ABSTRACT
In Singapore, by contrast, existing evidence suggests that pragmatism (of the Big-P variety) that was once the fruit of a struggle for survival gradually comes – as a result of its own success – to become an ideology in itself, creating a tendency among bureaucrats to slide into group-think that pays lip-service to the concept and/or justify policy stagnation. While strategic pragmatism maintained in view of a long-term goal (as displayed by China in its various territorial conflicts) can be taken as an ideal type, other forms and manifestations of pragmatism exist, whether as a product of forced compromise, a reflection of internal incentives, or other factors. Similarly, pragmatism may be present to differing degrees at different stages in the policy process, so a policy may begin life as a pragmatic decision but be doctrinaire in its application, or vice versa.
