165 Conclusions 6 6.2.2. Research question 2: Which approaches to anticipatory governance dominate and why? As the previous section explained, the approaches to anticipatory governance as presented in the analytical framework do not occur that frequently in practice in their pure form, but as hybrids that complement and conflict. The framework helps to understand and explain dominant dynamics. A first dominant dynamic is that hybrids of approaches 1 and 2, sometimes with elements of 3, tend to formulate recommendations as more linear planning strategies. The interviews and group discussions help explain that Kahn’s legacy of foresight as a strategic tool to think about and plan for the future (section 1.4.2) remains a dominant discourse in futures work and permeates the design and outcomes of foresight. However, such action embeds a belief that the future is somewhat predictable and can be planned for and thus contradicts the plausiblistic and pluralistic conceptions of the future of approaches 2 and 3 (chapters 3 and 5 mainly). Another dominant dynamic occurs with the anticipation processes that align with approach 2 in the design of the process, with its focus on deep future uncertainty and advancing institutional capacities for preparedness to navigate diverse possible futures, but see more subjective and deliberative ideas about the future being translated into more technocratic policy advice (chapters 3 and 5 in particular). A similar dynamic is the use of pluralistic futures work (chapter 4) or elements of pluralistic thinking in plausibilistic futures work (chapters 4 and 5) to help strategize more unidirectional and technocratic policy planning (chapters 4 and 5) instead of open-ended governance processes. The interviews and group discussions help explain that approach 3 - the mobilization of societal stakeholders in new configurations to co-create new futures - is not perceived as viable governance action. A few examples of hybrids are: Probabilistic anticipation to inform strategic policy planning and capacities building for risk reduction, which is an approach 2 type of action embedded in approach 1. Plausibilistic anticipation to increase policy robustness in order to reduce future risks, which is approach 2 to achieve an approach 1 aim. A merger of pluralistic and plausibilistic anticipation to inform strategic policy planning and capacity building to increase climate resilience and realize more transformative futures, which is approach 2 integrating an approach 3 conception of the future and ultimate aim, and an approach 1 recommendation for action.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw