The Political Dynamics of Foresight

Futurists have long advocated the use of foresight methods among governments and leaders.  The argument for foresight is generally that those who have thought about the future, identified emerging challenges and opportunities, and considered a range of plausible scenarios will likely perform better no matter what the future brings.  However, what this argument fails to mention is that the results of any foresight activity are likely to have winners and losers.

This is the insight found in Robert C. Lieberman’s recent article in Foreign Affairs entitled ” Why the Rich Are Getting Richer.”  Lieberman describes the work of Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, who argue that growing inequality in the U.S. is the result of policy choices (and non-choices) over the past 40 years.  Hacker and Pierson present the concept of policy “drift,” by which outdated policies are left in place even as they fail to achieve – or even subvert – their original purpose.  They provide numerous examples in financial regulation, labor law, and other areas where Congress’ failure to update existing policies – often under intense pressure from special interests – has greatly contributed to the wealth, income, and health disparities we see in the U.S. today.

IAF has just released a set of scenarios on the future of vulnerability that were developed for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  When thinking about these scenarios, it is important to consider the political dynamics that surround the application of foresight methods.  Hacker and Pierson argue that policymakers, starting in the 1970’s, have intentionally neglected and left outdated policies in place that direct the benefits of economic transformation toward a small elite class.  Thus, these elite have benefited significantly from the unwillingness of leaders to consider the future consequences of existing policies.

Interestingly, foresight was on the rise at the highest levels of government just as “policy drift” became the norm.  For example, the House foresight provision adopted in the mid-1970′s requires congressional committees to conduct futures research on topics under their jurisdiction.  It seems that at the same time there was both a nascent foresight movement in Congress and a growing desire to leave things just as they were.  And the latter was victorious.  Evidence for this can be found not only in the work of Hacker and Pierson, but also in the demise of foresight efforts on Capitol Hill.  The House foresight provision is rarely enforced, and the Congressional Clearinghouse for the Future – also created in the mid-1970’s – was dissolved in 1994.

History shows that some people benefit, at least over the short term, when foresight is neglected.  These beneficiaries are often those who are powerful in the present rather than those whose ideas and innovations will be most critical to success in the future.  Thus, a free people should demand foresight on the part of their leaders not just so they can find emerging opportunities but also so that policy decisions are not distorted by those interests seeking to cling to a level of power, benefit, or privilege that they may no longer warrant or deserve.

But that is not the whole story.  Foresight activities can also engage stakeholders in the formulation of a vision that they would all be willing to create.  It is from this perspective that the RWJF Vulnerability 2030 scenarios can best be viewed.  In this project, IAF captured many of the key drivers that have increased vulnerability over the past few decades.  Clearly, Hacker and Pierson would have ideas on this as well.  But the project also outlined two visionary scenarios for us all to consider.  As our political discourse increasingly harnesses the mythology of the past to support the policies of the past, forward-thinking policy-makers must create a new vision of the future to guide policy into the future.  This process can help the powerful of today recognize the opportunities that exist – even for themselves – in a future where the U.S. economic and political systems work for all.  They will likely see that these opportunities far outweigh the short-term benefits that accrue to some when we stagnate or “drift.”

Advertisement