Governing the future: science, policy and public participation in the construction of the long term in the Netherlands and Sweden

Abstract

This paper is a historical study of two institutions devoted to the problem of the future the Dutch WRR (the Scientific Council for Government) and the Swedish Secretariat for Futures Studiesboth created in 1972. While there is a growing interest in the social sciences for prediction, future imaginaries and the governance of risk, few studies have examined historically the integration of the category of the 'future' or the 'long term' in political systems in the postwar years, a period in which this category took on specific meaning and importance. We suggest that governing the long-term posed fundamental problems to particular societal models of expertise, decisionmaking and public participation. We argue that the scientific and political claim to govern the future was fundamentally contested, and that social struggle around the role and content of predictive expertise determined how the long term was incorporated into different systems of knowledge production and policy-making.

Who gets to imagine transformative change? Participation and representation in biodiversity assessments

“…Likewise, being defined as indigenous may be empowering for some actors, but may make others less visible (Forsyth & Sikor 2013). These concerns do not simply reflect the different approaches to research adopted by disciplines such as anthropology and biological science, but instead show the need to study the ways in which scientific assessments can be influenced by tacit visions that create conditions where people and problems are presented in reductive ways (Andersson & Keizer 2014).…”

Governing the future and the search for spatial justice: Wales’ Well-being of Future Generations Act

“…First, many academics have commented on the way in which the future has been viewed as a threat or as a risk that needs to be managed and governed (Beck 1992). Work by Andersson (2012;Andersson & Keizer 2014) has examined what could be termed the historical geographies of these attempts to govern risky futures. Andersson and Keizer (2014), for instance, trace the beginnings of attempts to govern these risky futures to the Cold War.…”

“…Work by Andersson (2012;Andersson & Keizer 2014) has examined what could be termed the historical geographies of these attempts to govern risky futures. Andersson and Keizer (2014), for instance, trace the beginnings of attempts to govern these risky futures to the Cold War. It was during this period, for instance, that the science of Futurology first emerged, in which various techniques (e.g.…”

“…The literature on spatial justice, in addition, complements many of the key attributes of Futures Studies. One of the important distinctions between Futurology and Futures Studies, according to Andersson and Keizer (2014) is the technocratic nature of the former and the potential for the latter to be developed on the basis of a more democratic engagement with a wider range of stakeholders. Certainly, the notion of spatial justice tallies well with the more democratic tenor of Futures Studies.…”

“…Studies of the governance of the future has also been characterised by considerable empirical breadth. Detailed work has been conducted, for instance, on the historical geographies of the study of the future and its links to the Cold War (Andersson & Keizer 2014), along with more contemporary concerns surrounding future governance in the context of terrorism and security (Massumi 2007), the radicalisation of youth Rhys Jones (Saunders & Jenkins 2012), infectious diseases and pandemics (Hinchcliffe & Bingham 2008) and ecological disaster (Hulme 2008).…”