{"title":"预见性治理的陷阱和陷阱——韩国和英国的比较案例","authors":"Kyungmoo Heo , 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":"{\"title\":\"The traps and pitfalls of anticipatory governance – Comparative cases of South Korea and the United Kingdom -\",\"authors\":\"Kyungmoo Heo , 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}","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}
The traps and pitfalls of anticipatory governance – Comparative cases of South Korea and the United Kingdom -
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.
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