The quality of public policy discourse: questions raised reading about the Jomon hunter gatherers of Japan

Some links to holiday reading which emphasises two different takes on the ongoing impact of Indigenous peoples in Japan over the longue durée.

First, a recent article from the Japan Times (h/t Marginal Revolution) which examines the renaissance of Jomon semiotics, particularly tattoos and ceramic designs (link here).

Second, an academic take by archaeologists Peter Bleed and Akira Matsui from 2010 on Jomon ecological practices and their implications for the wider theorising on the development of agriculture (link here).

I find these articles interesting both for the comparative perspectives they offer on Indigenous peoples economic and cultural practices both past and present; but also as counterbalance to the excessively short term perspectives of most policy making related to Indigenous peoples.

Thinking about these issues raises important questions in the Australian public policy context. What is the long term policy vision for Indigenous Australia? How do policymakers with short term spans of tenure and influence deal with long term issues? Are there institutional structures that might assist in embedding longer term perspectives? Or are we happy to see long term policy made via a series of erratic and potentially contradictory short term policy approaches? Is public policy formulation inevitably and invariably short term in nature?

These are questions rarely asked and never answered. What does that say about the quality of our public policy discourse?