173 Conclusions 6 more structural and radical reforms (Lahsen & Turnhout, 2021) and create path dependencies (Loorbach et al., 2017). As such, the thesis confirmed Frantzeskaki et al. (2012) who pointed to the tensions between the open-ended character of sustainability development agendas that is needed to adapt to future needs and local contexts, and regular implementation modes that follow linear, stepwise actions to meet objectives and targets. Their argument to develop arenas in which governance actors can experiment with transformational change in a structured yet open way could be a useful direction for future research. Pivotal contributions to this line of thinking are findings related to the need to place the role of power central. Not only is it important to examine who is invited into the arena of anticipatory governance, who has the power to set the agenda, and if dialogue is opening up or closing down existing policy frames (Avelino et al., 2019), but also who are currently outside of scope (but may still have something to win or lose in the future). Such a research agenda could look at how approaches 3 and 4 to anticipatory governance can help shift power from the incumbent system to niche practices to realize more transformative change (Avelino, 2017) deconstruct dominant imaginaries to make space for radical alternatives that are incompatible with unsustainable global systems (Feola, 2019) and disrupt the status quo (Rutting, accepted for publication). The Costa Rica example in chapter 4 provides important entry points in this direction for further research on if and how having transformative goals creates an imperative for more a more open dialogue about alternative futures and formulate more open-ended implementation modes, with frequent cycles instead of one-off events of critical reflection on current pathways and alternatives, possible lock-ins and dominant versus marginalized perspectives in anticipating change. 6.3.4. Insights for scholarship on the politics of anticipation Finally, the empirical work in this thesis contributed to research that has examined how the object of what needs to be governed in the future gets framed and how such images create an imperative for certain governance actions (Gupta, Möller, et al., 2020; Gupta & Möller, 2018). The raison d’être of scenarios and other anticipation processes is often portrayed as providing some guidance in uncharted territory, however, the future is not an empty and neutral space but a negotiated space (Groves, 2017). Every anticipated future is made up of choices and prioritizations of expected or desired futures. Quantified futures are made up of trends that can be numerically reasoned (e.g., macroeconomic trends, yields, population growth). Plausibilistic futures work must set boundaries to drivers of change and interactions between them. Even pluralistic futures cannot mobilize all possible worldviews. Science for anticipating climate change is, like any science, a marketplace of ideas and instrument of power (Jasanoff, 2004). This thesis provides insights into the functioning of this marketplace. At the same time, although many anticipation processes include some form of reflexive element in their design to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw