224 Summary approaches are not neatly represented in practice but occur in hybrid forms in which some approaches become dominant, and others subordinate in the translation to actions for the present. The first approach dominates, the second often occurs in combination with the first, the third is sometimes combined with the first two approaches, and the fourth approach is rare. The dominance of the first approach means that sustainability transformations are often guided on the basis of a technically proposed and apolitical future, in which politically conflicting interests are hardly debated. Actions in the present are preferably determined on the basis of expert analysis and consensus-based forms of knowledge. In addition, scientific uncertainty is reduced in the translation of the outcomes of anticipation processes into actions for the present and normative uncertainty is revealed. In general, conceptions of the future are rarely culturally, socially, and political diverse, while what is desirable for one person may be undesirable for another. Such closing down seems does not only seem to be the preference of policymakers, but also experts in foresight practice often think that outcomes should fit into existing policy frameworks in order to be implemented. Finally, it can be concluded that a wide range of future possibilities are closed down in this dominant approach to anticipatory governance that could have potentially led to a more sustainable, democratic, or equitable future. Scholars have advocated for a better representation of diverse worldviews in global images of future progress but many examples in this thesis have illustrated that anticipation relies heavily on the science, technologies and funding of external consults and donors – a global foresight industry that sometimes but not always ‘trickles down’ in terms of reinforcing local capacities. There is a tendency of both users and producers of anticipation to use pre-existing policy agendas and scientific narratives as a pretext to promote their objectives instead of being open to transformation and alternative worldviews in science and policy. The fourth approach, with its focus on performative futures and insights into the politics of anticipation, has offered a ‘meta-perspective’ to make power relations explicit in the design of anticipation processes, but the research shows that this approach is used the least. At a minimum, it should be made much more transparent and explicit what choices are being made and what gets prioritized and what is marginalized. My research also places these findings in an important context, namely the dominance of the Global North over the Global South. More and more attention is being paid to how knowledge, institutions, and norms perpetuate this dependency relationship, and it is precisely in this light that it is important to make power imbalances and political negotiations about the future explicit. This research contributes to that discussion by revealing that many anticipation processes pretend to open the future and make it more radically transformative, democratic, and equitable, but in fact close down the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw