez, & von Feigenblatt, 2023; von Feigenblatt, 2023; von Feigenblatt &
Ricardo, 2023). Students find it easier to tackle a large project when they focus on smaller steps that
lead up to its completion. One of the advantages of this approach is that it ameliorates the challenge
of short attention spans, and it also eases the challenge of connecting personal effort to attainable
goals. As explored in previous sections of this paper, young people have short term time orientations
and thus it is easier to include them and empower them if the projects and goals are presented in a
format that is compatible with their perspectives and cultural frameworks.
5
Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas, Nueva Época, Vol. 18 No. 4
NOTAS, COMENTARIOS Y REFLEXIONES
References
[1] Akaha, T. (2009). Human Security in East Asia. Journal of Human Security, 5(3), 11-34. Retrieved from
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ezproxylocal.library.nova.edu/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f
7a67b1790e5912177bf56e509a2d30ba2b70fcf5615ffb515b188e0fab97220673c926f995&fmt=P
[2] Human Security in East Asia. Journal of Human Security v. 5 no. 2 (2009) p. 11-34
[3] Ang, W. H. D., Shorey, S., Lopez, V., Chew, H. S. J., & Lau, Y. (2022). Generation Z undergraduate students’
resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study. Current Psychology, 41(11), 8132-8146.
[4] Ashizawa, K. (2008). When Identity Matters: State Identity, Regional Institution-Building, and Japanese
Foreign Policy. International Studies Review, 10(3), 571-598.
[5] Battersby, P., & Siracusa, J. M. (2009). Globalization & Human Security (Hardcover ed.). Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
[6] Berents, H., & Mollica, C. (2022). Reciprocal institutional visibility: Youth, peace and security and
‘inclusive’agendas at the United Nations. Cooperation and Conflict, 57(1), 65-83.
[7] Dolot, A. (2018). The characteristics of Generation Z. E-mentor, 74(2), 44-50.
[8] Eldridge, K., & Cranston, N. (2009). Managing transnational education: does national culture really
matter? Journal of Higher Education Policy & Management, 31(1), 67-79.
[9] Faubion, J. D. (2007). Currents of Cultural Fieldwork. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland,
& L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of Ethnography (Paperback ed., pp. 39-59). London: SAGE Publications.
[10] von Feigenblatt, O. F. (2007). Japan and Human Security: 21st Century ODA Policy Apologetics and
Discursive Co-optation (2nd ed.). Delray Beach: Academic Research International.
[11] von Feigenblatt, O. F. (2009a). Disciplinary Moratorium: Post-Colonial Studies, Third Wave Feminism,
and International Development Studies. Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, 1(2),
483-487.
[12] von Feigenblatt, O. F. (2009b). International Policymaking: The Case of the Norm of the Responsibility
to Protect. Ritsumeikan Center for Asia Pacific Studies Working Paper, No. 09-6(July), 1-11. Retrieved
from http://www.apu.ac.jp/rcaps/modules/publication/content/RCAPS_WP_09_.6.pdf
[13] von Feigenblatt, O. F. (2023). Traditional Education in the Public Sphere: A Contested Terrain. Revista
Internacional de Filosofía Teórica y Práctica, 3(2), 87-106.
[14] von Feigenblatt, O. F., & Ricardo, J. E. (2023). The challenge of sustainability in developing countries:
the case of Thailand. Universidad y Sociedad, 15(4), 394-402.
[15] Harlan, M. (2016). Constructing youth: Reflecting on defining youth and impact on methods. School
Libraries Worldwide, 1-12.
[16] Hook, G., Gilson, J., Hughes, C. W., & Dobson, H. (2005). Japan's International Relations: Politics,
economics and security (2nd Edition ed.). London: Routledge.
[17] Macdonald, S. (2007). British Social Anthropology. In P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, &
L. Lofland (Eds.), Handbook of Ethnography (Paperback ed., pp. 60-79). London: Sage Publications.
[18] MacFarlane, S. N., & Khong, Y. F. (2006). Human Security and the UN: A Critical History (1st Edition ed.).
Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
[19] Molly, V., Laveren, E., & Jorissen, A. (2012). Intergenerational differences in family firms: Impact on
capital structure and growth behavior. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(4), 703-725.
[20] Ortiz, O. L. O., Aparicio-Gómez, O. Y., & von Feigenblatt, O. F. (2023). Assessing a country’s scientific
contribution towards sustainability from higher education: a methodology for measuring progress
towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Revista Interamericana de Investigación Educación
y Pedagogía RIIEP, 16(2), 343-361.
[21] Peng-Er, L. (2006). Japan's Human Security Role in Southeast Asia. Contemporary Southeast Asia, 28(1),
141-159. Retrieved from http://0-
6
REMEF (The Mexican Journal of Economics and Finance)
Immediacy and Sustainable Development: The Perspective of Youth
proquest.umi.com.novacat.nova.edu/pqdweb?did=1075491341&sid=4&Fmt=6&clientId=17038&RQ
T=309&VName=PQD
[22] Rick, K., & Forward, J. (1992). Acculturation and perceived intergenerational differences among
Hmong youth. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 23(1), 85-94.
[23] Santos, S. R., & Cox, K. (2000). Workplace adjustment and intergenerational differences between
matures, boomers, and Xers. Nursing economic$, 18(1).
[24] Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2015). Generation Z goes to college: John Wiley & Sons.
[25] Solymári, D. (2018). Global Solidarity: Humanitarian Aid and International Development Programs of
the Hungarian Charity Service of the Order of Malta in the Middle East and Sub-Saharan Africa.
BUdAPESt REPORt ON ChRiS iAN PERSEcUtiON, 249.
[26] Torche, F. (2015). Analyses of intergenerational mobility: An interdisciplinary review. The ANNALS of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 657(1), 37-62.
[27] Wongboonsin, P., Pongsapich, A., Pongsapich, S., & Sookkhee, C. (Eds.). (2006). Promoting Human
Security in APEC Countries. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
