17 Introduction 1 concerned with anticipating climate change to advance adaptation (Hurlbert & Gupta, 2016; Quay, 2010) while others posit anticipatory governance as going beyond adaptation in a more proactive form of governance that pushes governance actors to overcome reactive, and antagonistic, tendencies (Nuttall, 2010; Vervoort & Gupta, 2018). In a similar vein, anticipatory governance is considered to be an intrinsic but more limited part of reflexive governance (Pickering, 2019), while others have built on the analytical framework in this thesis to further thinking on how to make reflexivity an intrinsic part of more futures-literate anticipatory governance processes (Mangnus et al., 2021). In answering the first research question, I comprehensively typologize those diverse understandings of anticipatory governance. First, I unpack the conception of the future embedded in notions of anticipatory governance, the implications for actions in the present, and the ultimate aims intended to be realized. Furthermore, the framework that results from this extensive review helps to examine anticipatory governance processes in diverse sustainability context across the globe and this empirical work helps to further conceptualize anticipatory governance. 1.4.2. Futures studies and anticipation Much anticipatory governance scholarship argues for employing methods and tools that have been brought forward by futures studies scholarship and practice (Bradfield et al., 2005; Inayatullah, 2013; Van Der Heijden, 2005). However, anticipation has not been analyzed through the lens of anticipatory governance to examine the steering effects of processes of anticipation. Therefore, I see my research primarily as an inquiry into the governance of anticipation. Thinking about and planning for the future is as old as humanity (Andersson, 2018), but most foresight – as a more strategic and systematic practice - originates in military planning strategies in World War II fromwhere it spread into various domains and disciplines, most importantly to the civil domain and the corporate world through the research and development (RAND) corporation (Van Der Heijden, 2005), and Cybernetics in the 1950s (Pickering, 2010). RAND developed key foresight tools that are still used today, such as the Delphi technique which elicits and synthesizes expert opinion about future decisions in a collective and structured way, systems analysis for simulation models, and its successor scenario technique (Bradfield et al., 2005). Kahn, a systems analyst at RAND coined the term scenarios inspired by the film industry. The language that Kahn developed still inspires much scenarios work today, describing scenarios as multiple, equally plausible futures that serve as test-bed for policies and plans (Van Der Heijden, 2005; see for a few interesting examples of plausibilistic scenario-guided policy advice Lord et al., 2016; Mason-D’Croz et al., 2016). The book ‘The Year 2000’ (Kahn & Wiener, 1967) put scenarios on the map as the most strategic tool to think about the future for policy planning in the corporate world. The first scenarios followed a traditional “predict-and-control” approach to planning but
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw