Design is… corrupting

A few years ago, one of us sat as a political representative in a cross-party inquiry on the governance of publicly funded welfare systems. Established in response to a growing backlash against New Public Management (NPM) in Swedish welfare provision, the inquiry – organised through the Swedish Association for Local Authorities and Regions – sought to create cross-political consensus on managing the country’s increasingly privatised and liberalised welfare system. The big idea promoted by the Association was service design-based solutions. They are successful in cross-party settings because they transcend the left-right divide on whether to roll back privatization. Moreover, it is easy to see the managerial benefits of deploying designerly empathy to distinguish between true user needs and formal citizen rights. Hence the rhetorical question about the elderly lady and the hearing aid: designers lead a participatory process under the noble flag of empathy while, behind grandma’s back, negotiating away her political right to a hearing aid. Without understanding the real forces of power in any given context and the corrupting tendencies in social relations, the high-minded ideals of design ended up stabbing grandma in the back. This anecdote suggests that while empathy is a virtue, it may equally produce corrupting effects. Indeed, it is rare that the outcomes of designerly intentions live up to lofty promises. This holds for service design in government, but also co-design practices: participants end up betrayed and disillusioned, while the designers run off with their post-its and glossy photos for new funding opportunities. In design, it is commonly held that it is a virtue to speak the language of possibilities and to ask speculative ‘what if?’ questions. The greats of our