The traps and pitfalls of anticipatory governance – Comparative cases of South Korea and the United Kingdom -

IF 3.8 3区 管理学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Kyungmoo Heo , Jonathan Joseph
{"title":"The traps and pitfalls of anticipatory governance – Comparative cases of South Korea and the United Kingdom -","authors":"Kyungmoo Heo ,&nbsp;Jonathan Joseph","doi":"10.1016/j.futures.2025.103707","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article examines anticipatory governance (AG) in South Korea and the UK, revealing contrasting approaches, shaped by unique historical, political, and social contexts. It explores the levels of trust, consensus, and empowerment and the dynamics of government, society, and citizens in both countries. First, Korea demonstrates proactive, future-oriented and anticipatory policymaking through strong government leadership, readiness for adaption, and the participation of and wellnurtured futures literacy of citizens. This is rooted in a tradition of development and the government’s consciousness of public reaction, trust and legitimacy. Second, while the UK embraces an AG approach such as horizon scanning and foresight, these efforts are hindered by short-term resilience thinking, an absence of education and awareness of the public, and fragmented implementation. In the UK’s AG, resilience becomes an excuse for incapacity in finding solutions to complex problems while shifting responsibility of a government to the public without adequate capacity-building. Instead of longer-term planning, AG is used to justify governance from a distance, the role of the market and the responsibilisation of individuals. Moreover, resilience becomes an excuse for incapacity to find solutions to complex problems while shifting responsibility from the government to the public without adequate capacity-building. From this perspective, the Korean approach would be criticised as rooted in an overly-modernist and state-interventionist strategy that still sees the government as the main actor in times of crisis. The article concludes with the traps and pitfalls of AG, constrained by relation-based dynamics, neoliberal ideologies, and a focus on resilience over longterm planning.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48239,"journal":{"name":"Futures","volume":"174 ","pages":"Article 103707"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Futures","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328725001697","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article examines anticipatory governance (AG) in South Korea and the UK, revealing contrasting approaches, shaped by unique historical, political, and social contexts. It explores the levels of trust, consensus, and empowerment and the dynamics of government, society, and citizens in both countries. First, Korea demonstrates proactive, future-oriented and anticipatory policymaking through strong government leadership, readiness for adaption, and the participation of and wellnurtured futures literacy of citizens. This is rooted in a tradition of development and the government’s consciousness of public reaction, trust and legitimacy. Second, while the UK embraces an AG approach such as horizon scanning and foresight, these efforts are hindered by short-term resilience thinking, an absence of education and awareness of the public, and fragmented implementation. In the UK’s AG, resilience becomes an excuse for incapacity in finding solutions to complex problems while shifting responsibility of a government to the public without adequate capacity-building. Instead of longer-term planning, AG is used to justify governance from a distance, the role of the market and the responsibilisation of individuals. Moreover, resilience becomes an excuse for incapacity to find solutions to complex problems while shifting responsibility from the government to the public without adequate capacity-building. From this perspective, the Korean approach would be criticised as rooted in an overly-modernist and state-interventionist strategy that still sees the government as the main actor in times of crisis. The article concludes with the traps and pitfalls of AG, constrained by relation-based dynamics, neoliberal ideologies, and a focus on resilience over longterm planning.
预见性治理的陷阱和陷阱——韩国和英国的比较案例
本文考察了韩国和英国的预见性治理(AG),揭示了由独特的历史、政治和社会背景形成的截然不同的方法。它探讨了两国政府、社会和公民的信任、共识和赋权水平以及动态。首先,韩国通过强有力的政府领导和适应能力,以及国民的参与和培养未来素养,展现了前瞻性、面向未来、前瞻性的政策制定。这植根于发展的传统和政府对公众反应、信任和合法性的意识。其次,尽管英国采用了地平线扫描和远见等AG方法,但这些努力受到短期弹性思维、缺乏教育和公众意识以及分散实施的阻碍。在英国,弹性成为无力找到复杂问题的解决方案的借口,同时在没有充分能力建设的情况下将政府的责任转移给公众。与长期规划不同的是,AG被用来证明远距离治理、市场作用和个人责任的合理性。此外,韧性成为无力解决复杂问题的借口,同时在没有充分能力建设的情况下将责任从政府转嫁给公众。从这个角度来看,韩国的做法将被批评为植根于一种过于现代主义和国家干预主义的战略,这种战略仍将政府视为危机时期的主要角色。文章总结了AG的陷阱和陷阱,受到基于关系的动态、新自由主义意识形态的限制,以及对长期规划的弹性的关注。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Futures
Futures Multiple-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
10.00%
发文量
124
期刊介绍: Futures is an international, refereed, multidisciplinary journal concerned with medium and long-term futures of cultures and societies, science and technology, economics and politics, environment and the planet and individuals and humanity. Covering methods and practices of futures studies, the journal seeks to examine possible and alternative futures of all human endeavours. Futures seeks to promote divergent and pluralistic visions, ideas and opinions about the future. The editors do not necessarily agree with the views expressed in the pages of Futures
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信