On Choice Materiality: How to Transform Development Diplomacy in Dialogs of Rational Choices

On Choice Materiality
How to Transform Development Diplomacy in Dialogs of
Rational Choices?
1 February 2019
Siripong Treetasanatavorn

How to Transform Development Diplomacy in Dialogs of Rational Choices?
Edited: June 8, 2020 True & CP Group / Page 1 of 25
Introduction
Paris Climate Agreement from 2015 gives a reason for hope to the mankind. The
global community came together and brought forward a common set of ambitious
objectives to curb further emissions of the greenhouse gas (GHG) and ameliorate
potential consequential impact of the climate change. Indeed, every global challenge
needs no less than a global approach. This agreement is therefore a right step in a
right direction for this reason. Just three years later, His Excellency Antonio Guterres,
the United Nations Secretary General, urged all member states once again at the
beginning of the 73rd
United Nations General Assembly to remain committed to the
course of this agreement (United Nations Secretary General, 2018). His message to
all unequivocally even earnestly appealed for stronger contributions toward the
collective goals. One plausibly infers that success of this collective effort depends on
how the global community chooses to advance this course with a good sense of
rationality. This is a leadership challenge. How should the global community engage
the sense of choice rationality as fundamentals of collective progress? How could
this effort take a moral highground to advance this leadership effort at meaningful
and moral frontiers? Which leadership perspectives of development rationality would
be instrumental in charting forward changes around us as much as within ourselves?
1. Unfold Development Perspectives
Quest for collective acts in this complex discourse urges one to perceive reality of the
challenge with hypothetical, evaluative and substantive rationale. Sustainability
development that is meaningful in this context requires a good understanding of how
natural ecosystems coexist, mutually sustain and perpetuate interdependent
prospect in the long run (Oxford Martin School, 2015). Causal thinking on this ground
matters because it helps us understand complex causality of humans in interaction
with the nature based on knowledge of science. This approach not only empowers
our decision toward sustainable results but also advances our collective development
at meaningful causes with a good measure of rationality. In this manner, scientific
methods link unobvious causes to consequences regardless of system complexity,
substantiate collective action regardless of contextual dynamics, and translate
intuition and judgment to measurable results regardless of one’s limited sense of
rationality. With this logic, how could development rationality possibly mean to
translating global principles to a myriad of local challenges all around the world?
• Development Complexity: How could causal thinking help us gain
necessary perspectives and therefore formulate constructive cause-driven
development hypotheses given the complexity of the global natural systems?
• Development Causality: Which interpretation of rationality is necessary to
bring the society to focus on meaningful decisions that address challenges
with understanding of how intended causes could be engaged by choices?
• Development Conscience: Which collective perspectives would lead one’s
judgment to decisions based on meaningful and forward-looking perspectives
that project morality of collective raison d’être beyond immediate needs?
Essence of this discourse provides a foundation applicable to transform development
principles and practices adhering to rational, meaningful and forward-looking views
upon our collective choice-making command. Constructive pathways forward shall
therefore depend on how global perspectives evolve in various settings of local
contexts, as much as vice versa. But what could constitute our rational choices?

Page 2 of 25 / True & CP Group Edited: June 8, 2020
Box A: ARCHITECTURE OF DEVELOPMENT RATIONALITY
Today’s development world encounters choices dilemma caught between sustainability
development ambition on a global level and hard reality of fragile and volatile local
circumstances. This contribution projects leadership perspectives with a structural
approach to defining and engaging nuanced views of choices materiality based on
Nobel Prizes’ behavioral insights. Twelve (12) leadership perspectives are synthesized
from market and policy development views from actual water, food and energy cases.
PART I: Choices Perspectives: Ground
core elements of development rationality
PART II: Materiality Perspectives:
Orchestrate transformative dynamics
1. Unfold development perspectives
2. Challenge leadership choices
3. Perceive behavioral rationality
4. Develop perspectives of choices
5. Structure choice architecture
6. Design transformative structure
7. Bring focuses to leadership dialogs
8. Engage choices dynamics
9. Orchestrate co-competitive materiality
10. Embrace choices dilemma
11. Transcend multilateral causes
12. Resonate shared leadership
Discussion Structure: Develops discourse of choices materiality from actual cases
and gradually advances leadership perspectives of development rationality
A: Fundamentals: Apply behavioral
sciences to define principle-based sense
of rationality at the face of fragile and
volatile development landscapes
B: Approaches: Structure development
foundation based on interpretative sense
of transformative rationality in dialogs of
structural competitiveness reform
C: Orchestration: Resonates nuanced
sense of development rationality to
substantiate choices materiality in co-
competitive transformative dynamics
D. Diplomacy: Advances discourse of
development rationality in materiality
dynamics of multilateral leadership at co-
competitive transformative frontiers
LEADERSHIP PERSPECTVES FROM DEVELOPMENT CASES:
Choices of Water Diplomacy: Water development rationality should engage policy-
diplomacy dynamics in multilateral perspectives of collective ecosystem governance
Characterization of Food Agenda: Rational perspectives of food sustainability leads
to structural reforms that jointly advance materiality of development frontiers in dialogs
of ecosystemic and economic, as well as agricultural and human rights progress
Materiality of Sustainable Energy: Choices materiality orchestrates market-policy
dynamics that advances societal progress in perspective of structural competitiveness

2. Challenge Leadership Choices
Dilemma of rational choices challenges how leaders come to terms with such
complex perspectives of development rationality. Take exacerbating water scarcity
situation, food security concern and energy sustainability outlook all around the
world. How should a honed sense of rationality improve rigor of our collective choices
because of rather than despite hard facts on the ground? And how could leadership
morality engage our collective judgment of development reality, and vice versa?
Water Scarcity: Natural fresh water will be in a much shorter supply as the warmer
global climate continues to put further stresses on the ecosystem. More frequent
extreme weather and greater distortion to seasonality are expected to cause further
concerns to the water development sector. From this leadership perspective, how
should we engage the sense of rationality to improve prospect of ecological (fresh
water supply) and socioeconomic (growth and stability) sustainability in an integrated
water policy-diplomacy discourse (Royal Scientific Society of Jordan, 2017)?
Food Insecurity: Global food system faces unsustainable dilemma caused by
increasing world’s population (food demand) and deteriorating natural ecosystems
required to maintain the level of food quality and quantity (food supply). From this
leadership perspective, how could we as global citizens engage the moral sense of
rationality to improve prospect of sustainable food for all using social, market and
policy instruments available at our disposal (World Food Summit, 2018)?
Energy Unsustainability: Global energy market lies at the foundation of the global
economy. Current dependability on fossil sources, however, leads to long-term
concern in security, market and ecological terms. Structural shift to renewable
sources could be a strategic choice to orchestrate global-local changes but how
should the global community engage the sense of rationality considering potential of
our collective choices for a meaningful structural transition (Chatham House, 2018)?
Perspectives of choice rationality are implied by examples above. Conscious choices
that are mindful of the natural complex systems seek sense-making perspectives of
how global and local dynamics depend on one another and why collective actions
matter to advancing our collective causes. On the other hand, such perspectives
need be translated in terms of nuanced perception of rationality. In fact, every well-
defined development discourse requires practical modus operandi that recognizes
situational challenges without compromising the morality of justice shared by all.
Architecture of Development Rationality: Lays foundation of this contribution (see
Box A). Conscious of today’s developmental challenges, the authors engage the
sense of development rationality in terms of choices materiality with the business
and policy community all around the world. The following sections discuss
frameworks with arguments based on actual water, food and energy cases in two
parts. Fundamentals in behavioral sciences provide a scientific framework required
to engage the sense of development rationality from choices perspectives
(Sections A-B) with approaches to structural choice architecture in market and policy
transformative dynamics (Section B). From materiality perspectives (Sections C-
D), the authors advance perspectives of choice rationality in co-competitive
(cooperative-competitive) materiality dynamics, and consequentially apply such
leadership views to orchestrate cross-level governance in market-policy structural
competitiveness terms (Section C). Final discussions challenge how choices
materiality engages multilateral dynamics with diplomacy of structural materiality
meaningful to transcend shared leadership at transformative frontiers (Section D).

Part I: Choices Perspectives

A. Fundamentals of Development Rationality
Development diplomacy of the Paris Climate Agreement requires consequential
translation to meaningful practices. Global phenomenon of the climate change has
already caused profound deterioration to development conditions all around the
world, particularly where ecosystem vulnerability leads to fragile people’s livelihood
(World Bank, 2018). Required environment of trust and trustworthiness could yet be
built should governance body on the ground repeatedly fail to manage the situation
at hand with visible improvement results. Which perspectives of choice rationality are
meaningful to advance leadership judgment in such complex settings on the ground?
• Choices of Principle: Which perspectives of rationality could advance
collective courses of action that projects cause-based principle that command
forward-looking views without compromising sense of development urgency?
• Choices of Practice: How should choices of development engagement
project forward-looking development pathways with perspectives of rationality
without compromising shared sense of justice to the people on the ground?
Dual senses of purpose and practicality form indispensable causal thinking elements
required to define meaningful development engagement. Substantive merits from
globally collective efforts challenge the global society not only how to develop shared
perspectives of constructive caused-based engagements with shared understanding
of system complexity. Necessary evaluative basis toward that end must also be
objective and measurable, such that a collective sense of progress shall emerge with
forward-looking prospect for all. This section introduces fundamentals based on
knowledge of science to structure development challenges with rational thinking.
3. Perceive Behavioral Rationality
Leadership perspectives of development rationality engage the dilemma of choices
based on an evidence-based, decision-making foundation. Morality and justice of this
mindset find resonance grounds with the state of the art in behavioral sciences. As
decision-makers characterize decision choices with principles and practices to
command justice achievable by constructive actions from all, scientists perceives the
very notion in terms of “bounded rationality” (Nobel Prizes in Economic Sciences,
2002 and 2017). In fact, insights in behavioral sciences further point out under which
circumstances human decisions often deviate from the sense of rationality and how
such deficits could be overcome. Reduction of information complexity with
substantive group behavior could help advance complex decisions that require
significant mental accounting. To counter human’s psychological denial to losses,
choice architecture should be made based on facts that advance prospect to gain
(Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, 2002). On this ground, how could knowledge of
science potentially advance development rationality with perspectives of choices?
• Hypothetical Rationality: Engages causal complexity with forward-looking
perspectives of purpose-driven decision hypotheses that advance
constructive prospect based on impact of rational choices at one’s disposal;
• Evaluative Rationality: Translates nuances of collective progress with
assessment mechanisms based on consequential choice impact, thereby
recognizing nuances of engagement rationality from actual field assessment;
• Substantive Rationality: Advances collective conscience with necessary
substances from policy and diplomacy engagement meaningful to engage the
dynamics of collective shift in view of development in multilateral terms.

Science provides instrumental fundamentals to advance judgment of rationality
particularly with perspectives of choices and progress. Collective courses of action
shall therefore benefit immensely in this sense where the sense of rationality
advances itself on the basis of self-conviction and reasonableness rather than peer
pressure or coercive forces. This approach therefore finds great relevance in
leadership choices of policy and diplomacy engagement that seeks to advance
rational transformation together with the people upon merits of choice rationality.
Actual leadership example can be found in science-based policy engagement in the
United Kingdom. In this context, the engaged sense of rationality resonates moral
values by “enabling people to make better choices for themselves” (United
Kingdom’s Cabinet Office, 2012), where science helps advance dynamics of policy
engagement with the people toward changes that are meaningful to the people
themselves (see Box B). For development purposes, how should leaders engage the
sense of development rationality that balances the sense of urgency with forward-
looking principle in the dialog of choice rationality and collective progress?
Box B: SCIENCE-BASED POLICY-MAKING PROCESS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
Scientific innovation from behavioral sciences first arrived at the policy community when
the United Kingdom established in 2010 the Behavioral Insights Team or “Nudge Unit.”
This engagement brought forward merits from human psychology and behavioral
economics with purposes to examine and influence citizen’s decision-making processes
toward more rational and more reasonable choices that indeed matter to themselves.
Advances in behavioral sciences are applied in this context with success thanks to the
power of scientific evaluative merit (“We achieve it by measuring the result”). In
practice, this policy innovation not only structures policy choices in a test-and-learn,
experimental process, but also continuously adapts to a vast variety of complex human
behaviors across circumstances. Both aspects are, however, seamlessly coupled and
effectively served as core policy-making logic, where decisions are made based on
merits recognized by each individual. For this reason, choice rationality is defined
meticulously to the benefit of each specific case to achieve that intended self-evaluative
merit. In nutshell, science advances policy decisions in this context on three accounts:
• Policy-Making Ground: Scientific method based on behavioral psychology has
been proved an innovative means to substantiate policy efficiency and
effectiveness using dynamics of a continuously learning process;
• Self-Reinforcing Empowerment: Perspectives of choice rationality are
empowered and successively enhanced with arguments related to individual
(self-evident merits) and comparative (merits from comparable cases)
circumstances toward impact rationality therefore decision-making behaviors;
• Policy Capability: Dialogs of choice-making processes give vital direct and
indirect indicators to future policy motions, where behavioral understanding
potentially substantiates legislative or regulatory hypotheses.
Further technical details of this innovation can be found in reference material
(Randomized Controlled Trials or RCT from United Kingdom’s Cabinet Office, 2012).

4. Develop Perspectives of Choices
Rational thinking process engages reality of development challenges in recognition
of one’s limited perception and decision capacity. This simple fact, however, finds
profound relevance of behavioral sciences in today’s development contexts once we
all accept this limitation. Science as discussed before could not only render
meaningful interpretations from complex decision-making process at hand but also
bring forward sense-making perspectives to the context. How does this view address
the global sense of urgency in water scarcity, food security and sustainable energy?
Rational Choices of Water Development: Fragility of water policy and diplomacy
all around the world has become apparent as consequences of the climate change
unfold. Such contextual challenges demand engagement hypotheses to strike
resonance not just in the sense of water and natural ecosystem only. Today’s water
diplomacy also additionally requires policy and political discourses that engage public
trust with substantive merits necessary to advance meaningful and forward-looking
conciliatory confidence-building measures from all (World Bank, 2018). Indeed, such
perspectives of water engagement are as complex as science of behavioral
rationality itself, where collective behaviors are bounded by political, environmental
and social perspectives of our collective engagement upon the natural ecosystem:
• Perspectives of Purposes: Which development prospects are necessary to
project meaningful choices of pathways with practicalities served to shift
collective behaviors of stakeholders and partners toward shared sense of
justice, conducive to structuring integrated resource governance?
North Africa and the Middle East well represent today’s water policy-diplomacy
frontiers. Immediate attention to the increasingly fragile water sufficiency situation is
required not only to ameliorate systemic conditions for decency and dignity of the
people, but also to groom cooperative goodwill for participative efforts toward a
longer-term shared prospect. In this discourse, water development policy could
potentially advance complex decisions to the population toward a constructive and
meaningful behavioral shift based on science. Dialogs of water choices should aim at
bringing forward water sufficiency prospect to the same perspectives of immediate
water engagement by all. Psychological shift in this sense should be mindful of
evaluative prospect of meaningful gain both in individual and collective sense,
particularly toward a sustainable prospect of basin-wide water ecosystems.
Nuances of Food Sufficiency Dialogs: Moral implications of global food challenges
pose complex questions about how the business and policy community come to
terms with today’s unbalanced, unequal and unsustainable food system dynamics
nested across the globe. Even though rational sense upon right and dignity to food
may not necessarily find eyes and ears from administrations whose policy depends
on price dynamics of the global commodity market, this dilemma delivers echoes that
recognize complex food security nuances. Global leaders call for “Better Food for
More People” (World Food Summit, 2018) with forward-looking and constructive
hypotheses toward a collective substantive prospect. Such dual purposes appeal to
both market and society toward a globally sustainable prospect of moral choices:
• Perspectives of Mindset: Which collective choices of the society shall
command substantive moral authority to the business and policy community
with hypothetical change momentum that effectively translate mindset of
collective conscience to concrete rational actions toward sustainability?

Meaningful prospect of food sustainability balances market and societal dynamics
with collective mindset of causal thinking across the development landscape. On the
one hand, changes at an ecosystem level require economic leverage of scale.
Discourse of food system transformation requires economic competitiveness that
seeks to advance market values at sustainability causes with the society. On the
other hand, this is a leadership dialog of morality and justice that is orthogonal to any
evaluative dimensions in economic competitiveness terms. Choice rationality that
seeks to reconcile nuances of food sufficiency in this sense should also come to
terms with social imperatives of food development agenda. For example, moral
caveats of malnutrition-driven exposure therefore risk in the vulnerable population
must be part of future food sufficiency and sustainability framework (Food and
Agriculture Organization, 2018). In this view, shared awareness of this complex
sense of engagement rationality is necessary to bring together the business and
policy community and unfold common courses of action at sustainability causes.
Reform Dynamics of Sustainable Energy: Volatility of the global energy market
dependent on fossil sources challenges prospect of most emerging economies due
to limited negotiation means. Self-dependent prospect of renewable energy sources,
however, lends important strategic alternatives with implications in collective justice
terms. For this reason, emerging perspectives of collective sustainable progress not
only set meaningful forward-looking views to the market. Sustainable development in
overall has become a vital orchestration platform to integrate policy and diplomatic
efforts based on dialogs with the global community toward potential contributions to
shared long-term development pathways. Global implications of the sustainable
energy development (International Renewable Energy Agency, 2018) are therefore
indispensable to bring together contributions from business and policy community to
engage market and society as a dual foundation of the structural transformation:
• Perspectives of Reform: Which shared prospect of self-dependence is
required to substantiate collective engagement of the society with forward-
looking and constructive development purposes and practices that transform
market and policy systems with the sense of shared justice?
Collective choices of sustainable energy reflect representative values of future
sustainable energy paradigm. Energy resources in this sense are limitless and
universally available to all but such sustainable promises self-reinforce only on a
basis of collective and well-orchestrated engagement. Electrification of the global
energy value chain has proved as a strategic imperative to realize prospect of the
sustainable energy future (Chatham House, 2018). But this transformative element
also requires market, policy and technology to share the same dialog platform with a
shared set of engagement choices required to shift change dynamics in the society.
First, choice architecture of the energy market reform should be designed to
encourage rational choices of market participants. For example, evaluative logic of
renewable energy prices should better reflect long-run advantages in cost of capital
terms to short-run competitiveness in the market. Second, substantive arguments
toward structural reform, on the other hand, require smart long-term energy
infrastructure policy to distribute complex integration cost, such that the sense of
engagement of rationality could promote fair merit-based market competition for
marginal value gains more to consumers. This forward-looking sense shall be
necessary to set in motion hypothetical scenario-driven transformation throughout
the entire system in future. With both views, how could this discourse engage the
sense of practicality in actual development engagements? How should business and
policy community contribute to the perspective of development rationality at all?

B. Approaches to Transformative Rationality
Promise of the Paris Climate Agreement sets a forward-looking and transformative
discourse to the development world in transition. As the global community agrees on
a common set of long-term objectives toward a future of shared prospect, this vision
bounded by collective commitments needs be complemented by well-organized,
rational approaches that respect development reality all around the world. However,
cause-based engagements could bear fruits of trust and trustworthiness once each
collective effort works in tandem toward a structural transformation with the society,
substantiated by rational economic incentives and meaningful policy engagements:
• Choices of Structural Reform: How could leadership from the policy
community engage structural transformation that advances prospect of
collective capability and progress toward a sustainable future for all?
• Choices of Competitive Edges: How should leadership from the business
community advance rational choices in the market based on merits of values
necessary to transform development pathways at frontiers of the society?
Transformative perspectives of water engagement, food sufficiency and sustainable
energy as discussed earlier all share engagement imperatives driven by dialogs of
rational choices in the society. On this fundamental, effective approaches for the
structural transformation therefore engage the reality perceivable by the society with
both market and policy instruments that could potentially set in motion dynamics of
changes based on merits of evaluative and substantive rationality. This section
extends this discussion with how to structure such approaches in the society.
5. Structure Choice Architecture
Constructive dialogs of meaningful market and policy choices require an investigative
sense of collective purposes of the people in the society. Leadership ambition to
transform the world around us should therefore be complemented even justified by a
commensurate and well-tuned sense of rationality inferable from the discussed
perspectives of choice rationality. Effective choice architecture principally shifts
collective behaviors by identifying and engaging interpretative dynamics of shared
justice with forward-looking transformative purposes (accompanied by evaluative
prospect to gain). Corresponding journey of a transformation course commences
once market and social actors as well as partners and stakeholders are committed to
collective choices granted by available market and policy choices (with potential to
leverage group behavior). Collective mindset shifts gravity of the engagement ground
with concrete actions that address representative causes of collective values.
However, perspectives of structural shift additionally require sustainability prospect to
engage successive complex decisions in a structural manner. To this end, how could
this sense of transformative rationality engage the design of choice architecture?
• Choices Hypotheses: Engage sense of purposes based on forward-looking
perspectives of future scenarios, conducive to both individual and collective
actions from choices upon one’s engaged sense of transformative rationality;
• Evaluative Synergy: Translates forward-looking value incentive as a result
of collective rational decisions that engage market and/or policy choices and
synergy values, thereby influencing direction and scale of structural impact;
• Substantive Transformation: Advances courses of action based on
interpretive judgment of transformative rationality that commands and
transcends choices of structural and market competitiveness reform.

Transformative prospect of rational choice architecture implies dilemma of market
and policy choices. On the one hand, policymakers command recognition and
acceptance of intended structural reform choices from the society only if policy
reform substantiates and advances not only social but also market choices,
particularly in view of structural capability and competitiveness development. On the
other hand, the business community shall draw sustainable traction from competitive
choices in the market only once market choices hypotheses also recognize policy
agenda that seeks to engage not only competitive but also structural values across
the development landscape in transformation. For this reason, the discourse of
choice architecture requires integrated perspectives of how to balance market
and policy objectives with forward-looking dynamics shared by all in the society.
In fact, scenario analysis is considered a useful analytical tool to bring together such
perspectives of development in transformation. The engaged sense of rationality
derivable on this ground not only projects a range of plausible development progress
extent based on rational assessment in structural development and competitiveness
terms. This effort essentially also engages in dialogs across market and policy aisles,
thereby orchestrating and substantiating transformative dynamics with the society in
proactive and forward-looking manner. Actual example from the global energy sector
provides an elaborative reference in this sense (see Box C).
Box C: STRUCTURAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE GLOBAL ENERGY SECTOR
Complex transformation of the global energy sector requires shared forward-looking
views that engage structural agenda necessary to orchestrate collective efforts from
both market and policy perspectives. For this purpose, scenario analysis and implied
development prospect of sustainable energy are instrumental in giving a sense of
shared priorities meaningful to set and realize engagement agenda and, as a result,
collectively advance the required change momentum of the transformation in motion.
Sustainable energy scenarios, coined by the International Renewable Energy Agency
(2018) as Roadmap to 2050, advance the following assumptions. Substantive synergies
are required primarily from higher energy efficiency and greater adoption of renewable
sources in major sectors: building, transport and industry, as well as heating and
electric power. In that picture, electrification of the energy infrastructure is necessary to
accelerate the sustainability prospect with the corresponding economic value chains
particularly based on advances in mobility and transport sector. Applications of
innovation will be vital but, more importantly, the engagement as such should also bring
together social and economic values to the same engagement foundation. Policy
development as a consequence should bring all these elements together with forward-
looking purposes with practicalities with cost-distribution and shared-value mechanisms.
Perspectives from the United Kingdom’s Royal Institute of International Affair (Chatham
House, 2018) advance merits of this debate upon market and policy development
potentials toward a system-level transformation. As economic incentives of the
renewables become more competitive, power utilities could play a leadership role in
evolving service models based on structural capability development. Entrepreneurial
and policy innovation are anticipated in this context to accelerate “flexible adoption” of
sustainable energy choices in the market with substantive synergic merits. This logical
interpretation shall be vital to advance system stability as shares of the renewable
sources grow (intermittency needs be neutralized). Evaluative merits from economic
competiveness should be further substantiated thanks to innovative command of
electric vehicles and battery storages, as well as charging and intelligent grid systems.

6. Design Transformative Structure
Architecture of market and policy choices advanced to the society unfolds underlying
hypothetical views of potential transformative rationale under specific assumptions.
Perception of choices and choice meaningfulness, however, depends on individual
judgment capacity upon evaluative value incentive under complex change dynamics.
On this ground, this dialog should not only relate the sense of rationality to intended
causes, but also contextualize individual choice-making dilemma in perspective of
substantive gain meaningful to the engage the course of transformative rationality.
How does this sense of rationality advance collective shift gravity in the society?
Structural Choices of Water Reform: Deteriorating circumstances of unsustainable
water ecosystems all around the world reflect development reality with hard truth to
the global community. This situation challenges our society with visible evidences of
structural deficit of which significance is rarely recognized by individual choices. This
is therefore an opportunity to reevaluate and reassess rationale of our water choices:
• Transformative Hypotheses: Which choice integrity could challenge the
collective sense of rationality that as a consequence leads the society to
reevaluate assumptions of choices, reassess hypothetical causal impacts and
restructure society’s future developmental courses toward shared prospect?
Jordan River Basin inarguably represents the center of gravity of the world’s water
diplomacy. In fact, every diplomatic ambition toward peace and security in the
riparian countries finds no policy substance without prospect of right and dignity to
water for all, particularly for the most vulnerable. Causal implications of such complex
situation further urge the policy community to acquire and command interpretative
perspectives of diplomatic relations based on voices of the people side by side with
future policy substance. Consequential shift of sociopolitical sentiment is, therefore, a
necessary element of the policy to substantiate future collective effort.
Sustainable prospect, as argued by the Royal Scientific Society of Jordan (2017) in a
scientific study, should serve as a prerequisite to engage this complex situation
based on substantive merits of science. Despite socioeconomic growth ambition, the
exacerbating water security concern should command a stronger priority with the
sense of diplomatic rationality among each riparian country in the river basin.
Improvement prospect of water sustainability should be established on a rational
basis of evaluative gain from efficient resource use in the same context of resource
recycling management. Additional policy tools such as irrigated agricultural advances
and food trade options (import substitution) are required to strengthen this dialog,
where water and food policy could be managed simultaneously. From this viewpoint,
science-based policy-diplomatic transformation engages risk and opportunity of the
development reality to substantiate basin-wide sustainable development cooperation.
Structural Approaches to Sustainable Food Ecosystem: Dialogs of conscious
choices command both individual and collective judgment with economic and policy
implications to sustainable food development. As we make choices for ourselves,
how could such choices influence transformative dynamics at an ecosystem level
unless every choice we make engage development perspectives in market and
policy terms? This sense of rationality implies challenges of the global food
ecosystem, where market and policy simultaneously engage economics of choice
incentive (quality at certain price elasticity) as well as food security and right-based
entitlement (quantity at certain quality) in structural choices perspectives:

• Transformative Synergy: How should the society engage the sense of
development rationality that advances ecosystem sustainability in structural
dialogs of choice integrity with the business and policy community?
Science advances sustainability prospect where the dialog of conscious choices take
place right in the middle of market-policy debate with the society (Nature, 2010). On
the one hand, choice rationality unfolds change dynamics at an ecosystem level
where policy perspectives engage political economy of the state (food security,
farming land, poverty and inequality) and in a geo-ecological context (food and
farming ecosystem). Sustainability prospect could emerge once collective choices of
the society find synergy of collective competitiveness from ecosystem perspectives.
Transformative synergy also finds resonance from market perspectives. Structural
approaches to sustainable ecosystem should also simultaneously seek to enhance
competitive edges from eco-economic perspectives. Sustainability development
premiums substantiate transformative synergy where meaningful food economics
(differentiation from quality niche or productivity gain) meets ecological equity based
on prudent farming and ecosystem choices (differentiated ecosystem values from
efficient land water use with less fertilizer and no pesticides). Market views of the
development rationality could therefore be materialized should sustainability
development causes perpetuate structural reform objectives as natural and food
ecosystems advance values to the society, and particularly also vice versa.
Structural Dynamics of Energy Sustainability: Prospect of self-dependent energy
finds transformative resonance not only in market-policy interdependence terms.
Sustainable future itself also commands the sense of transformative rationality where
technology and innovation advance structural competitiveness in integrated sense:
• Transformative Market and Policy Reform: How should structural reform
engage choices of sustainable development with the society in dialogs of
interdependent perspectives of competitiveness and collective progress?
Dialogs of structural competitiveness substantiate transformative choices with the
sense of development rationality not only from perspectives of ecosystem values.
Sustainability development requires forward-looking guidance that is meaningful to
shift and orchestrate change dynamics to a new equilibrium. This is particularly the
case in complex structural change dynamics from sustainable energy development.
Energy sustainability progresses transformative rationality where competitiveness
differentiates structural choices in the dynamics of generative mix. Sustainability
prospect in this sense depends on how structural dynamics of renewable energy
choices engage competitiveness assumptions not only in residential, commercial
and industrial sectors but particularly also in electrification choices of petroleum-
dependent transportation sector (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2016).
Empowerment with such forward-looking market choices toward an electrical future
not only challenges the energy sector to adapt to the reality of choices dynamics that
implies economic competitiveness as market differentiation. Policymakers should
also advance their structural assumptions as choices hypotheses in the market
evolve with the pace of technology and innovation adoption in the society. In fact, the
society shall benefit from this sense of transformative rationality should such choices
hypotheses engage both market (value premium from market competition) and policy
(genuine freedom of energy choices) reforms. From development perspectives, how
does this interdependent view justify promise of energy sustainability across various
local circumstances? What is the sense of global-local development materiality?

Part II: Materiality Perspectives

7. Bring Focuses to Leadership Dialogs
Development of the 21st century needs not less and but more science and prospect
of scientific innovation that recognizes merits of rationality in morality terms. On two
grounds this argument self-reinforces its legitimacy. An increasingly complex world
requires stronger logical fundamentals to understand how the global challenge
comes to forces and more importantly how it affects the world around us. Depth and
rigor of the scientific understanding only allow us to grasp development complexity
as well as implications across perspectives with rationality. On a deeper level,
science gives us powerful principles to deal with probability, uncertainty even biases
in a systematic manner. One could never emphasize such significance enough
provided scale and scope of system-level challenges in today’s global challenges.
Case examples in water scarcity, food insecurity and energy unsustainability
manifest themselves how and how much today’s development world lacks not only
fundamental awareness but also a required level of knowledge of why and how the
sense of development rationality could make a profound difference on a basis of
scientific rigor. How much neglected long-term consequences could distort sense of
meaningfulness of one’s short-run policy choices is no match to psychological effects
that alter behavioral perception of rationality of the people who are both perpetrators
and victims of repeated failure. This only emphasizes the significance of leadership.
Leadership perspectives as discussed in this contribution bring focuses to the
necessity of structural dialogs on the foundation of engaged sense of rationality.
Diplomacy of this approach not only leads to the heart of the matter where one is
required to embrace choices dilemma but also perceive development reality in view
of transformative rationality. Leadership choices define frontiers of such choices with
nuanced perspectives of development materiality and realizable merits as a result of
integrated structural competitiveness reform. In fact, this leadership dialog constructs
sense of development rationality that seeks to transcend society’s collective
progress. Let’s proceed to the discussion from materiality perspectives.

C. Orchestration of Transformative Dynamics
Ratification dynamics of the Paris Climate Agreement was grounded on a collective,
rational confidence basis that substantiated transformative decision for the climate by
all. Consequential commitment as depicted from that moment projects forward-
looking perspectives of development rationality that brings the global community to
come together, particularly where optimism needs be met by practical programs
without alienating hard reality of local circumstances across the globe. Reflecting on
this multilateral engagement, the United Nations Climate Change (UNFCCC, 2015)
reminds the global community of collective goodwill and development materiality
conducive to advancing leadership choices towards impact of collective action:
• Materiality of Collective Progress: How could collective leadership bring
together collective ambition realizable with the sense of transformative reality
that seeks collective contribution on an orchestrated course of action by all?
• Perspectives of Transformative Frontiers: Which sense of development
rationality engages perspectives of choices materiality at engagement
frontiers in cooperative-competitive (co-competitive) ecosystem dynamics?
Collective views of transformative perspectives as depicted in water diplomacy,
sustainable food ecosystem and energy structural competitiveness engender this
materiality dialog of choices dynamics. Thereupon, nuanced perception of rationality
leads not only to tension when translating reality to challenges, but also constructive
traction when redefining such challenges as partnership opportunities. Contribution in
this section gives motion to this sense of development rationality and advances
dimensionality of choice architecture in dynamic views of ecosystem governance.
8. Engage Choices Dynamics
Projective materiality of development choices requires ecosystem perspectives of
transformative rationality in dynamic partnership with the society. Rational choices of
structural reform in top-down sense should advance dynamics of transformative
rationality while enhancing prospect of sustainability development and collective
progress. Inversely, such reform choices should also balance partnership dynamics
with market actors in dialogs of social choices from bottom-up perspectives that
command constructive competition dynamics based on forward-looking views of
ecosystem development. Both senses of choices dynamics reciprocate provided:
• Development Hypotheses: Project future states based on realizable
ecosystem development scenarios and corresponding change dynamics as a
result of collective choice-making process driven by transformative rationality;
• Evaluative Characterization: Interprets and attunes transformative
dynamics in spectrum of choices materiality in perspective of structural
competitiveness reform based on sustainable ecosystem development; and
• Substantive Materiality: Assesses and realizes transformative potential of
reform choices, meaningful to progress development rationality based on
society’s collective progress at meaningful transformative frontiers.
Dialogs of choices materiality should, therefore, integrate perspectives of ecosystem
partnership where market and policy reforms mutually substantiate social choices in
the development hypotheses. Materiality of this joint transformative effort would then
evolve along development pathways that collectively constitute, engage and govern
scenario dynamics based on ecosystem merits of transformative rationality.

Perspectives of transformative rationality imply imperative of collective governance
based on interpretative senses of collective progress provided choices of market and
policy reforms. Prospect of social choices may, however, not necessarily be
perceived similarly as such view varies across development circumstances and
conditions even social preferences. Leadership choices of transformative rationality
should therefore consider not only causes of development hypotheses but also
potential consequential interpretations of structural competitiveness objectives.
Such interpretation is instrumental in designing materiality assessment grounds,
particularly in view of cross-level global-local sustainability development. For this
reason, recent scientific discussion recommends a governance model to engage
materiality dynamics (see Box D). In this sustainable farming example, the sense of
development rationality engages sustainability development causes both in
cooperative (stewardship of food ecosystems, right and dignity to food) and
competitive (food economics) terms. This co-competitive approach differentiates on
the basis of merit-based joint decision-making process, where the materiality of
collective progress substantiates perspectives of ecosystem development based on
choices of parameters and characterization thereof, conducive to the orchestration.
Box D: DYNAMIC GOVERNANCE OF SUSTAINABLE FARMING DEVELOPMENT
World Hunger and Implications of Competing Challenges: World’s food sufficiency
and sustainability agenda urge the global community to prioritize not only at a myriad of
life-saving missions all around the world, but also outstanding longer-term structural
implications. Scientists map out this problem complex in terms of sustainable natural
ecosystem and socioeconomic integrity of the food value chains. This point of view
takes into account deteriorating natural and agricultural conditions across geographical
locations under dynamics of structural poverty/inequality and global food economics.
Science of Sustainable Farming Development: Hypothesis-driven, decision-making
process lies at heart of scientific advances. This is also an approach that twenty-five
(25) food experts led by Jeffrey Sachs proposed in 2010 to the global community. Upon
a shared set of objectives, a globally joint effort was recommended to acquire, advance
and accelerate scientific understanding of current farming practices and serve as a
neutral, fact-based orchestrating engine that fills consistency and comparability gaps to
future policy and economic decisions aimed to advance sustainable farming practices.
Resonance Grounds of Cross-Level Development: Science substantiates
sustainability development based on merit-based, joint decision making novelty.
Partnership advances on the basis of development parameters and corresponding
characterization choices conducive to global-local dynamic orchestration:
• Choices of Orchestrating Parameters: Reflect development priorities, where
materiality of collective effort depends on ecosystem development and progress;
• Choices of Characterization Criteria: Respect both local circumstances and
overarching global agenda, such that perspectives of partnership dialogs are
adjustable across abstraction levels suiting nature of complex cooperation.
Cross-level governance design should aim at global-local materiality based on
development resonance from orchestrating parameters, ranging from food security and
human health, to ecological sustainability and socio-cultural well-beings. Refer to further
discussions of sustainable food and farming development from Nature (2010).

9. Orchestrate Co-Competitive Materiality
Sustainability development engages sense of choice rationality not only in
perspective of choices dynamics but also transformative materiality. This sense of
development rationality engages leadership judgment on two interdependent
grounds. Which development hypotheses could stipulate partnership governance
structure that substantiates and advances development objectives therefore prospect
of development materiality? In turn, which governance choices of modi operandi
should balance anticipated co-competitive dynamics conducive to collective progress
such that partnership materiality, particularly in multilateral sense, advances its own
legitimacy and moral authority to the benefit of the partnership itself? The following
discussion shall unfold development dialogs of leadership choices in this sense.
9a. Substantiate Ecosystem Dynamics
Materiality of collective progress implies development hypotheses that advance
social choices in view of structural capability development. This assumption,
however, requires partnership governance model that engages cooperative
dynamics not just for a better prospect for all as an end by itself, but rather as
orchestrating vehicles to advance transformative frontiers by all. This sense of
development rationality should seek to advance ecosystem governance with the
society in perspective of collective leadership in partnership with the society.
Materiality of Sustainable Water-Food Development: Sustainable water and food
are vital development agenda that not only shares mutual ecosystem foundation, but
also mutually enables shared governance imperatives in market and policy terms
with the society. This sense of cooperative dynamics was discussed in an example of
sustainability development in Kenya and Indonesia (Climate and Development
Knowledge Network, 2017). How does development of sustainable water-food
ecosystem reinforce governance partnership, and particularly vice versa?
• Ecosystem Partnership Materiality: Which sense of development rationality
engages leadership choices such that dialogs of structural competitiveness
advance choices materiality in perspective of ecosystem sustainability?
Leadership perspectives add substance to unsustainable water-food challenges with
ecosystem development opportunities. Even though short-run contextual challenges
urge competitive choices to already limited resources, this shortsighted hypothesis,
however, tends to exacerbate cooperative materiality even within own community.
Such minimizes future legitimate choices of constructive co-competitive governance
modi operandi in the long run. Rational development hypothesis should instead aim
at resource governance integrity that in turn substantiates ecosystem development
materiality itself. Merit of this choice rationality also applies in reciprocal sense.
Water-food development materiality necessitates objective assessment in view of
systematic progress that self-reinforces sustainable ecosystem-level partnership.
This prerequisite implies rational perspectives of resources self-governance. For this
reason, structural reform that aims to advance ecosystem development materiality
should engage co-competitive dynamics that progresses choices materiality at
meaningful transformative cooperation frontiers. In this manner, cooperative
views of ecosystem development serve as an indispensable orchestrating instrument
to enable, advance and transcend policy-diplomacy dialogs of choices materiality
based on society’s collective progress with the natural ecosystems. Now, how could
leadership from the market and policy community characterize such materiality?

Characterization of Sustainable Food Progress: Leadership choices in favor of
ecosystem development should benefit from prospect of effective governance at
transformative cooperation frontiers as discussed. Reality of policy-diplomacy
dialogs, however, additionally requires dynamics of choices characterization that
commands interpretative judgment of development hypotheses and modi operandi,
necessary to engage change dynamics in a well-organized and constructive manner:
• Cross-Level Materiality Grounds: Which leadership choices engage
dynamics of choices characterization that leads to coherent, self-reinforcing
development contribution across levels from all toward collective progress?
Structural competitiveness as sustainability development objectives does not
necessarily advance desirable market and policy reform environments. Prudent
leadership judgment should instead seek to translate competitive tension to
constructive traction achievable by choices materiality in structural vis-à-vis
competitiveness sense of the reform. Coherent, self-reinforcing contribution could be
anticipated from all should local reform choices interpret dynamics of global
priorities that lead the society itself to recognize and tune in to the required sense of
transformative priority. In sustainable food example, this sense of transformative
rationality could characterize global priorities in local structural competitiveness
reforms, such as climate-adaptive, sustainable farming (technology development and
international research cooperation), agricultural market (agro-economic reform), and
also food ecological governance (ecological sciences and biodiversity) development.
Perspective of social progress is indispensable in view of sustainability development.
Meaningful choices of market and policy reform should resonate with the society not
only in terms of structural competitiveness (economic perspective) but also right and
dignity (social perspective), particularly in justice sense (United Nations Human
Rights, 2010). In fact, this integrated socioeconomic characterization legitimizes
cross-level governance modi operandi that strengthen both structural (policy choices
that engages morality of the market) and competitiveness (progressive market
choices that serve social causes) reform hypotheses. Such leadership choices
should therefore gain sustainability development perspectives of co-competitive
market-policy dynamics without alienating society’s shared sense of purposes.
9b. Materialize Competitive Progress
Integrity of sustainability development motion is inferable from how choices of market
and policy reform attune co-competitive dynamics in the society. This observation
finds relevance in this context in perspective of how choice rationality engages
structural competitiveness (oftentimes determined by choices of political economy
reform), but also how such perspectives of transformative engagement at frontiers
substantiate materiality of collective progress. This dual leadership viewpoint plays a
critical role in defining development choices dynamics in co-competitive landscape.
Materiality of Competitive Energy Ecosystem: Rational prospect of energy
sustainability differentiates choices in co-competitive dynamics that self-reinforce
transformative rationality in structural integrity and competitiveness terms. This
leadership discourse challenges the sense of development rationality not only at
which sustainability development frontiers the energy ecosystem should progress but
also why such choices of development hypotheses could advance rational market
choices (competitiveness at scale) within society’s characterization spectrum of
development materiality (structural integrity that empowers judgment of choices) in
comparison to today’s baseline. How does this view engage choices materiality?

• Sustainable Progress Materiality: Which perspectives of transformative
frontiers engage materiality of market and policy reform, conducive to co-
competitiveness dynamics that progresses rational social choices?
Meaningful sustainable energy development advances at both competitive market
and social partnership frontiers. Co-competitive transformative dynamics engages
courses of energy market development not only from competitive standpoint against
traditional energy sources (primarily coal and petroleum). Such competitive edges
also progress at cooperative frontiers with social actors in the community. In fact,
multilateral partnership in this sense gives pivotal differentiation edges, particularly
where this choice of competitiveness reform (capacity market reform and implications
of participative leadership) could advance economic advantages from the grassroots.
This progressive reform sense differentiates courses of sustainable energy
development in two directions. First, social progress advances sustainable
market values. Narrative of the aforementioned capacity market reform disrupts
traditional competitiveness sense at social frontiers with novelty from emerging co-
ownership model (residential rooftop solar panels could for example additionally
qualify consumers as business partners and even stakeholders). Progressive sense
of such dynamics, however, also challenges incumbent utilities to recalibrate their
value proposition as the energy value chain shifts transformative frontiers at both
structural (smart grid liberalizes consumer choices) and competitiveness (rational
choices advance source mix based on merits) ends of the development nuances.
Second, structural reform progresses with rational market choices. Price signal
in today’s energy market does not adequately reflect development rationality in the
global energy market (externalities are neither adequately dimensioned nor
considered in the market). Even though numerous initiatives have been made to
amend such market distortion, materiality of sustainable energy reform depends on
better transparency that stronger reflects and incorporates sustainable views to
today’s market choices. The society should play a stronger role to decide together
with market and policy actors how the sense of transformative rationality could and
should genuinely evolve. This rationale implies that meaningful structural reform
should materialize competitive progress by improving information asymmetry (smart
grid advances market mechanisms by engaging judgment of rational social choices)
and competition based on sustainable values (progressive market regulation that
balances efficiency development and innovation from entrepreneurial initiatives).
Characterization of Sustainable Energy Progress: Society’s judgment of choice
rationality is a determinant factor of how co-competitive transformative rationality
progresses. Perspectives of merit-based choices should not only empower judgment
of sustainable market but also become vehicles to engage materiality dynamics:
• Cross-Level Transformative Materiality: Which leadership choices engage
dynamics of competitive progress with meaningful choices characterization,
conducive to local structural competitiveness that interprets global priorities?
Leaders progress energy transition based on merit edges at cooperative frontiers.
Market reform choices engage materiality dynamics to advance competitiveness
based on sustainable values (market choices that progress collective values). In
turn, this interpretative power becomes meaningful when simultaneously engaging
structural challenges at frontiers (policy choices to improve renewable intermittency).
This view advances prospect of carbon neutrality (cross-level reform objectives),
regional infrastructure development (cross-level grid interconnectivity) and structural
resiliency (cross-level market dynamics from smart grid and electric vehicles).

D. Diplomacy of Structural Materiality
Genuine challenge of the Paris Climate Agreement only begins after the ratification
process. This collective choice of decarbonized future should advance diplomatic
consensus to meaningful leadership perspectives of multilateral collaboration based
on shared development objectives. Implied perspectives of development rationality,
however, pose challenges to the global community how such ambition finds reform
orchestration grounds across the world. Leaders are encouraged to embrace choices
dilemma in structural competitiveness terms while engaging sense of transformative
materiality in multilateral diplomacy of representative and meaningful choices:
• Representative Choices: How could global-local development dynamics be
orchestrated based on choices diplomacy that commands mutual judgment of
cross-level materiality hypotheses and meaningful characterization thereof?
• Development Materiality: How should such perspectives of development
rationality empower structural competitiveness reform at transformative
frontiers that substantiate dynamics of cross-level multilateral partnership?
Rational development diplomacy seeks cross-level common grounds that identify
shared causes with shared sense of development priority with the community.
Perspectives of transformative materiality advance as choices of structural reform
find resonance with market competitiveness that progresses society’s development
frontiers. However, such dynamics of structural competitiveness also requires dialogs
of representative choice architecture that empowers people’s judgment as a self-
reinforcing orchestration mechanism. The following brings forward discussion of
choices materiality in diplomacy of sustainable water, food and energy development.
10. Embrace Choices Dilemma
Diplomacy I: Leaders engage structural competitiveness dialogs as vehicles to
resonate development priorities in cross-level materiality dynamics
Choices diplomacy engages change dynamics in the society mindful of development
challenges on the ground. Leaders should thus recognize sense of development
urgency while structuring transformative pathways that serve local development
narratives and advance such causes in materiality dynamics of the global
community. Inversely, this structural dialog should also engage spectrum of choices
dynamics in perspective that connects cross-level sense of choices materiality in
global-local structural compatability and transformative progress terms. This
diplomacy challenges the society to embrace this dual reality of choices dilemma:
• Development Priority and Progress: Which leadership perspectives
engage materiality dynamics with the sense of development rationality in the
society based on both immediate needs and long-term structural progress?
• Dynamics of Choice Rationality: Which sense of transformative rationality
advances rational judgment of the society in dynamics of global development
therefore choices of cross-level resonating grounds with the community?
Food ecosystem narrative characterizes merit of this diplomacy. Perspectives of
sustainable resource development call upon leadership choices to engage the
dynamics of cross-level priority that engages both ecosystem governance integrity
and transformative cooperation frontiers. Sense of structural materiality, however,
also requires practical approaches to progress choices of structural competitiveness.

Consequential dynamics from both arguments spans spectrum of choices dynamics
that in turn challenges the society to embrace dilemma of food development choices.
Simultaneously, leaders interpret shared sense of development rationality in
materiality dynamics of structural and market competitiveness reform and seek
judgment resonance along development pathways with the society. This latter effort
should progress structural materiality of cross-level development grounds in
competitive food economics (technology cooperation and agro-market reform), right
to adequate food (food entitlement and agricultural labor policy) and integrated
ecosystem reform (sustainable farming in natural ecosystem structural reform) terms.
11. Transcend Multilateral Causes
Diplomacy II: Perspectives of sustainability development imply multilateral
leadership to adapt materiality perspectives of structural competitiveness
Practical sense of materiality dynamics challenges leaders how to measure and
adapt nuances of diplomatic reception that progresses choices rationality within the
society. This philosophy sets in motion dialogs of why multilateralism could advance
spectrum of sustainability development choices from perspectives of governance
modus operandi, as much as vice versa. In fact, leaders should not interpret cross-
level implications of this effort only as a means to structure an achievable outcome.
Multilateralism indeed also renders perspectives of policy-diplomacy opportunities to
transcend development causes in dynamics of structural materiality across levels.
Materiality of the Paris Agreement exemplifies leadership perspectives of such
multilateral characterization. Commitment from the global community to the shared
objectives implies an imperative to structure the dialog of choices materiality that
reflects, translates and evolves this diplomatic effort to actual choices of structural
competitiveness reform. Such perspectives of structural materiality challenge leaders
how to structure self-reinforcing governance ecosystem that advances development
causes in materiality dynamics governed by cross-level orchestrating parameters.
Ecosystemic evolution characterizes this diplomatic interpretation. Materiality of
structural competitiveness advances cross-level development causes with three
engaging parameters. This global effort engages materiality dynamics of cross-
level partnership. Infrastructure development implied by this ambition requires
ecosystem of financial cooperation to materialize choices of policy and market reform
that progresses structural capability to adapt to impacts of the climate change (refer
to Article 2 from the United Nations Climate Change, UNFCCC, 2015).
Multilateral dialogs also advance structural materiality of cross-level synergy.
Leaders interpret this notion as a governance element to self-reinforce society’s
development causes at an ecosystem level. Choices of food-energy development
could, for example, balance structural competitiveness reform at cross-level frontiers
in competitiveness (regional smart grid and energy market development), growth
(mutual development fund) or security (cross-regional food-energy security
cooperation) terms. Prospect of self-governance multilateralism further substantiates
progressive materiality at frontiers of different maturity levels. Diverse
landscape of development reality all around the world characterizes itself with
challenges specific to different development states therefore types and required level
of effort to materialize anticipated contribution. Leaders should wisely choose how to
progress structural maturity, such as by public-private partnership (for competitive
public infrastructure) or adaptive market regulation (for merit-based progressive
development), with a realistic ambition level at a reasonable pace.

Diplomacy III: Leaders engage multilateral dialogs in co-competitive dynamics
of structural materiality that advances cooperative, transformative frontiers
Leadership perspectives also engage cross-level materiality dynamics in multilateral
dialogs with a counter narrative of transformative competitiveness. Even though
development cooperation in view of collective progress is of paramount priority in
every partnership dialog, this principle alone rarely finds considerable common
grounds provided competitive standpoint of each member as a prerequisite of the
multilateral partnership constellation. Choices of meaningful leadership engagement
should therefore never structure multilateral diplomacy for the interest of cooperation
per se. Constructive multilateral diplomacy should instead engage co-competitive
energy of each member toward structural materiality that seeks to advance, sustain
and perpetuate co-competitive substance at meaningful transformative frontiers.
Structural materiality of sustainable energy transformation elucidates this multilateral
sense. Competitiveness nature characterizable by today’s energy choices defines
meaningful development not only in structural integrity but essentially also cross-level
competitiveness across the value chain. Perspectives of sustainable progress render
opportunities, for this reason, diplomatic dialogs that effectively qualify co-competitive
choices dynamics at multiple transformative frontiers. Cross-level development
materiality is characterized by following interpretations of choices perspectives.
Co-competitive energy dynamics differentiates transformative materiality at
structural capability frontiers. Multilateral diplomacy of energy transformation
brings cooperative perspectives where all nations in the global community share
long-term development objectives at sustainability frontiers. Mitigation of potential
adverse impacts from the climate change constructs meaningful cooperative basis
for multilateral cooperation. However, leadership discussion should not deviate from
core transformative substance in sustainable energy competitiveness terms. Dialogs
of structural materiality should advance transparency of cooperative opportunities to
shift structural mix directly in the value chain by cross-level orchestrating parameters.
Multilateral energy diplomacy addresses structural materiality at least in policy
(political economy of energy electrification particularly in transport), technology and
infrastructure (industrial and regulatory cooperation to advance electrification value
chains) and grassroots engagement (social participation for energy efficiency) terms.
Such dialogs of co-competitive sustainable energy also engage orchestrating
materiality at adoption scale frontiers. Structural energy transformation disrupts
competitiveness frontiers not only in traditional policy engagement sense. Cross-level
multilateral diplomacy advances in this sense once scalable impact at a market
system level engages marginal value gain that in turn self-reinforces cumulative
change momentum in the society. This implied market dynamics of policy materiality
also applies in reciprocal sense. Choices of political economy in favor of sustainable
energy engage competitiveness narrative of market dynamics in perspective of
sustainable, merit-based reform impact. Transformative promises of structural
capability in this sense both progress competitiveness and accommodate policy and
regulatory shift as an orchestrating modus operandi of the transition as change
momentum advances scale and scalability in the society. Such perspectives engage
co-competitive market-policy dynamics, such as at consumption (competitiveness of
scalable electric mobility, high-density batteries and grid-level renewables), market
provision (utility’s evolution to dynamic market platform) and operational regime
(smart grid as infrastructure and marketplace of future distributed system) frontiers.

12. Resonate Shared Leadership
Diplomacy IV: Dialogs of structural materiality assume shared leadership
across governance levels to self-balance representative ecosystem causes
Diplomacy of structural materiality serves meaningful causes provided this dialog
upholds dignity of the people, especially of the weakest and the most vulnerable.
Such transformative leadership perspectives, however, bring actionable motions to
this structural dialog only by balancing priorities in cross-level structural materiality
dynamics. The latter is necessary since meaningful sense of collective progress
requires such representative substance engendered from choice rationality that
identifies with collective ecosystem leadership in the society. In fact, this sense of
structural materiality relates dynamics of collective leadership to the diplomacy of
choice representativeness at an ecosystem level, as much as vice versa.
Water ecosystem challenges of the Jordan River Basin imply how shared leadership
materiality advances causes in co-competitive policy-diplomatic dynamics. The fact
that existing ecosystemic fragility has already complicated forward-looking diplomatic
efforts is no comparison to potential misinterpretation of constructive co-competitive
dynamics as short-run motifs to ratchet up competitive resource access, thereby
exacerbating sustainability prospect even further. Meaningful diplomacy effort should
instead seek to advance materiality of shared ecosystem leadership to mutually
progress cross-level structural synergy with collective ecosystem governance.
Transformative policy-diplomatic choices engage leadership materiality from
perspectives of collective purposes identifiable with shared causes of the society.
Multilateral principle applies in this context as the diplomacy of structural materiality
recognizes and actively engages root causes of unsustainable resources without
alienating immediate concerns of the people across the basin. Perspectives of
shared dignity with shared ecosystem ownership should allow leaders to establish
meaningful transformative courses with sufficiently robust and actionable mandates.
Emphasis should be given to potential structural reform with shared principle and
shared orchestrating instruments to progress mutual dialogs of choices materiality.
Such leadership initiative is realizable as perspectives of ecosystem reform
materiality progresses structural synergy as confidence-building measures that
self-reinforce cooperative basis on a collective governance system. Leaders engage
dynamics of structural materiality by resonating principles self-governance and self-
accountability toward synergy of collective contribution and those of each individual.
Improvement progress should be measurable and visible across aggregate levels
(from household to state and ecosystem levels) in order to amplify learning feedback
loops in cross-level leadership dynamics. Materiality dynamics of such structural
synergy could be structured such as by shared/joint development (cross-level water
lifecycle management), socioeconomic (integrated water-food-energy partnership
platform) and security (climate-resilient infrastructure) reform across the region.
Discussion of choices materiality in this contribution brings forward leadership
insights applicable to unfold today’s most daunting development challenges.
Structural dialogs of choices rationality are recommended to engage society’s
sustainability causes in perspective of cross-level market and policy reform
meaningful to progress materiality dynamics orchestrated by shared leadership.
Actual water, food and energy cases reflect and interpret such views with the
significance of multilateral causes that bring constructive sense to co-competitive
dynamics. What is your diplomacy to advance choices rationality of your community?

Bibliography
Chatham House (2018), “The Power of Flexibility: The Survival of Utilities during the
Transformations of the Power Sector,” The Royal Institute of International Affair,
August 2018: See: https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/power-flexibility-survival-
utilities-during-transformations-power-sector
Food and Agriculture Organization (2018), “The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the
World: Building Climate Resilience for Food Security,” Rome, 2018, See:
http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/en/
International Renewable Energy Agency (2018), “Global Energy Transformation: a
Roadmap to 2050,” April 2018: See:http://www.irena.org/publications/2018/Apr/Global-
Energy-Transition-A-Roadmap-to-2050
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (2016), “American Used Less Energy in 2015,”
April 2016: See: https://www.llnl.gov/news/americans-used-less-energy-2015
Nature (2010), “Food: The Growing Problem” and “Monitoring the World’s Agriculture,”
Special Issue 466 on Food Security, pp 546-547 and 558-560, July 2010: See both
articles at: https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100728/full/466546a.html; and
https://www.nature.com/articles/466558a; respectively, watch Professor Jeffrey Sachs
speech on future of sustainable food development at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EadvEChBNUA
Nobel Prizes in Economic Sciences (2017, 2002), “From Cashews to Nudges: The
Evolution of Behavioral Economics,” Richard H. Thaler’s Nobel Prize Lecture,
December 2017: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economics/2017/thaler/lecture/; and
“Psychological and experimental economics,” Daniel Kahneman and Vernon L.
Smith, December 2002; See https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-
sciences/2002/press-release/; See also a discussion about “Choice Architecture” by
the same author with J.P. Balz and C.R. Sunstein in 2010 at:
https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~baron/475/choice.architecture.pdf
Oxford Martin School (2015), “The ‘Perfect Storm’ Revisited: Food, Energy and Water
security in the Context of Climate Change,” by Sir John Beddington, Oxford
University, February 2015, See: https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/videos/view/476;
also see the clip at 45’59” for the discussion of “Challenges up to 2030”
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan (2017), “Decoupling National Water Needs for National
Water Supplies: Insights and Potential for Countries in the Jordan Basin” West
Asia-North Africa Institute, EcoPeace Middle East, 2017: See:
http://wanainstitute.org/sites/default/files/publications/Publication_DeliveringFoodAndW
aterSecurity.pdf; See also institutional history of water diplomacy at the Jordan River
Basin at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_politics_in_the_Jordan_River_basin
United Kingdom’s Cabinet Office (2012), “Test, Learn, Adapt: Develop Public Policy with
Randomised Controlled Trials,” UK Behavioral Insight Team, June 2012, See:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/test-learn-adapt-developing-public-policy-
with-randomised-controlled-trials; See also video clip about the UK Behavioral Insight
Team at two sources: (a) London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) in
July 2015: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAgxJjrXgdc; and (b) British Academy in
June 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-CXdFKZIMk both by David Halpern

United Nations Climate Change or UNFCCC (2015), “Paris Agreement,” December 2015,
See: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement;
See also clip of Christiana Figueres (Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC leading to
the ratification of the Paris Agreement ) on the inside story of the Paris Agreement at
TED Vancouver in February 2016:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIA_1xQc7x8;
and also visit “One Planet Summit” initiative of Excellency Emmanuel Macron
(President of Republic of France) with an objective to reinforce implementation toward
achievement of the Parris Agreement via global partnership in various forms: See:
https://gbf.bloomberg.org/one-planet-summit/
United Nations Human Rights (2010), “The Right to Adequate Food,” New York, NY: Office
of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, 2010, See:
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FactSheet34en.pdf
United Nations Secretary-General (2018), “Secretary-General Addresses General Debate,
73rd Session,” One United Nations Plaza, New York, 25 September 2018, listen to
Excellency Antonio Guterres’ speech in relation to climate change (from 09’24” to
14’12” in French):: http://webtv.un.org/search/secretary-general-addresses-general-
debate-73rd-session/5839805157001/?term=guterres
World Bank, the (2018), “Water Management in Fragile Systems: Building Resilience to
Shocks and Protracted Crises in the Middle East and North Africa,” August 2018,
See: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30307
World Food Summit (2018), “See the World through Food,” Storyteller: Carolyn Steel,
Copenhagen, Denmark, August 2018, See and Watch at: https://bfmp.dk/

On Choice Materiality: How to Transform Development Diplomacy in Dialogs of Rational Choices

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to On Choice Materiality: How to Transform Development Diplomacy in Dialogs of Rational Choices

Similar to On Choice Materiality: How to Transform Development Diplomacy in Dialogs of Rational Choices (20)

More from Siripong Treetasanatavorn

More from Siripong Treetasanatavorn (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

On Choice Materiality: How to Transform Development Diplomacy in Dialogs of Rational Choices