Microsoft Word - Lecture at American University

Governing for the Future:

How to bring the long-term into

short-term political focus

Jonathan Boston

Professor of Public Policy

School of Government

Victoria University of Wellington

Fulbright Fellow, American University

Paper prepared for a seminar at the Centre for Environmental Policy,

School of Public Affairs, American University, Washington D.C.

5 November 2014

Gouverner, c’est prévoir: to govern is to foresee.

Pierre Mendès France (former French Prime Minister)

The longer you can look back, the further you can look forward

Winston Churchill (former British Prime Minister)

The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today.

Let us move forward with strong and active faith.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (former American President)

Introduction

Thank you for the invitation to speak here this evening. I owe a great debt of gratitude to Professor Dan

Fiorino and his colleagues in the School of Public Affairs at American University for generously hosting

me during my Fulbright Fellowship in the United States this Fall. Washington D.C. is a stimulating,

engaging and enriching city in which to spend time as a policy researcher, and I am immensely grateful

to all those who have assisted me in various ways, not least those who have agreed to be interviewed.

The broad topic of my current research project is ‘governing for the future: how to bring the long-term

into short-term political focus’. To put it differently, how can we increase the political salience today of

long-term risks and looming policy crises given the human tendency to discount or ignore problems that

seem distant, remote or abstract? The basic governance challenge can be defined in various ways, but a

commonly presented version is as follows: there are strong political incentives for democratically-elected

government to focus on policy issues of immediate public concern and to give priority to policy options

with positive, short-term electoral payoffs. But if such incentives drive their decisions, then long-term

risks – whether fiscal, environmental or social – will be given insufficient weight, thus contributing to

greater costs or fewer benefits in the future. As Warren Buffet (1977) put it succinctly: ‘when human

politicians choose between the next election and the next generation, it’s clear what usually happens’. Or

to quote Al Gore (1992, p.170), ‘the future whispers while the present shouts’.

In some cases, inter-temporal policy choices which favour the present over the future may not matter

very much, but in other cases the consequences can be dire. With respect to climate change, for instance,

the lack of early remedial action is rapidly increasing the risk of widespread, severe and irreversible

damage. Morally, this is unacceptable. As Barack Obama (2014) justifiably commented at the climate

change summit at the UN in September: ‘We cannot condemn our children, and their children, to a future

that is beyond their capacity to repair’. But what options are available to reduce or minimize inter-

generational buck-passing of this nature and, of these options, which are likely to be feasible, modestly

effective and broadly desirable?

Currently, there is much anxiety in the United States about the capacity of the federal government to

tackle the country’s serious, long-term fiscal, social and environmental challenges. Frequent references

are made to political gridlock, polarization, electoral gerrymandering and policy failure. Many local

interviewees have expressed deep pessimism, and are certainly gloomier about the prospects for sensible,

domestic reforms than their counterparts in Britain, Finland and New Zealand, where I have also

conducted interviews recently for this project. As one local interviewee commented, ‘In America, long-

term planning is next week’s lunch’. While most local interviewees have responded approvingly to my

research topic, no doubt many think my mission is futile. If economics constitutes the ‘dismal science’,

the quest for prudent long-term governance is surely a thankless and fruitless journey, marked only by

growing hopelessness, despondency and despair. I certainly understand such reservations, but for the

present I am stoically soldiering on. (In any case, I have a book contact to fulfill!)

This paper outlines the broad contours of my research project and offers eight propositions which

summarize some initial findings – or rather, emerging understandings. Given the breadth of the topic, I

cannot do it justice in a short presentation. Accordingly, I must be selective. I will devote most of my

attention to possible solutions and touch only briefly on defining the problem, identifying the causes and

exploring the consequences. For those interested, a fuller version of the paper will be available on the

website of the Centre for Environmental Policy. But first let me turn to the politics of time.

Background

In 2011 the political scientist Alan Jacobs published a landmark book entitled Governing for the Long

Term: Democracy and the Politics of Investment. Essentially, the book is about the politics of time: how

do policy-makers handle inter-temporal policy trade-offs and how can inter-temporal policy choices best

be explained? To quote:

The politics of public policy is at once a struggle over who gets what and a struggle over when.

In designing state action, governments face choices not just about the cross-sectional incidence

of gains and losses, but also about how the benefits and burdens of policy should be allocated

over time. In arenas ranging from environmental protection to economic reform to the

management of scarce natural resources, the impact of public policy on citizens and societies

may depend as much on the inter-temporal character of governments’ decisions as on their

distributive profile (2011, p.241).

Jacobs develops a rigorous and elaborate theoretical framework to help explain the inter-temporal

choices made by democratic governments over the past century or more, using retirement incomes

policies (or pension schemes) in four countries – Britain, Canada, Germany and the United States – to

explore, test and illustrate his approach. His analysis of how to understand and explain the politics of the

long term, and in particular the extent of policy investments for the future, is both fascinating and

persuasive.

In brief, he argues that three main factors explain the inter-temporal choices of policy makers in

democracies: the degree of electoral safety they enjoy; the expected long-term social returns; and the

institutional capacity at their disposal, most notably the way political institutions structure the

opportunities and trade-offs for the cost-bearing groups within society. From this perspective, long-term

policy investments, especially those which entail short-term social costs in the interests of long-term

social gains, are most likely under the following three conditions. First, policy makers enjoy a degree of

electoral safety or even insulation from competitive political forces. Second, the political elites are

generally agreed that the proposed policy will deliver long-term social returns and the risks of failure are

low (e.g. because the policy can be designed in ways that reduce the potential for political opportunism

in the future). Third, the structure of opportunities and trade-offs facing well-organized groups is such

that a long-term investment strategy appears to be adequately appealing. If one or more of these

conditions is not met, long-term policy investments are less likely to occur resulting in net losses to

society in the future.

Jacobs’ stimulating analysis poses many critical questions. One of the most important is whether our

democratic political institutions and the processes of decision-making can be designed in ways that

increase the prospects of wise long-term ‘policy investments’ – that is, policy interventions which help

create a better future either by generating long-term social gains or by reducing long-term harm, risk and

vulnerability. Put differently, are there ways to encourage policy far-sightedness in democratic systems

and thereby better protect the interests of people living many years, decades or even centuries in the

future? And, if so, what particular strategies, institutional reforms, policy changes or conceptual

innovations are most likely to achieve such a goal?

Of course, there is no shortage of impediments. Any endeavour to tip the scales in favour of prudent

long-term policy investments must contend not merely with deep uncertainty, cognitive limitations, party

competition, ideological divisions, ethical conflicts and low political trust, but also the abiding sway of

narrow self-interest and the constant temptation to prefer short-term over long-term gains. Moreover,

even the most far-sighted leaders cannot bind their successors to pursue sound long-term governance.

The predatory proclivities of human beings must inevitably remain a constant threat.

Bear in mind that the term ‘policy investment’ is not limited to the investment of public funds or even

the prudent management of public resources in all their many and varied forms. The issue is much larger

and extends to the entire framework of public policy and every level of government. This includes the

regulation of all those forms of human behaviour, whether public or private, which have the potential to

impact on long-term economic, social and environmental outcomes. Of particular importance is the

incentive structure governing private sector investment. Annually, many trillions of dollars of private

capital are invested globally in new long-term assets (e.g. in energy, transport, telecommunications and

other forms of infrastructure). Whether this investment contributes to, or undermines, long-term

economic, social and environmental sustainability is of fundamental importance.

The question of whether prudent ‘policy investment’ can be encouraged, and if so by what means, lies at

the heart of my current research endeavours. Essentially, this is an issue of governance, especially inter-

temporal governance. Necessarily, this includes, but is not limited to, what Leon Fuerth (2012, 2013)

refers to as ‘anticipatory governance’. The fundamental challenge, in short, is how to improve the quality

of long-term democratic governance.

The Long-Term Democratic Governance Problem

For simplicity, this challenge can be called ‘the long-term democratic governance problem’ (or the ‘long-

term governance problem’ for short). Each word in this brief description is important and needs

underscoring.

The time horizon

‘Long-term’ implies an extended timeframe. The precise time horizon will depend on the particular

policy context, but it will typically be years, often decades and sometimes much longer. In the case of

climate change policy, for instance, the relevant timeframes, given the very long lags in the climate

system, are centuries or millennia. Hence, mitigation initiatives will need to be pursued over many

generations, and adaptation efforts for much longer (IPCC, 2013; 2014a, 2014b). Or to take a different

policy example, such as additional public investments to enhance the cognitive development and

education of young children from deprived backgrounds. There is robust evidence that well-designed and

appropriately targeted early invention programmes have the potential to deliver much better outcomes

over the life-course of the recipients, including better health, improved educational attainment, enhanced

employment prospects and higher life-time earnings (Conti and Heckman 2012; Duncan and Magnuson,

2013; Duncan et al., 2010; Early Action Taskforce, 2014; Heckman, 2007; Ladd, 2012; National Audit

Office, 2013). Moreover, some of the benefits enjoyed by recipients are likely to spill over onto others,

including peers and descendants. Hence, policy-making in such contexts needs to be guided by an

appropriately extended time horizon. In thinking about long-term governance, therefore, we are

necessarily dealing with inter-temporal matters, often of an inter-generational nature.

Governance

Further, the problem under consideration is fundamentally one of ‘governance’ and how it can be

improved. It is about societal steering and prioritization, especially steering and prioritization over

extended periods of time. It is about how democratic societies can shape, ‘weave’ or ‘navigate’ the future

in desirable directions (Dror, 2003), implement coherent and sustained efforts to address long-term

challenges (Lempert, 2007a), minimize foreseeable, yet avoidable, damages, and prepare for the

unexpected – such as ‘wild cards’ (Fukuyama, 2007) and ‘black swan’ events (Taleb, 2007).

Accordingly, it is not a narrow policy problem; nor is it limited to a particular policy domain or even a

specific category or class of policy issues; and nor is it primarily about finding once-and-for-all solutions

to major long-term policy problems. Such problems, after all, are frequently highly complex and require

a never-ending series of efforts to address. And even if complete and durable solutions can be found,

new and equally difficult problems are constantly emerging. The dilemma of how to govern well for the

long-term, therefore, is enduring and relentless; it confronts each and every generation of policy-makers;

it is not limited to one particular epoch. To be sure, the precise contours and the specific manifestations

will be constantly evolving, thereby posing fresh, novel and distinctive challenges for each successive

generation. But the broad structure of the problem – namely, of how best to encourage prudent inter-

temporal decision-making – remains the same.

Hence, the heart of the problem is about governance, not particular policy issues. At the same time, of

course, the problem manifests itself in numerous discrete policy contexts. Efforts to address the

governance problem must, therefore, give proper attention to the distinctive content and attributes of the

various policy problems where inter-temporal challenges are most acute. Examples include:

1. ensuring prudent long-term fiscal management;

2. ensuring effective environmental stewardship;

3. ensuring adequate investment in the construction and maintenance of long-term infrastructure;

4. ensuring adequate funding of preventative policy measures (e.g. prisoner reintegration and health

care);

5. ensuring the wise management of risk, including systemic risk;

6. ensuring sound emergency management, including preparedness for low-probability but high

impact events;

7. ensuring the sustainable management of resources and prudent urban planning;

8. ensuring the safe long-term storage of radioactive waste and other toxic substances;

9. ensuring the careful management of long-term social changes, including demographic change

and increasing cultural and religious diversity;

10. ensuring adequate levels of social mobility (e.g. in the interests of social cohesion and the

equitable and productive use of human capital); and

11. ensuring the proper assessment of the economic, social and environmental impacts of

technological innovation and the creation of new organisms.

The wide-ranging and diverse nature of such policy issues suggests that any solutions to the long-term

governance problem will need to be equally all-embracing and diverse, with solutions tailored to suit the

requirements of particular policy contexts. Additionally, such solutions must take into account the

distinctive constitutional, institutional and cultural circumstances of the countries in question.

In relation to governance, this study will focus primarily on the roles and conduct of democratically-

elected officials (presidents, prime ministers, ministers, parliamentarians, etc.), and how it might be

possible to enhance the incentives for them to pursue, as well as their capacity to deliver, prudent long-

term governance. Of course, within all democracies many other actors exercise significant governance

responsibilities – e.g. those serving on the governing bodies of regulatory agencies, statutory boards,

health care and social service providers, education institutions, and so forth. Such people often have

considerable discretion and oversee the operations of organizations, many of which are very large and

which face a multiplicity of long-term challenges (e.g. the maintenance of major capital assets,

investment in new long-term infrastructure, the management of long-term contracts, workforce planning,

coping with technological change, etc.). Equally, in order to guide their organizations successfully in the

near-term and invest wisely for the future they must give appropriate attention to relevant long-term

trends, developments, risks and opportunities. Plainly, a failure to exercise prudent long-term governance

at the organizational level will have consequences for the overall quality of a nation’s governance. Part

of the challenge of achieving good, long-term, democratic governance, therefore, is to ensure that the

multiplicity of public agencies and entities (i.e. at all levels of government) are well governed – and,

moreover, that there are similarly strong incentives for the good stewardship of private organizations,

whether commercial or non-commercial.

Problem

The word ‘problem’ also deserves emphasis. Weak, inadequate or inept long-term governance can cause

grave harm, both to human beings and the natural environment. Morally, therefore, it matters. Our aim

should be good long-term governance. This involves, amongst other things, efforts to prevent or

minimize bad futures, encourage and facilitate good futures, identify and manage risks, and prepare for

the inevitable shocks and surprises that will occur. Poor long-term governance fails to do such things; it

lacks a coherent vision, clear goals and soundly-based strategies; it fails to anticipate risks or build

resilience; and it fails to help shape the future in desirable directions. For those who reap the

consequences, the problem is readily apparent.

But in what ways and to what extent do democracies encounter a long-term governance problem? What

is the appropriate standard of governance to judge such matters? What are the relevant criteria? After all,

reasonable people may differ vigorously over how best to distribute burdens and benefits over long

timeframes, what priority to give to mitigating certain kinds of risk, and what discount rate to apply. I do

not pretend that there are simple answers to such questions. There are many plausible ethical norms,

principles and other considerations, and these are often in tension. Indeed, some of the relevant principles,

such as the precautionary principle, have numerous different and competing interpretations.

One possible approach would be to define the standard of good governance in terms of minimizing

clearly foreseeable, serious, avoidable and unjustified future harms. For instance, if a future harm is

readily foreseeable, serious and avoidable, and if the required actions to prevent, or at least minimize,

such harm are easily affordable, then a failure to take the necessary steps to avert the harm would be

morally unjustified. Of course, applying such a standard in practice presents difficulties. Legitimate

questions may arise about the probability or seriousness of the harm in question, or whether it can

realistically be avoided (or minimized), or whether intervening is justified given the opportunity costs

involved. Similarly, there is the issue of whether a failure to invest adequately to achieve foreseeable

long-term benefits is as equally unjustified as a failure to avert an avoidable harm. Be that as it may,

reasonable people are likely to be able to agree, at least in principle, that it is desirable to prevent (or at

least minimize) a clearly foreseeable, preventable and serious future harm.

With such considerations in mind, are democracies falling short and, if so, how serious is the problem?

Further, is it possible to sustain the proposition that democracies exhibit ‘political short-termism’, ‘policy

myopia’ or ‘policy short-sightedness’? Do they manifest, to quote Jacobs (2011, p.266) a ‘substantial

policy tilt toward the short run’, thereby inflicting unnecessary and unjustified future harms? And if so,

how widespread, deeply-entrenched and troubling are such phenomena? To answer such questions

carefully and rigorously would require a separate paper. Here there is space for just a few brief

observations.

First, a substantial body of academic scholarship covering multiple democracies and multiple policy

domains either assumes or reports that a problem exists (see, for instance, Boston and Lempp, 2011;

Dror, 2003; the Oxford Martin Commission, 2013). The scholarly literature also points to the problem

being relatively common and often serious. Indeed, some of the relevant literature suggests that the long-

term governance problem, and how to address it, constitutes one of the most daunting challenges facing

humanity. Without better long-term governance, it is argued, humanity will inflict severe and in some

cases irreversible, damage, including a massive loss of biodiversity and a likely shift to a more unstable

and inhospitable climate system. (In relation to climate change risks, for instance, see Garnaut, 2008;

Hansen, 2009; IPCC, 2007, 2013, 2014a, 2014b; Mellilo, et al., 2014; Nordhaus, 2013; Richardson et al.,

2009; Rockström et al., 2009a, 2009b; Stern, 2006.)

Admittedly, there are differences of view over how the long-term governance problem should be defined.

Likewise, the academic literature includes many different perspectives on the causes, consequences and

potential solutions to the problem. Overall, however, there can be no question that many academic

observers are pessimistic about the capacity of democratic institutions, whether of a presidential or

parliamentary form, to tackle satisfactorily many of the serious long-term policy issues currently

confronting the international community.

Political discourse is also replete with references to the long-term governance problem. To quote the

former Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda in a speech to the UN General Assembly in 2012:

Democracy is historically proven to be the best political system. However, we are faced with the

enormous challenge of whether or not democracy can serve as a system to keep fairness between

generations across the globe. Under the parliamentary democracy, comprised of representatives

serving people living now, there are no guarantees when it comes to properly representing the

interests of future generations. The structure invites politics that burden silent future generations

and puts problems off (quoted in Washington Post, 1 October 2013, p.A19).

Similar quotations abound. Consider, for instance, the assessment of the US National Research Council

and the National Academy of Public Administration in their major report – Choosing the Nation’s Fiscal

Future – in 2010:

The current federal budget process does not favor forward-looking assessment and management

of the nation’s fiscal position. The committee find that the present process gives too much

weight to the interests of the current generation and too little weight to the interests of future

generations (2010, p.7).

Second, of the 100 or more people I have interviewed or with whom I have discussed my research topic,

no one thus far has seriously questioned the notion that democracies exhibit, for one reason or another, a

bias towards the short-term and a frequent failure to address well-recognized long-term problems

expeditiously; nor has anyone disputed the proposition that such tendencies can be damaging –

sometimes highly damaging. Indeed, interviewees often took the opportunity to express deep concern

about the capacity of democratic regimes in general, or their own in country particular (especially

American interviewees), to give proper attention to long-term risks and vulnerabilities – whether fiscal,

social or environmental. Amongst interviewees, there was wide agreement that decision-makers in

democracies have a tendency to govern for today, rather than tomorrow. Their focus, it was argued, is all

too frequently on the present day, the near-term or the next election rather than the impact of their actions,

or their failure to act, over decades or generations.

Third, over the course of recent decades it is possible to identify numerous instances where democratic

governments have failed to take sensible and effective steps to ensure fiscal, social or environmental

sustainability and thereby protect both the long-term interests of current generations and the well-being

of future generations. Amongst the many well-documented cases in the environmental arena are

inadequate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect global and local fish stocks, preserve

endangered species and allocate scarce freshwater resources in equitable and efficient ways (Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Problems of this nature are to be found to one degree or another across

much of the democratic world, not least here in the United States.

In Australasia and the South Pacific, for instance, there are many environmental issues where long-term

interests have been overridden by short-term political considerations. The failure to address

anthropogenic climate change represents the most concerning example. Despite overwhelming scientific

evidence regarding the damaging impacts of unabated anthropogenic climate change, the centre-right

coalition government in Australia abolished the carbon tax in June 2014, claiming that price-based

mechanisms are neither necessary nor desirable for reducing emissions. Several months later, in

September 2014, the coalition launched a new energy strategy (Department of Industry, 2014). The

fundamental aim is to make Australia an ‘energy superpower’ – not a renewable energy superpower, but

a fossil fuel superpower. Significantly, the strategy contains no expectation that carbon capture and

storage will be widely used in the future, let alone mandated. Hence, it must be assumed that the extra

greenhouse gas emissions resulting from the desired increase in fossil fuel exploration and production

will be destined for the atmosphere.

Undeterred by such considerations, the Australian Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, believes that ‘few things

more damaging to our future than leaving coal in the ground’ (The Guardian, 13 October 2014).

Consistent with this view he declared, when opening the new $4.2 billion Caval Ridge coalmine in

Queensland in mid-October 2014, that ‘coal is good for humanity’, ‘vital for the future energy needs of

the world’ and should not be demonized. The opening marked, he said, ‘a great day for the world’

…‘The trajectory should be up and up and up in the years and decades to come’; and it is ‘the

responsibility for government to try to ensure that we are there making it easier for everyone wanting to

have a go’.

Across the Tasman in New Zealand, the current National-led government has a target to reduce

greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels. But it has no long-term strategy

to achieve this target (Macy, 2014). Moreover, it has systematically weakened the emissions trading

scheme, introduced by the previous Labour-led government in 2008, thereby rendering it increasingly

ineffective (Bertram and Terry, 2010; Cameron, 2011; Macey, 2014). The government has also decided

to exclude about 50% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions from the scheme – apparently forever.

Like their Australia counterparts, the New Zealand authorities are committed to boosting oil and gas

exploration and production – and quickly. The unspoken strategy is to make as much money as possible

from fossil fuel production before the global community finally takes firm action to limit greenhouse gas

emissions. Australia and New Zealand are not alone in adopting this approach. Brazil, Canada and many

other countries are almost certainly following a similar path.

It must of course be acknowledged that climate change is a highly complex policy issue (see Stern, 2006;

Nordhaus, 2013). It is characterized by a global collective action problem, huge uncertainties relating to

impacts, timeframes and potential technological solutions, a range of challenging spatial and inter-

temporal distributional issues, complex politically-relevant asymmetries, a daunting array of policy

options and trade-offs, and formidable ethical and regulatory issues. In these circumstances, it would be

unwarranted to blame inadequate policy responses by many governments over recent decades merely on

political short-sightedness or the application of an unjustifiably high discount rate. Plainly, the causes of

the policy dysfunction in this area are multiple.

Yet much simpler policy issues can be identified where political short-termism is more clearly the chief

culprit. An obvious case involves the failure of many governments to take appropriate early corrective

measures to deal with the well-understood fiscal consequences of demographic change. The current

underfunding of Social Security in the United States is a classic example (see Committee on the Fiscal

Future of the United States, 2010; NAPA, 2014). On existing policy settings, the main Social Security

Trust Fund (the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance) will be fully exhausted by around 2033, less than 20

years away. Yet here is an issue of relative simplicity: the relevant modeling of future liabilities is

straightforward; there is a high level of predictably; the evidence highlighting the unsustainability of

current policy settings is both compelling and widely understood; there are a number of straightforward

policy options, and their pros and cons are clear. Yet despite this, policy makers have chosen to delay

taking action, thus constraining future decisions and making the available choices all the harder.

There are many other policy examples where short-termism casts a long shadow. Amongst these is the

failure of many governments across the democratic world to invest adequately in cost-effective,

evidence-based programmes, such as early intervention to address childhood poverty, health needs and

learning difficulties (see Boston and Chapple, 2014). Likewise, one can point to the very modest public

funds allocated to health care prevention when compared to the huge resources devoted to the provision

of curative service, or the limited investment in prisoner rehabilitation and reintegration despite huge

expenditures on correction services and high rates of recidivism.

In summary, there is much evidence that democratic decision-makers often short-change the future. This

evidence applies across numerous policy domains and multiple jurisdictions of widely varying

constitutional arrangements and political cultures. Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that the long-

term governance problem is both real and serious.

Research approach

This research project has four main areas of focus. First, there is the issue of how best to define the long-

term democratic governance problem. Put differently, is there one main problem or a series of separate

yet closely related problems? For instance, are democracies ‘systematically biased in favour of the

present’ as Dennis Thompson (2005) contends? Second, having defined the problem or problems, what

are the causes and which are most important? Further, to what extent and in what ways do the causes

vary over time, between jurisdictions and across relevant policy domains? And which of the causes can

be most readily addressed? Third, what efforts have been made (e.g. constitutional, institutional or

regulatory) over recent decades within democracies to help address the long-term governance problem

and how effective have these been? Finally, what other possible solutions have been advocated and

which, if any, of these is likely to be feasible, effective and desirable? While the problem definition (or

definitions) and the causes of the problem are important to identify and evaluate, the primary objective is

to explore possible solutions and assess their merits.

In undertaking this investigation, I am focusing primarily on the problem of long-term governance in

democracies, and more particularly countries with developed economies. This is not to suggest that non-

democratic regimes are immune from the dysfunctions of political short-termism or policy short-

sightedness, but my interest – at least for this project – lies in enhancing the quality of democratic

governance rather than reforming non-democratic regimes. Further, I am limiting my consideration of

solutions to those which can be regarded as broadly democratic in nature. I am not interested in anti-

democratic solutions. No doubt there are those who question whether feasible and effective democratic

solutions can be found. From this perspective, benevolent dictatorship may offer the only viable way

forward. The evidence, in my view, does not justify such a grim conclusion. Having said this, in some

particular situations, the feasible, democratically acceptable options for improving long-term governance

may be limited.

My overall approach is comparative and qualitative. I am focusing principally on the governance of

nation states, rather than global governance or the role of international organizations. But I recognize that

in many policy areas – such as the management of systemic financial risks and pandemics, and the

stewardship of the global commons – national and international governance are inextricably linked.

Likewise, my primary focus is at the national or federal level rather than the sub-national level.

For a variety of reasons, I am giving particular attention to the experiences of four developed countries

with long-standing democratic traditions – Finland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United

States. These countries have diverse constitutional frameworks and political institutions, as well as

significant ideological, cultural and policy differences. Such differences help illuminate the varied

dimensions of the long-term governance problem. To help make the project manageable, I am focusing

on a limited selection of policy issues rather than trying to cover all potentially relevant topics. In terms

of data gathering, I am exploring a wide range of secondary sources and conducting open-ended and

semi-structured interviews with politicians, civil servants, researchers, business leaders and civil society

representatives in the four jurisdictions. To date, I have completed about 70 interviews. I have also met

with small groups and received useful feedback from a series of presentations to audiences across the

four countries. The interviews and discussions have almost all been enormously rewarding and

illuminating, and I am extremely grateful to all those who have made themselves available to discuss my

project.

Challenges

I am deeply mindful of the enormous scope and scale of this topic. The relevant literature is vast. It

traverses numerous academic disciplines – economics, history, international relations, political science,

philosophy, psychology, sociology, management studies, strategic studies, futures studies, and cognitive

science to name but a few. There are many different analytical, theoretical and philosophical perspectives,

including public choice theory, systems theory, complexity theory, complex adaptive systems theory,

organizational theory, the insights of behavioural economics and social psychology, and research in such

areas as performance management, risk management and disaster management, fiscal policy,

environmental sustainability, and so forth. The relevant literature also deals with many different

dimensions of the issue. This includes detailed treatments of the nature and contours of the governance

problem, lengthy discussions of the causes and consequences, and a vast array of suggested solutions.

Further, the topic raises a multiplicity of normative, conceptual, analytical and empirical questions. In

normative terms, there are, as noted above, fundamental questions about the nature of good governance,

and more particularly, good long-term governance. What are the relevant criteria for making qualitative

judgments and how should such criteria be applied? Further, given the necessity in many policy areas of

making inter-temporal trade-offs, what principles should be used to determine what is fair and reasonable?

How should benefits and burdens be allocated over long periods of time? What discount rate, for

instance, should be adopted (see Caney, 2008, 2009; forthcoming)?

From an empirical perspective, many fascinating questions also arise. For instance, in relation to

cognition and decision-making, how do human beings perceive time and process inter-temporal

information? How do people understand and contemplate the future, how are various outcomes which

occur over time weighed and assessed, and how are inter-temporal choices made (see Scholten et al,

2014; Sunstein, 2014, pp.35-37)? Likewise, in what ways do people, including political leaders and other

decision-makers, vary in their handling of inter-temporal trade-offs? At the broader societal level, to

what extent and in what ways does the quality of long-term governance vary over time, between

countries and across policy domains? What are the critical determinants of the variations that can be

observed? What role do political, social and cultural institutions play (see, for instance, Knight and

Sened, 1988; Weaver and Rockman, 1993)? These are just some of the many issues pertaining to this

topic.

Initial Findings or Emerging Understandings

Let me now turn to some initial findings or emerging understandings. I will summarize these in the form

of eight propositions and discuss each in turn. I must emphasize, however, that I am only part of the way

through my research, so what follows is necessarily tentative and incomplete.

Proposition 1: Enhancing long-term governance constitutes a wicked and complex problem. This

implies the need for caution and realism about the prospects for improvement, but provides no

grounds for despair

A diagnosis of the problem must precede any attempt to prescribe a solution. With respect to diagnosis,

the long-term governance problem has many of the characteristics often associated with so-called

‘wicked’ policy problems, as originally identified by Rittel and Webber (1973). For instance, the relevant

literature contains multiple problem definitions and there is no agreed or definitive formulation; the

problem, although analytically distinct, is connected to numerous other problems, and can also be

regarded as a symptom of some of these; the problem has multiple and complex causes; there is no fixed

set of potential solutions; there are multiple intervention points; most of the suggested solutions are

difficult to test, and at best can be expected to yield only a modest improvement; and most of the ideas

for reform face one or more significant constraint, whether normative, constitutional, political,

institutional or economic. With respect to the causes of the problem, there is wide agreement that these

include innate aspects of the human condition, the abiding phenomenon of uncertainty, including deep

uncertainty (Walker et al., 2012), and multiple political and institutional factors. While some of these can

be tackled in various ways, others constitute an inherent and immutable feature of reality (e.g. our

uncertainty about the future). Hence, they must be accommodated, tolerated or circumvented rather than

overcome.

To compound matters, the long-term governance problem has two of the three characteristics associated

with ‘super-wicked’ problems, at least as defined by Richard Lazarus (2009). For one thing, those

endeavouring to solve the problem are also amongst the very people who are causing it. Hence, they are

likely to face contradictory pressures. For another, there is no inter-temporal authority or governance

structure enduring across multiple generations that is able to enforce lasting solutions, ensure that costly

long-term policy investments are properly implemented or hold recalcitrant governments to account.

Accordingly, whatever policy farsightedness the current generation of policy-makers may be able to

muster at any given juncture they face two related, ongoing challenges. First, there the long-term

assurance or compliance problem: how can policy makers ensure that their successors also exercise

farsightedness? Second, there is the problem of ‘dynamic inconsistency’ or ‘time inconsistency’ – that is,

a person’s preferences in Time 1 may diverge from their preferences in Time 2, and their future actions

may undermine their earlier decisions. In terms of policy consistency, how can political leaders bind

their future selves to remain committed to a prudent long-term strategy, especially if there are powerful,

electorally-driven temptations to defect? If such problems cannot be overcome, there is an obvious risk

that prudent, long-term policy investments will not deliver their hoped-for gains. This risk, in turn, poses

a further challenge: what is the logic of making costly policy investments today if the long-term payoffs

are highly uncertain? After all, there is little point making hard choices in the short-term if there is little

prospect of future benefits. The immediate question posed by such a dilemma is whether policy-makers

can bind themselves and their successors in order to increase the chances of desirable long-term goals

being achieved. Is some kind of commitment device available and, if so, what particular sort of device

might be most appropriate and effective? I will return to this matter shortly.

One other dimension of the long-term governance challenge deserves underscoring: the problem is

characterized by a complex relationship between cause and effect, with causal relations often being hard

to establish with any certainty in advance. For instance, it is typically unclear exactly what effect a

proposal ‘solution’, such as an institutional reform or policy change, will have on decision-makers’ inter-

temporal preferences or how it will affect their approach to policy problems with significant inter-

temporal trade-offs. We can, of course, surmise and draw on previous experience, but given the

multifaceted and constantly evolving nature of social environments we cannot be certain. Indeed, causal

relationships may only become clear in retrospect, perhaps long after a particular course of action has

been adopted. Using the Cynefin (pronounced Cu-nev-in) framework developed by Snowden and Boone

(2007), therefore, the long-term governance problem fits primarily within the ‘complex’ category, rather

than the ‘simple’, ‘complicated’ or ‘chaotic’ categories. If this diagnosis is correct, then the problem does

not lend itself to the ready preparation of a best practice guide – or even a good practice guide! There are

typically no simple ‘right’ answers or universally applicable solutions. Rather, the relevant territory is

that of emergent and adaptive practice, the domain of trial and error. In accordance with the Cynefin

framework, the appropriate approach in such circumstances is one of probing, making sense and then

responding – or learning through experimentation, evaluation, iteration, adaptation and refinement.

Taking the ‘complexity’ of the problem seriously, therefore, has major implications for how it should be

conceptualized and tackled (see Collander and Kupers, 2014; Room, 2011).

Yet, to suggest that the challenge of governing well for the future is ‘complex’ or ‘wicked’, and perhaps

even ‘super-wicked’, does not render improvement impossible. The causes of the problem may well be

multiple, deep-seated and enduring, but there are no grounds for fatalism or despair. For one thing, it is

clear that human beings have dual capacities or tendencies – including the capacity for both short-term

and long-term thinking, self-interest and altruism, instant gratification and deferred enjoyment, self-

indulgence and self-restraint, impulsive decision-making and reflective contemplation (Kahneman, 2011;

Princen, 2009). The challenge, in Kahneman’s language, is how to ensure that our System 1 thinking,

which is impulsive and myopic, is tempered adequately by our System 2 thinking.

For another, the historical evidence suggests that democratic governments are not compulsively or

inescapably myopic. To be sure, there is evidence of a bias towards short-termism, but policy short-

sightedness is not inevitable. To quote Jacobs:

While the myopic pressures of electoral politics are indeed formidable, the actual record of

policymaking in the democratic world suggests a far more complicated pattern. Even a casual

glance at the cross-national policy landscape suggests that democratic governments have, in a

range of spheres, made widely differing inter-temporal policy choices (2011, p.5).

Hence, across the democratic world numerous examples of far-sighted policies can be identified,

including cases of governments taking brave decisions to protect long-term interests in the face of

significant political opposition and in the firm knowledge that substantial short-term costs – both

economic and electoral – are highly likely. In reference to the United States, the Government

Accountability Office in a major report in 2005 on the challenges facing policy-makers in the 21

century made the following observations:

Some may be skeptical as to whether our political system is able to address long-term problems

or commitments. However, such skepticism ignores past examples of attention to long-term

goals. The interstate highway program took a generation to plan and complete. The Social

Security system was created with very long time horizons in mind and has undergone major

restructuring in both 1977 and 1983, with an eye toward improving the program’s longer-term

sustainability. As a nation, we also anticipated, and as a result met, the educational capacity

needs of the baby boom all the way from primary school to college (GAO, 2005, p.81).

In short, the available evidence does not support the grim and pessimistic conclusions, often associated

with a public choice perspective, that policy myopia is inevitable. Policy-makers are not driven solely by

narrow electoral imperatives; they are not simply opportunistic, untroubled by long-term policy goals,

programmatic commitments or ethical principles. Nevertheless, by virtue of being a wicked problem,

none of the many solutions on offer can be expected to be fully effective or sustainable over lengthy time

periods. Each generation of policy-makers must, therefore, continue to wrestle with the challenge.

Proposition 2: The gravity of the long-term governance problem varies, and is particularly acute in

certain political and policy contexts

While the long-term governance challenge arises in all democratic systems, the evidence also suggests

that the magnitude and complexity of the challenge varies. Relevant contextual factors affecting this

variability include the constitutional rules, the structure of organized interests and party competition, the

degree of ideological polarization, the level of societal trust and reciprocity, the characteristics of

particular policy problems and the pay-off structure associated with various policy solutions. There can

be little doubt, for instance, that securing agreement on how to address major long-term issues, such as

fiscal and environmental sustainability, is much harder when there are multiple veto points, when the

policy community is deeply divided ideologically and when trust in government is low. Without at least

a modest consensus on long-term policy goals and how best to achieve them, governing well for the

future will be difficult – as is readily apparent in the United States at present.

Similarly, particular kinds of policy problems pose especially serious challenges for prudent long-term

governance. The most difficult problems are those exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics:

high complexity; low predictability and causal certainty; spatially dispersed effects; impacts that are

mostly experienced in the future and/or are largely invisible and intangible (thus reducing the apparent

urgency to respond); impacts that fall predominantly on politically weak or marginalized groups; and, as

noted earlier, problems which require investment-type solutions (i.e. up-front costs are required in order

to secure long-term benefits). Human-induced climate change exhibits most, if not all, of these features,

which helps account for the difficulty of securing prudent policy responses. But many policy problems

also exhibit investment-type payoff structures, thus creating a temptation for inter-generational buck-

passing. Such temptations will be all the greater when the short-term costs are direct, specific, certain,

tangible and visible while the long-term benefits are more generalized, less certain and more intangible.

Dealing with asymmetrical pay-offs of this nature poses the hardest dilemmas for those seeking prudent

long-term governance. It is also where the greatest effort is required. Possible solutions may include

reframing the policy problem in a manner likely to broaden the level of political support or adjusting the

distributional and inter-temporal payoffs in order to reduce short-term opposition and electoral losses.

Changing the choice architecture facing citizens and consumers may also offer a way forward in certain

policy contexts (see Sunstein, 2014; Thaler and Sunstein, 2008). I will return to the issue of political

tactics shortly. For now the critical point is this: for a solution to be feasible and effective it must be

tailored to the requirements of the specific constitutional, political and policy context. Generic

approaches are unlikely to gain traction. This brings me to a third proposition.

Proposition 3: The long-term governance problem requires multiple solutions, but many of the

proposals that have been advanced in recent decades are unlikely to meet the critical tests of feasibility,

effectiveness and desirability

Even a cursory exploration of the relevant literature dealing with the challenges of long-term governance

reveals an astonishing variety of reform proposals designed to mitigate the problem.

The proposals

cover virtually every option in the policy tool kit; they touch upon all stages of the policy cycle, from

agenda setting to evaluation; they address every level of public governance, including reforms to

international, national and sub-national institutions; and they cover many different fields of human

endeavour, including both the business and not-for-profit sectors. Many of these proposals have been

implemented in one form or another somewhere across the democratic world over recent decades, but

many others are novel and untested.

Thus far, I have identified over a dozen broad solution ‘types’ and well over 60 distinct proposals. But

that number would swell greatly if all the various combinations and permutations were included. Table 1

outlines the main solution types and, within each type, a number of specific proposals. Some examples

include:

1. reforms to global governance institutions, such as the creation of a High Commissioner for

Future Generations;

2. constitutional reforms, such as new or stronger provisions to protect the interests, welfare and/or

rights of future generations;

3. the transfer of important decision-rights to independent, non-elected bodies;

4. changes to electoral rules and voting rights;

5. changes to the design of executive and legislative institutions;

6. the strengthening of foresight mechanisms and planning processes;

7. the establishment of new strategic, analytical and advisory bodies focused on long-term issues;

8. the creation of new organizations with certain kinds of stewardship or guardianship

responsibilities;

9. the instigation of new rules, both procedural and substantive, to constrain decision-makers;

10. the reform of budgetary systems, performance management regimes and accountability

mechanisms;

11. the development of new conceptual frameworks, accounting conventions and analytical

techniques, and much enhanced metrics, including a stronger focus on measures of wellbeing

and stocks of natural capital; and

12. the genetic modification of human beings with the aim of enhancing our capacity for moral

reasoning and ethical conduct.

Many of these proposals, of course, are designed with multiple objectives in mind, not merely the

improvement of long-term governance. But whatever the precise goals, each proposal deserves a rigorous

and objective assessment. For my project, three main evaluative criteria will be employed: feasibility,

effectiveness and overall desirability.

See, for instance, Ascher, 2009; Binder, 2006; Boston et al., 2014; Boston and Lempp, 2011; Dewar, 2006;

Dobson, 1996; Ekeli, 2005, 2009; Elster and Slagstad, 1988; Fuerth, 2012; Gill et al., 2011; Gonzalez-Ricoy and

Gosseries, forthcoming; Goodin, 2007; Helm, 2014; House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee,

2007; Jackson, 2009; James, 2013; Kay, 2012; Lempert et al., 2003; McLeod, 2013; Natural Capital Committee,

2013, 2014; O’Donnell et al., 2014; Oxford Martin Commission, 2013; Rejeski, 2003; Porritt, 2009; Thompson,

2005, 2010; Van Parijs, 1998; United Nations, 2013; Vestergaard and Wade, 2012; Ward, 2011; Welsh

Government, 2014; Whitby et al., 2014; World Future Council, 2012, 2014.

All such criteria, of course, are open to debate and interpretation. What is technically or politically

feasible will vary over time and space, and is often within the power of policy-makers to change. Plainly,

however, proposals involving constitutional reform will be inherently more difficult to implement than

those requiring only changes to ordinary statutes or regulations.

Assessing effectiveness poses a range of challenges. For proposals which have already been

implemented somewhere, empirical evidence can be gathered. But this may be inconclusive. Also, a

particular reform may achieve apparently positive results in one political context but not in another.

Aside from this, many efforts to encourage better long-term governance have not survived the test of

time. Numerous long-term advisory groups, for instance, have come and gone over the years, such as the

Central Policy Review Staff in London (1970-83), the Priorities Review Staff in Canberra (1973-76), and

the Planning Council in Wellington (1976-91). Much the same applies to bodies established to undertake

strategic foresight activities or promote sustainability.

For untested proposals, assessing effectiveness poses even greater difficulties. Nevertheless, intervention

logics for each proposal can readily be constructed and carefully scrutinized. For instance, the underlying

assumptions which embody the various steps in the causal chain can be identified and their validity

assessed. Likewise, the risks of failure can be evaluated and possible remedies considered. Table 2

provides some brief examples (the details of which could be greatly expanded). Given the uncertainties

surrounding cause and effect, however, determining categorically in advance whether a particular

proposal will enhance prudent long-term governance is not possible. Realistically, therefore, an

experimental approach is the only option.

Overall, six distinct intervention logics underpin the various proposals for addressing the long-term

governance problem. In other words, each proposal is presumed to make a difference through one or

more of the following mechanisms:

1. By changing the motives of decision-makers (i.e. values, norms, preferences, priorities, etc.) and

activating future-oriented interests and concerns (or what might be regarded as ‘internal drivers’);

2. By enhancing the capacity to make farsighted decisions (e.g. via better information, analytical

resources, foresight processes, modelling, more holistic policy frameworks, etc.);

3. By changing the formal constraints within which decisions are made (e.g. via constitutional rules,

procedural rules and substantive policy rules to limit decision-makers);

4. By insulating decision-makers from short-term political pressures;

5. By changing the political incentives facing decision-makers (e.g. via changes to public

opinion/preferences, political culture, the balance of political forces, accountability mechanisms,

outcome-based performance measures, etc.) (or what might be regarded as ‘external drivers’);

and

6. By establishing new coordinating mechanisms to enable decisions to be taken which would

otherwise not be possible (e.g. via new and/or stronger international agencies and instruments).

In effect, each of these intervention logics relies on changing some aspect of the decision context or

choice architecture facing policy actors. But which particular logics are likely to be most effective and

under what conditions remains uncertain.

Determining the overall desirability of each proposal necessarily involves a normative judgment, and

reasonable people may well differ on their merits. For instance, there are some who believe that a

constitutional amendment requiring balanced budgets is the best, and perhaps only, way to avoid long-

term fiscal irresponsibility. Many others, of course, reject such a proposal, arguing that this would

constrain decision-makers to an undesirable extent and wreck economic havoc. I strongly suspect that the

critics are correct, and in any case there are many other ways of encouraging greater fiscal discipline (see,

for instance, Boston and Prebble, 2013; Cullen, 2013; Hagemann, 2011; Heller, 2003a, 2003b, 2006;

Posner, 2011; Redburn, 2014; Upton, 2013).

I have yet to complete a proper evaluation of the dozens of proposals for mitigating the long-term

governance problem. But my initial assessment is that many proposals, while no doubt well-intentioned,

are likely to be neither feasible (at least in many contexts) nor effective. Similarly, the desirability of

many proposals is questionable, whether on constitutional, philosophical or ethical grounds. For instance,

there are various suggestions for changing voting rights and the composition of legislatures, such as

reducing the age of eligibility for voting, weighting the votes of younger citizens more highly, removing

the right to vote from those over a certain age, and providing for the representation of future generations

in legislative assemblies (see Table 1). In theory, such reforms are designed to encourage governments to

give greater weight to long-term interests and better protect the welfare of future generations. However,

the intervention logics often rest on questionable assumptions, and some of the proposals are inherently

illiberal or anti-democratic. Likewise, proposals for the moral enhancement of humanity through genetic

manipulation pose huge ethical concerns.

Based on my initial inspection, the tests of feasibility, effectiveness and overall desirability seem likely

to remove a substantial number of proposals from serious contention. But this still leaves no shortage of

ideas that may have merit. Of these, the following warrant particular attention:

1. strengthening and expanding the range of commitment devices used to incentivize and constrain

the actions of decision-makers;

2. enhancing the role of stewardship or guardian-type organizations;

3. improving governments’ strategic foresight capacity and better integrating this into the policy

process;

4. improving the analytical frameworks used in policy analysis (e.g. with respect to the handling of

discounting, natural capital and ecosystem services, etc.);

5. enhancing the metrics employed for assessing, monitoring and reporting on performance (see

Stiglitz et al. 2009); and

6. developing more comprehensive systems of national accounting (e.g. see the World Bank project

on Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services or WAVES).

With respect to prudent environmental stewardship, which is essential for good long-term governance,

there is a strong case, in my view, for establishing new and more demanding rules for managing stocks

of natural capital, both renewable and non-renewable. The British government, for instance, established a

Natural Capital Committee in 2012 to advise on the sustainable use of natural assets (see Natural Capital

Committee, 2013, 2014). The Committee is considering a number of far-reaching policy principles to

govern the management of natural capital stocks. The most demanding of these would require societies

to bequeath to future generations an aggregate stock of renewable and non-renewable natural capital that

is at least equivalent to, if not better than, at present. Under such an approach, any loss of non-renewable

natural capital would need to be fully compensated via ‘equivalent’ forms of natural capital (not by other

forms of capital, such as manufactured or human capital). Losses of renewable natural capital would

need to be fully compensated via offsets of natural capital elsewhere (see Helm, 2014). Applying such

rules would pose a range of conceptual, analytic and measurement issues. Nevertheless, proposals of this

kind could have profound consequences in terms of promoting environmental sustainability. They would,

of course, require global implementation to be fully effective.

Proposition 4: Governing well for the future requires a focus on both the demand-side and the supply-

side of the democratic process

If the long-term governance problem is to be mitigated, it is essential to consider both the demand-side

and the supply-side of the democratic process (Coston, 1998). Fundamentally, this means addressing

political incentives, on the one hand, and analytical and delivery capacity, on the other. Similarly, efforts

are required at each stage of the policy cycle to ensure that long-term interests are properly identified and

weighed in the balance. This must include attention to data sources, strategic foresight, the methods and

models of policy analysis, the criteria used for decision-making, and systems for policy feedback and

evaluation.

On the demand-side, democratically-elected governments understandably respond to electoral pressures,

with the quantity, pattern and intensity of these pressures affecting their policy choices. As noted earlier,

there are bound to be strong electoral pressures for policy-makers to prioritize short-term interests over

longer-term considerations. Future generations, after all, have neither a voice nor a vote; and there is

evidence that current voters tend to favour proximate payoffs over distant benefits (see Jacobs and

Matthews, 2012). But policy makers are also independent actors: their actions can help shape the demand

conditions in which they operate; their actions also influence what demands are placed on other actors in

the policy community, including policy advisers, regulators and those involved in service delivery. At

the same time, the capacity of elected officials to respond to demand-side pressures depends on various

supply-side factors, including the policy instruments that are available, and the ease and effectiveness

with which these instruments can be deployed.

Overall, addressing the demand-side is more challenging than the supply-side; certainly this has been the

view of interviewees. If the inter-temporal asymmetry on the demand-side is to be mitigated, ways must

be found of bringing the long-term into short-term political focus; that is to say, we need to increase the

incentives on policy-makers to give proper attention to future interests. Obviously one option, at least

conceptually, is to shift voters’ inter-temporal preferences so that they give greater weight to their future

interests (i.e. their future selves) and the generations who will follow. But this is not easy, and even when

long-term threats become more politically salient – perhaps as a result of major focusing events –

sustaining a heightened focus on the future for lengthy periods is difficult. While not ignoring the issue

of voters’ inter-temporal preferences, therefore, other ways of magnifying the voice of the future need to

be found. This could include additional efforts to identify, monitor and report on long-term risks and

vulnerabilities, procedural or even legal requirements for decision-makers to take future interests

properly into account in all decisions with significant long-term consequences, and the establishment or

strengthening of agencies with long-term guardianship roles – that is, agencies which have a formal

mandate to speak for, or protect, future interests, including a healthy and sustainable environment. As

part of such a strategy, there must be a proper emphasis on the foresight capability of governments,

which I will turn to shortly.

But one other point deserves highlighting: if there is only a limited capacity to change the structure of

political demand to incentivize policy-makers to give adequate weight to long-term considerations, then

other options must be considered. These include additional legislative constraints on what policy-makers

are able to decide and transferring formal decision-rights on designated policy matters to bodies that are

partially insulated from short-term political pressures. In each case, of course, the overall desirability of

such options must be carefully weighed. Not all constraints and insulating techniques are democratically

acceptable.

Proposition 5: Improving strategic foresight capability is critically important, but foresight activities

must be properly embedded within the political system and adequately coupled with day-to-day policy-

making

All governments in developed democracies undertake or sponsor strategic foresight activities of various

kinds. But countries differ greatly in the extent to which they invest in structured foresight, the kinds of

activities that are conducted, how well such activities are embedded within the political system and how

much they influence day-to-day governmental decision-making (see Dreyer and Stang, 2013; Fuerth,

2012). Britain, Canada, Finland and Singapore, for instance, invest quite heavily (e.g. see the numerous

reports of Horizons Canada on long-term issues).

In brief, foresight involves producing greater knowledge of possible futures. As Sardar (2010) highlights,

the focus is neither on prophesy nor prediction – that is, knowledge of what will happen – but rather

‘manufactured knowledge of [a] restrictive number of possibilities’. Such possibilities are generated via a

range of methodologies, such as horizon scanning, the analysis of trends and the creation of scenarios,

and various techniques, such as the Delphi method, which are designed to ascertain the level of

agreement amongst experts about the likelihood of certain outcomes (Dreyer and Stang, 2013; Lempert

et al., 2003; Lempert, 2007b). An important objective of such activities is to identify important trends,

emerging issues and potential risks in the hope that such information and analysis will enable policy

makers to take corrective measures, thereby avoiding crises or being blindsided by events. Foresight

activities can also identify emerging opportunities, and thus facilitate new and beneficial initiatives.

In terms of the long-term governance problem, systematic foresight has the potential to play an important

role in generating (or expanding) the capacity for policy-makers to engage in ‘anticipatory governance’ –

to envision, imagine, strategize and respond. Hence, in some respects it is more relevant to the supply-

side than the demand-side of the problem. At the same time, robust and well-designed foresight

processes can also affect the context of decision-making in ways that may enhance the political

incentives on policy-makers to make prudent long-term decisions. For instance, if the processes engage

the key players in the political community on a regular basis, they can help build a shared understanding

of possible futures and thereby influence attitudes and motivations. They can also exercise a political

constraint in the sense that once looming policy problems or hard choices have been clearly identified

and widely discussed, it is more difficult for them to be ignored. Further, the conduct of high-quality

foresight processes and the production of useful and timely outputs (e.g. reports and advice) not only

increases the capacity for anticipatory governance but may also help induce greater demand for long-

term thinking and wise stewardship. Nevertheless, it is readily apparent that a greater foresight capacity

does not guarantee that this resource will be used by policy-makers – or that it will be employed wisely.

Hence, one of the critical questions, in terms of institutional design, is how to build a close linkage

between foresight processes and on-going governmental policy-making.

The Finnish approach to foresight, which I investigated earlier this year, is highly instructive in this

respect (see Committee for the Future, 2012; Kuosa, 2011, pp.33-46; Prime Minister’s Office, 2009,

2013, 2014; Tiihonen, 2011). Over the past few decades Finland has developed a unique institutional

framework for incentivizing thinking about the future, with processes that are comprehensive,

cooperative, continuous, embedded and relatively well-resourced. The Finnish model is the product of a

distinctive and often painful history: a relatively small nation on the margins of Europe which has been

vulnerable to aggressive neighbours (especially Russia) and economic shocks, most recently the collapse

of the Soviet Union in 1990, the global financial crisis (2008-10) and the Euro crisis (2010-12). The

Finnish foresight regime represents a deliberate and concerted effort by policy makers to prepare for

surprises, build a more resilient economy and society, and foster an innovative, forward-thinking,

adaptive, learning culture.

The current Finnish model is built on at least five separate, yet closely related, pillars:

1. a significant public investment in futures research, training and related activities including a

strong network of futures-oriented organizations, such as the Finnish Society for Futures Studies

(established in 1980), the Turku-based Finland Futures Research Centre (established in 1992)

and the Finland Futures Academy network (established in 1998), and dedicated foresight units in

various government agencies;

2. the coordination of foresight activities via a Government Foresight Network (created in 2004)

and, more recently, the establishment of a high-level Government Foresight Group;

3. a constitutional requirement since the early 1990s for the government to produce a report on the

future during each parliamentary term (i.e. every four years);

4. the conduct of an increasingly wide-ranging and transparent national foresight process as an

integral part of the government’s preparation of its report on the future; and

5. the establishment in 1993 of a Parliament Committee for the Future (which became permanent in

2000) with a mandate to investigate major long-term policy issues, consider the impact of

important trends and developments (e.g. new technologies), and review the government’s report

on the future.

These ‘pillars’ sit on top of the normal governmental processes which are fundamental to sound

decision-making, including prudent long-term governance: the generation of robust and comprehensive

data (e.g. via the system of national statistics), the conduct of detail policy analysis, the setting of goals,

targets and strategies for specific policy areas, the regular preparation of detailed, long-term revenue and

expenditure forecasts, the prioritized allocation of resources through the annual budget process, and the

implementation of rigorous performance management systems (including regular monitoring, reporting

and evaluation).

The Finnish foresight model has undoubted strengths. First, it encourages all the key actors in the policy

community – cabinet ministers, parliamentarians, senior civil servants, business leaders, civil society

representatives and researchers – to reflect periodically on some of the major long-term challenges facing

Finland and how these might be addressed. It also brings together many of these actors in deliberative

settings, both in the capital (Helsinki) and other centres across the country. In so doing, it helps foster a

deeper understanding of, and to some extent a shared perspective regarding, the main problems that need

to be tackled, the nature of the policy trade-offs and choices available, and the strengths and weaknesses

of the principal options. While such a process does not necessarily generate a political consensus on the

best way forward, it certainly provides an opportunity for consensus building and probably makes it

easier politically for governments to make tough decisions, including investment-type decisions which

entail the imposition of short-term costs (or losses). In other words, such a process, if well managed, can

help blunt opposition to hard choices, temper the level of party competition and reduce the electoral risk

associated with such choices.

Second, a relatively open, deliberative, nation-wide foresight exercise now forms an integral part of the

process of preparing the government’s report on the future (see Prime Minister’s Office, 2014). This

exercise provides an opportunity for the leaders of Finnish society to engage periodically in a structured

process of what might be called ‘collective imagining’ or ‘institutionalized visioning’ – that is, imagining

what the future could be like, reflecting on how it might be shaped through cooperative action, and

deliberating about what Finland should aspire to become and how such aspirations might be achieved.

Importantly, too, the foresight process is closely coupled with the Finnish innovation system and the

wider research community through the participation of senior academics and representatives of the major

research funding bodies – the Academy of Finland, Tekes (the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation)

and Sitra (the Finnish Innovation Fund). Few other countries undertake this kind of formal, high-level

‘imagining’ on a regular basis, or if they do, the foresight processes are much less open and transparent

(e.g. as in China and Singapore) or are limited to specific policy domains (e.g. national security, as in the

US) (see Dreyer and Stang, 2013; Kuosa, 2011).

Third, the constitutional requirement for governments to produce a report on the future every

parliamentary term, together with the establishment of a permanent parliamentary committee dedicated

to thinking about the future and the more recent legislative requirement for foresight processes to be

conducted at the regional level, serve as political ‘commitment devices’. They oblige the political

community to undertake forward thinking and strategizing on a regular basis and in a reasonably

comprehensive and systematic manner. As a result, there is no choice but to devote time, energy and

public resources to such tasks. In a sense, therefore, the Finnish political community has bound itself to

the mast of futures thinking; it has no choice but to engage. Of course, this does not guarantee high-

quality outcomes; nor does it mean that major policy decisions are different from what might otherwise

have been the case. But it certainly increases the chances that such decisions will be better informed and

tempered by a longer-term perspective.

Fourth, the establishment of a permanent Parliamentary Committee for the Future not only ensures that

the legislature undertakes regular horizon scanning and considers some of the big long-term policy

problems facing the country (especially in relation to the impact of technological change), but it also

provides a training ground in foresight methods and approaches for many of those who will subsequently

become cabinet ministers (see Tiihonen, 2011). Over the years, quite a few Committee members have

been appointed into the ranks of the executive, including several who have become the leaders of their

respective political parties. While it is impossible to assess to what extent and in what ways service on

the Committee changes how politicians think, including how they reflect on the future or make inter-

temporal judgements, it is highly likely that the kind of investigations undertaken by the Committee and

the processes it employs will enhance the members’ awareness of long-term risks and opportunities and

increase their sensitivity to the interests of future generations.

Fifth, the preparation of the periodic governmental reports on the future is overseen by senior ministers,

including the Prime Minister, and coordinated by the Prime Minister’s Office. It thus involves policy-

makers at the highest level in the Finnish political system. This helps ensure that government

departments and agencies, as well as influential external actors in the policy community, take the process

seriously. Accordingly, there is no problem in securing high-level participation in the related foresight

exercises, both formal and informal. Such buy-in and engagement would not be possible if the process

were to be conducted by a government agency and lacked significant ministerial involvement and

‘ownership’.

Sixth, the Finnish foresight model is relatively flexible, adaptive and the subject of regular scrutiny.

During the past decade, the government has twice evaluated key aspects of the model – most recently in

2014 – and on both occasions a variety of changes were instigated (see Prime Minister’s Office, 2014).

Critical scrutiny and periodic refreshment is likely to reduce the risk of ossification and help ensure that

the model remains both relevant and sustainable.

Against this, the Finnish foresight model is not without weaknesses and limitations. First, on the output

side, the most recent government report on the future – on the theme of Well-being Through Sustainable

Growth – is relatively bland, generalized and predictable. More surprisingly, it contains no analysis of

alternative scenarios, has no discussion of ‘black swan’ events or lesser surprises, and is devoid of

explicit long-term policy targets. While emphasizing the need to build a more resilient society, it says

relatively little in practical terms about how this might be achieved. Equally, while endorsing a range of

high-level, long-term political goals and identifying some of the difficult domestic and external

challenges facing Finland, it largely avoids discussion of alternative policy choices and their respective

costs and benefits. Nor does the report outline a clearly defined medium-term strategy for moving

towards the realization of the long-term goals.

Second, interviewees noted that although most of the key policy-makers are involved to one degree or

another in the periodic foresight processes, there remains a disjuncture between foresight-type

deliberations and day-to-day governmental policy making. The two processes are largely separate, not

helped by the fact that the Prime Minister’s Office has only a limited strategic-policy capability, having

allocated remarkably few resources to support futures thinking.

Could the Finnish model be replicated in other democracies? Currently, while most countries invest in

foresight activities of various kinds (see Dreyer and Stang, 2013; House of Commons Public

Administration Select Committee, 2007; House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2014),

no other long-established democracy has either a parliamentary committee on the future (or an equivalent)

or a constitutional requirement for regular government reports on the future. To be sure, governments in

various countries produce reports from time to time on major long-term challenges (for instance, see

Commission on the Future of Sweden, 2013), but these are usually one-off exercises rather than part of a

structured on-going process. Similarly, few countries have the same degree of regular, high-level

political engagement in futures thinking as is evident in Finland.

Replicating the Finnish model elsewhere poses a number of difficulties. First, there is the challenge of

generating, and then sustaining, the necessary political demand for a more comprehensive, regular and

better integrated system of foresight. Not all politicians see the value in strategic foresight, and there is

the constant pressure to attend to short-term demands. Realistically, therefore, regular, embedded

foresight processes will not be sustainable without new institutional arrangements, dedicated resources

and some means of binding successive governments to maintain their investment in futures thinking –

such as a legislative requirement for periodic reviews and government statements. But such mechanisms

do not arise automatically or spontaneously: they require substantial political effort to establish – as the

Finnish experience highlights (see Tiihonen, 2011).

Second, Finland is a small, relatively homogeneous, parliamentary democracy, with little over 5 million

inhabitants. Conducting a regular, open, national, foresight process in such a political system is

manageable. Doing so in larger democracies would be much harder. Yet size is not the only barrier.

Ideological and constitutional hurdles also arise. In the United States, for instance, the executive branch

could readily prepare a regular report on the future, mapping out the long-term challenges the nation

faces and how the federal government planned to tackle these challenges, but without buy-in from the

Congress or a future President such exercises might achieve rather little. President Jimmy Carter, for

instance, commissioned a report in May 1977 exploring the major issues facing the world over the

coming decades. The Global 2000 project was directed by Dr Gerald O. Barney and produced a

substantial and impressive document – The Global 2000 Report to the President – in July 1980. But the

report was largely ignored by the Reagan Administration, and no similar reports have been

commissioned by Presidents since then (Rejeski and Wobig, 2002, p.15).

Undertaking comprehensive, regular and meaningful foresight processes will be all the harder in

countries with deeply divided or polarized political communities. While such processes do not require

agreement on values or goals, generating useful results will be much harder if there are divergent views

about the nature of the policy problems that need to be faced or if major parts of the political community

dispute the existence of certain problems, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence to the contrary. In the

United States, for instance, the rejection by many leading Republicans of the findings of the scientific

community with respect to anthropogenic climate change poses formidable obstacles to the use of

foresight processes to guide and improve long-term governance.

But, as James Thurber (2013, p.332) highlights, it is not only climate change where ideological divisions

limit the capacity for prudent governance. The lack of a ‘vigorous bipartisan centre’ has also thwarted

progress on a range of ‘crucial issues’ like ‘job-creation programs, tax reform, the rising accumulation of

public debt, the looming Medicare and Medicaid shortfall, immigration reform, gun control, a failing

education system’. As Thurber (2013, pp.332-33) laments:

Our separated system of government that is polarized and ideologically deadlocked seems

incapable of effectively confronting these critical public policy challenges and may lack the

reserves of comity and trust to face any unknown and sudden – and perhaps even more

dangerous – crises.

Fortunately, few other Western democracies currently display the same degree of polarization and

gridlock.

How best to design a foresight system will depend on the particular constitutional, institutional and

cultural conditions of the country in question. With respect to the United States, for instance, Leon

Fuerth (2012) has produced a detailed and thoughtful blueprint of how a foresight system could be

constructed. Under his approach, there would be: a small foresight unit inside the White House; a

Presidential Advisory Council for Foresight; a virtual organization bringing together those involved in

foresight activities across the federal government; various mechanisms for linking foresight and policy-

making (including strategies for encouraging policy advisers to draw on foresight analysis); and

additional training opportunities in foresight methods and approaches. Under Fuerth’s model, the

development of much better organized and professional foresight system would be part of an integrated

series of steps to improve ‘anticipatory governance’. Other critical elements include a stronger emphasis

on networked governance and a greater investment in policy monitoring, evaluation and feedback

systems.

There is much to commend in Fuerth’s proposals, but two matters deserve further reflection. The first is

how to ensure on-going presidential interest in, and hence demand for, foresight analysis. Without such

interest, there will, as Fuerth (2012, p.25) acknowledges, be ‘little incentive with the bureaucracy to

produce foresight and integrate it with current analysis, and staff will revert to the routine of crisis

management’. This, in turn, raises questions about the policy approach, intellectual disposition and

leadership skills of those achieve the presidency (and other senior policy-making roles) and whether

there might be ways to enhance the value such individuals place on foresight activities. The assumption

here, of course, is that a disposition for forward thinking and long-term strategizing can be nurtured and

cultivated, for which cognitive science provides at least some evidence (Berns, et al., 2007). The second

issue concerns the role of Congress in the foresight process and whether, as in Finland, there might be

scope for establishing a committee, whether in the Senate, the House or perhaps a joint committee,

specifically devoted to long-term issues.

The Finnish model is, of course, but one of a number of ways of conducting regular strategic foresight

and embedding such activities within the political system. Nevertheless, it is a workable and, thus far,

durable model. Part of the durability lies in the legally binding requirement to produce periodic

government reports on the future and the permanent nature of the Parliamentary Committee on the

Future. Such features can be seen as ‘commitment devices’, and it is to this topic that I now turn.

Proposition 6: Improving long-term governance can be assisted by the use of commitment devices that

bind future decision-makers or at least generate political incentives for maintaining prudent policy

settings; how these commitment devices are designed is important

As noted earlier, governing well for the future requires some means of addressing the problems of

compliance and dynamic inconsistency. In other words, ways must be found to enhance the incentives on

policy-makers to pursue a consistent long-term strategy over time and ensure that they are not deflected

from a prudent path by short-term electoral pressures or other temptations. The literatures in the sub-

disciplinary fields of social psychology and behavioural economics suggest that one solution may lie in

the use of ‘commitment devices’ of various kinds, as these can serve as powerful drivers of human

behaviour. The aim of such devices is to bind decision-makers to particular courses of action, thereby

helping to mitigate any problems arising from inconsistent or fluctuating motives, a weak will or

countervailing external pressures. They are relevant to all spheres of life, both public and private, but are

particularly applicable to issues where the evolving pay-off structures may contribute to decisions

dominated by short-term expediency. Commitment devices work by limiting actors’ future discretion or

by reinforcing their desire to exercise self-restraint – whether by increasing the rewards for good

behaviour or by penalizing bad behaviour (or via both mechanisms).

A famous historical example where a commitment device was employed to overcome the problem of

dynamic inconsistency is that of Odysseus (also known as Ulysses), the legendary Greek king, and the

Sirens, dangerous yet beautiful creatures with the capacity to lure sailors near to the rocky shores of their

island. Desirous to hear the Sirens' enchanting songs but aware of the risk of being shipwrecked,

Odysseus commands his sailors to block their ears with beeswax and bind him to the mast of the ship.

Aware of the risk of acting irrationally in the future, he also orders his men not to heed his cries to

release him from the mast when the ship passes the Sirens. By means of this commitment device,

Odysseus attempts to limit his future agency and thus survive the perils of dynamic inconsistency.

Commitment devices vary greatly in their nature, design, durability and effectiveness (Binder, 2006;

Brocas, et. al., 2004; Bryan et al, 2010; Debrun and Kumar, 2008; Hagemann, 2011; Rutter and

Knighton, 2012; Sunstein, 2014). Distinctions can be made between hard and soft, formal and informal,

public and private, procedural and substantive, and so forth. In the political and policy arenas such

devices take many different forms and are widely used (although they are not always recognized as

‘commitment devices’).

At one end of the spectrum, they include constitutional provisions that are deliberately designed to limit

the actions of future decision-makers and are deliberately difficult to change or circumvent (see Holmes,

1988; Sunstein, 1988). At the other end of the spectrum are such things as election promises and verbal

commitments. The latter are reinforced by the risk of embarrassment, shame and the loss of credibility if

they are not upheld. Between these two extremes are a wide range of mechanisms, including the setting

of policy targets and goals, incorporating particular rules, procedures or requirements into legislation,

establishing institutions with long-term missions, negotiating bipartisan or multi-party agreements on

important long-term policy issues, and designing policies and programmes in ways that make them more

difficult politically to alter – for instance, by establishing endowments and trust funds, creating social

insurance arrangements based on individualized, earnings-related benefits, and so forth. If the aim of the

commitment device is to help encourage a consistent pattern of behaviour over time, then the device

needs to be workable, credible impose a genuine constraint (e.g. by being costly to change). Yet if the

device is to be durable, there must also be the flexibility for policy makers to respond to unexpected

contingencies. Designing devices that strike a sensible balance between these contrary imperatives

requires skill and dexterity. In the end, governments can only constrain their successors to a modest

degree. Whereas Odysseus could rely on others to limit his future agency, governments always retain the

power to unbind themselves.

Nevertheless, commitment devices have a long and impressive record in the political arena and, in my

view, constitute a critically important instrument for enhancing prudent long-term governance. Examples

include the setting of legislative principles for responsible fiscal management and sustainable resource

management, the establishment of ‘guardian-type’ organizations, and the use of targets to help drive the

achievement of desirable long-term goals.

In relation to targets, the Millennium Development Goals provide an excellent example at the

international level of how suitably designed, long-term targets can provide a focus for international

cooperation, mobilize action, alter governmental priorities and improve organizational accountabilities. It

will be interesting to see whether the Sustainable Development Goals which are currently under

negotiation achieve the same level of agreement and commitment. Likewise, at the national and sub-

national levels there are numerous examples of where targets have helped to reinforce and underpin a

particular forward-looking strategy and contributed to better long-term results (see Boston and Chapple,

2014). Of course, setting targets also runs risks. They may generate goal-displacement, encourage short-

cuts and contribute to misdirected efforts. If they are unduly ambitious, they may invite ridicule or cause

demoralization. If they are set for dates too far ahead (e.g. decades) or fail to include appropriate

milestones, they may lack relevance and political currency. Designing policy targets, and the framework

within which they operate, must therefore be undertaken with care. Important issues include: where the

responsibility for setting the targets should reside; on what basis they should be determined; whether

they should be legally binding; over what time period they should apply; who should be assigned

responsibility for achieving the desired outcomes and what flexibility they should have with respect to

the allocation of resources; the nature of the framework for monitoring and reporting performance; and

how often the targets should be reviewed.

As part of this research project I am exploring a number of commitment devices in different policy

domains, such as fiscal policy, climate change and child poverty, across various jurisdictions. The aim is

to identify which particular design features contribute most to better long-term governance in the

selected areas. I realize, of course, that such devices may not be readily transferable, either between

policy domains or across jurisdictional boundaries; but there are, I think, some useful lessons to be

gleaned from experiences over recent decades.

Proposition 7: Governing well for the future not only depends on desirable long-term goals, but also

adroit political strategies and tactics

Many interviewees emphasized that while it is helpful for governments to embrace specific long-term

goals and targets (and related milestones), it is equally important to develop coherent and politically

adroit strategies for achieving them. This latter requirement is all the more essential when significant

policy investments are required, and especially if such investments entail pain today for gain tomorrow

and if some of the pain is borne by powerful groups. As noted earlier, investment-type policies differ

greatly in their characteristics and contextual environments. The magnitude of the political challenge

facing policy-makers will vary depending on such factors. For instance, convincing the public to support

a policy investment designed to deliver long-term gains or minimize long-term losses will be easier

under the following conditions: there is little debate about the basic facts or relevant scientific evidence,

there are clear and unmistakable early warning signs, the consequences of alternative courses of action

are tangible or easy to specify and imagine, it is clear on whom the various costs and benefits will fall,

and at least some of the benefits of the investment are enjoyed in the near-term (see Jacobs, 2011,

pp.264-65). By contrast, making a credible case for a policy investment will be much harder when these

conditions do not prevail.

Climate change provides an excellent example. Some of the evidence remains contested – or at least the

seeds of doubt have been well-watered by climate skeptics and the fossil fuel industry. For many people,

the risks seem abstract, generalized, indirect and remote, rather than concrete, specific, local or near-term.

Some of the policy instruments to deal with the problem are complicated and difficult to understand. The

costs and benefits of the various policy options are often hard to calculate. And demonstrating that

sacrifices today will produce gains in the future – or at least fewer losses – is complicated by the global

collective action problem and the risk of free riding.

As noted earlier, few policy problems are as complex as climate change or pose such formidable

challenges for prudent long-term governance. Nevertheless, many other policy issues – such as

protecting global biodiversity, encouraging compact urban development and funding early intervention

programmes – have some of the same attributes. They thus raise the question of how to make a credible

case for a policy investment. What political strategies and tactics may be available? What lessons might

be drawn from the literatures on political persuasion, leadership, policy framing and consensus building

(see Mulgan, 2009a)? There is not the space to answer such questions in detail here. But several points

deserve mention.

First, it may be possible to create an informational environment that is more conducive politically to the

adoption of an investment approach (see Jacobs, 2011, esp. pp.263-66). Relevant strategies could include:

1. Enhancing the types or quality of warning signals of possible or likely future harms. In some

situations it may be feasible to generate additional warning signals, for example through more

extensive research, better data collection and more regular reporting of certain kinds of

information. It might be possible, for instance, to develop new early warning devices or mandate

an independent agency to monitor major trends, undertake regular analyses and forecasts, and

publish regular reports on important long-term policy issues, especially those where they may be

significant long-term risks. Many foresight and related activities of this nature are, of course,

already conducted in most democracies (e.g. the periodic reports of the Intergovernmental Panel

on Climate Change, regular reports on long-term fiscal projections, etc..), but their scope is

patchy. Additionally, where focusing events do occur, policy makers need to be adept at seizing

on these not merely to address the current difficulties but also to secure support for long-term

remedies.

2. Enhancing the clarity, specificity and transparency of the consequences of failing to respond to

looming problems. Again, in some situations it may be possible to enhance the range and quality

of information available to the public concerning future threats so that citizens have a better

understanding of what is at stake and how they may be directly or indirectly affected if prudent

steps are not taken to avert a potential crisis.

3. Enhancing the quality of the spatial, sectoral and inter-temporal distributional analyses of

proposed inventions. Often the distributional impacts of policy problems and the available

solutions are poorly analysed and even less well understood. Greater clarity and transparency

may, at least in some situations, help policy makers secure greater acceptance of an investment-

type approach. But it will be important to ensure that proper attention is given the future gains,

and how these might be distributed, and not just the short-term costs.

4. Establishing clearer baselines. There may be ways in some situations, perhaps through better

research and more extensive information, to establish relevant benchmarks against which various

options can be considered. Where an investment-type approach is designed primarily to prevent

future losses, it will be important to clarify exactly what form these losses will take and why they

matter. Vague statements about, say, preventing ‘long-term environmental damage’ will not

usually suffice.

5. Securing independent and authoritative support for the proposed policy investment. In the final

analysis, no investment-type approach to a policy problem is likely to be durable politically if the

claimed long-term societal benefits are difficult to justify. Where the evidence of the expected

gains is hard to establish – perhaps because of considerable uncertainties over the validity of the

assumptions underpinning the intervention logic on which the proposal is based – it will

obviously be hard to convince voters to accept short-term pain. Costly gambles are rarely

welcomed. Providing credible and authoritative evidence that the proposed intervention has a

high probability of delivering net long-term benefits may thus be a necessary condition for

securing the required support. One common strategy designed to help convince potentially

skeptical voters that an investment approach offers the best way to address a recognized policy

problem is to establish an independent committee or multiparty commission to review the

evidence and recommend a preferred option.

Second, it will often be possible to reframe the purpose of the proposed policy investment in order to

attract greater electoral support. Many policies have multiple goals and objectives. Often some of these

are more widely endorsed by voters than others. These differences in acceptability reflect the impact of

ideological, philosophical and ethical considerations on how voters conceptualize issues, define

problems, understand risks and conceive causal linkages. For instance, with respect to climate change,

the polling evidence suggests that how the problem is framed has a major bearing on the public response

(see Ansolabehere and Konisky, 2014). Framing the issue in terms of long-term economic and

environmental risks, and asking citizens to make near-term sacrifices in order to mitigate such risks is

not a vote-winning strategy. The risks are simply too remote and abstract. By contrast, framing the

problem as a current health issue, or in terms of greater energy security and cleaner energy, or as an

opportunity to create new, innovative industries with more sustainable and higher-paid jobs is likely to

cut more ice. Indeed, of these alternative framings, the quest for better health outcomes through reduced

air and water pollution is particularly salient, at least in the United States where the value of good health

resonates with voters across the ideological spectrum. It is something which matters to voters now, not

just in the distant future. It thus enables a narrative to be crafted which speaks to the short-term priorities

of citizens and the electoral timeframes of politicians. In this way, an issue with predominantly inter-

temporal dimensions – as is certainly true of climate change – can be given a sharper short-term political

focus.

Third, and related to this, in many situations investment-type interventions will generate near-term

benefits or co-benefits, not only long-term gains (or reduced losses). As part of a political strategy to win

support for such policies, these benefits need emphasis. Alternatively, it may be possible to compensate

those who are likely to suffer most in the short-term from the proposed policy. Obviously, such

compensation must not be so generous that it undermines the overall logic for the proposed policy.

Finally, there may be ways to build greater cross-party support or a wider societal consensus in favour of

a particular policy investment, perhaps through the use of collaborative governance approaches (see

Eppel, 2013). These involve bringing all the major stakeholders together in a series of discussions

designed to enhance understanding of the issues and options, identify disagreement and seek common

ground. Where such approaches succeed in securing broad agreement they provide the foundation for a

more durable policy framework and help reduce any associated short-term electoral costs.

Needless to say, some of these suggestions will be easier than others to implement. Moreover, there can

be no guarantee of success. Where a substantial section of the community doubts the claimed gravity of a

looming policy problem and/or is ideologically hostile a particular kind of policy investment, no amount

of empirical evidence, tactical compensation, careful reframing, skillful messaging, stakeholder

deliberation or a focus on the short-term dimensions of the problem may be sufficient to persuade the

large chorus of opponents to endorse the proposed intervention. In such circumstances, only a substantial

shift in cognitive understanding, attitudes and values will suffice. And this may not occur until

significant damage has already been inflicted or is unavoidable.

Proposition 8: Governing well for the future requires a particular cognitive disposition, ethical stance

and commitment of faith – nurturing such a frame of mind is critically important

To govern well for the future requires a particular kind of orientation, outlook and belief system. It

requires, for instance, a fundamental and genuine interest in the future – not only an awareness of the

potential risks and avoidable harms, but also a willingness to embrace new opportunities and possibilities.

Likewise, it rests upon a deep and abiding hope that humanity has a future, that this future will be

worthwhile, and that even the most challenging problems will not prove overwhelming nor the worst

disasters unmanageable. Such a hope, of course, must ultimately rest on a commitment of faith; it cannot

be founded solely on empirical realities.

Furthermore, to govern well for the future arguably entails important normative commitments. It implies,

for instance, a strong and pervasive concern not only for the needs of citizens of today but also for those

of the citizens of tomorrow; and it acknowledges certain kinds of inter-generational duties and principles

of inter-generational justice. Particularly relevant here are the notions of stewardship, guardianship,

trusteeship and fiduciary duties (see Thompson, 2005). From a Burkean standpoint, for instance, each

and every generation of humanity is part of an enduring partnership or intergenerational contract, a

partnership which both cherishes the inheritance of the past and seeks a safe and fruitful prospect for the

generations yet to come. The idea, then, is that of a close and continuing community which exists across

time and space and which is bound together by inextricable bonds. Alternatively, notions of stewardship

can be rooted in various theological traditions and doctrines. Under this approach, humanity is deemed to

have a moral obligation to care for a God-given created order and to show love and compassion to every

person, whatever their background, circumstance or need. Being a good neighbour knows no bounds: it

must extend both spatially and temporally. Failure to fulfill such obligations will ultimately be met with

divine justice.

Of course, not all theological traditions display the same emphasis on wise planetary stewardship. For

instance, there are those who believe that God will soon annihilate the cosmos with this planet playing no

part in any new divine order. Such an eschatological perspective provides few grounds for prudent

stewardship of the Earth’s resources. But this merely serves to underscore my point, namely that without

a particular kind of orientation, vision and ethics, both the inner desire and moral imperative to govern

well for the future will be much diminished.

For those interested in prudent long-term governance, therefore, a crucial question is how to cultivate

and foster the specific dispositions, virtues and values which underpin such a quest. In the past, certainly

in most developed democracies, these nurturing responsibilities were undertaken to a considerable extent

by faith communities – and in the West particularly by the Christian faith and the various educational

institutions to which it gave rise. With most democratic societies having become more secular, these

theological underpinnings have necessarily weakened. In their absence, the question arises as to whether

any alternative philosophical tradition will be sufficiently robust to provide a durable and inspiring

foundation. On this matter, the jury has yet to offer a conclusive verdict.

In the meantime, part of the challenge of governing well for the future must be to foster a political

culture which takes the interests of future generations seriously and values a healthy and sustainable

environment. This requires persistent advocacy and continuing efforts to change people’s hearts and

minds. As Jack Nagel (1988, pp.77-78) argues, we need to cultivate empathy for those who are yet to be

born, especially amongst those with power. The aim, he contends, must be to ‘wage a campaign of

persuasion’ designed to inculcate within present citizens a proper concern for future citizens and ensure

that the preferences of present actors are shaped by a long-term perspective. Such a duty, of course, falls

on each one of us. We must all play our part in this campaign of persuasion, just as we must all hold to

account those who are entrusted with the task of inter-temporal decision-making.

Concluding remarks

To sum up, governing well for the future is a fundamental responsibility of all those charged with

leadership, whether in the public or private spheres of life. Yet it is a daunting obligation. In the realm of

democratic politics, there are always loud and powerful voices speaking for short-term priorities, and

these have an ever-present tendency to crowd out, if not silence, the quieter voices who speak for the

future. There is thus an intrinsic, politically-salient, inter-temporal asymmetry. This public asymmetry is

mirrored privately within each person, with the tug of our present selves pulling hard and constantly

against the interests of our future selves. These inherent asymmetries carry serious risks. To quote the

Scottish philosopher, David Hume (quoted in Caney, 2009, p.163):

There is no quality in human nature, which causes more fatal errors in our conduct, than that

which leads us to prefer whatever is present to the distant and remote, and makes us desire

objects more according to their situation than their intrinsic value.

In an age where humanity has the means to inflict irreversible harm, if not destroy all life on the planet,

there is an even greater need to encourage far-sighted leadership and sound, anticipatory governance.

Yet, securing these desirable ends poses formidable challenges. As I have argued in this paper, the nature

of the long-term governance problem is such that there are few, if any, best practice solutions. We are

dealing, after all, not with a simple or even a complicated problem, but with a profoundly complex

problem. We cannot readily turn the ‘whispers’ of the future into a dominant, resounding chorus. But

there are, I believe, ways to make this voice more vivid and audible and increase the incentives on

decision-makers to heed its call. Necessarily, the available options must be tailored to suit the many

different political, institutional and cultural contexts across the democratic world; necessarily, too, they

must be constantly refined and refreshed. Our approach must be rigorous, experimental and adaptive, but

it must also be pursued with vigour and passion. The future depends on it!

Table 1: Mitigating the long-term governance problem: solution types with selected examples and

a summary of their underlying intervention logics

Type of solution

Selected examples

Summary of underlying

intervention logics for solution

types

Create new and/or stronger

international institutions

a. Establish a High Commissioner for Future

Generations within the UN

b. Create new supra-national bodies with

decision-rights to manage global public

goods and protect the global commons

c. Reform existing international institutions

d. Increase the protection for the rights of future

generations within international instruments

a. Enhance capacity for

international coordination

b. Constrain the behaviour of

nation states via stronger

incentives and sanctions

c. Improve international advocacy

on behalf of future generations

Strengthen constitutional (or

quasi-constitutional)

constraints

a. Amend existing constitutions to constrain the

decision-rights of legislators and policy-

makers by imposing, for instance, a duty on

governments to safeguard the interests

(welfare or rights) of future generations

and/or to protect a healthy, ecologically

balanced environment

a. Constrain the behaviour of

executives and legislatures via

the rule of law

b. Threat of judicial review –

anticipatory constraint

Change the level within a

polity at which formal

responsibility lies for certain

kinds of policy decisions

a. Decentralize responsibility for certain

decisions to sub-national governments

b. Centralize responsibility for certain decisions

a. Increase the incentives on

decision-makers to consider

future interests

Delegate decision-rights for

specific policy matters to

independent bodies

a. Strengthen the existing decision-rights of

independent bodies

b. Transfer additional decision-rights to

independent bodies

a. Reduce the influence of short-

term political (electoral)

pressures on decision-making

b. Technocrats assumed to be

more future focused

Reform electoral rules and

voting rights

a. Reduce the voting age (e.g. to 16 or lower)

b. Place greater weight on the votes of younger

generations

c. Remove the voting rights of older voters

d. Introduce compulsory voting

e. Establish separate legislative representation

for future generations (e.g. via proxies, etc.)

f. Reform the rules governing political (or

campaign) finance to reduce the power of

vested interests and wealthy donors

g. Ensure that electoral boundaries are

determined by independent (i.e. non-partisan)

bodies

h. Where primary contests occur as part of the

election process, ensure that all voters can

participate (not only those registered with a

particular party)

a. Reduce the influence of short-

term electoral pressures (for

periods immediately following

elections)

b. Increase the incentives on

decision-makers to consider

future interests

c. Enhance the representation of

dispersed and future interests

Reform legislative

institutions

a. Extend the tenure of legislators

b. Change the voting rules in legislatures on

matters which have major long-term

implications

c. Create a committee dedicated to long-term

issues

d. Create (or reform) an Upper House – give it a

a. Reduce the influence of short-

term electoral pressures (for

periods immediately following

elections)

b. Increase the incentives on

decision-makers to consider

future interests

specific constitutional mandate to consider

long-term issues

c. Enhance representation of

dispersed and future interests

d. Enhance the analysis of long-

term issues and risks

Enhance strategic foresight

and planning processes

a. Improve the identification and assessment of

long-term risks, including the development

of better early warning devices

b. Improve analysis of long-term economic,

social and environmental trends

c. Improve the assessment of the impact of new

technologies

d. Undertake regular and comprehensive

horizon scanning, scenario analysis,

forecasting, etc.

e. Improve strategic management systems and

processes

a. Enhance the information base,

analysis of long-term risks and

anticipatory capacity of policy

makers

Institute new procedural

rules and requirements for

decision-making

a. Enact (or strengthen) legal requirements for

some/all decision-making bodies to consider

the interests of future generations (or long-

term outcomes) as part of their normal

decision-making processes

b. Enact (or strengthen) legal requirements for

the conduct of regular, transparent future-

related reviews and other exercises, such as

regular:

o foresight processes

o government reports (or a manifesto) on

the future

o reports on long-term fiscal projections

o reports on long-term environmental

conditions

o posterity impact statements, etc.

a. Reduce the risk of long-term

considerations being overlooked

b. Improve the information base

(transparency) and quality of

policy analysis

c. Enhance public debate and

understanding of long-term

issues

d. Enhance the constraints on

decision-makers via

justificatory requirements

Institute new substantive

policy rules (and other kinds

of ‘commitment’ devices) to

constrain decision-makers

a. Enact (or strengthen) legally-binding

requirements for decision-makers to set long-

term targets to achieve desirable policy goals

(e.g. to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions,

child poverty, recidivism, etc.)

b. Enact (or strengthen) legally-binding

substantive policy rules (or principles) which

must be adhered to by decision-makers, such

o principles of fiscal responsibility

o principles of environmental sustainability

o policy rules relating to natural capital

stocks (e.g. stocks of non-renewable

natural capital can only be depleted if

replaced by ‘equivalent’ stocks of

renewable natural capital)

a. Enhance the information base

(transparency)

b. Require the signalling intent

(politically binding)

c. Enhance the prioritization of

resources and political effort

d. Constrain decision-makers via

rule of law

e. Strengthen political

accountability for long-term

outcomes

Establish (or strengthen)

institutions with mandates to

protect the interests of future

generations or exercise long-

term guardianship roles

a. Establish a Minister for the Future (or Future

Generations)

b. Establish (or strengthen) Commissions

(Councils, Academies, etc.) for the Future

c. Establish (or strengthen) an Ombudsman for

Future Generations

d. Establish (or strengthen) a Sustainable

Development Commission

e. Mandate the civil service to undertake long-

a. Constrain decision-makers via

rule of law

b. Enhance the analysis of long-

term issues

c. Enhance advocacy (voice) on

behalf of future interests

d. Enhance the government’s

capacity to exercise stewardship

term stewardship responsibilities

f. Establish (or strengthen) organizations such

as National Trusts, National Park Services,

etc.

g. Establish (or strengthen) intergenerational

trust funds, future funds and related

endowments

Establish or strengthen

institutions with specific

long-term analytical and

advisory responsibilities –

legislative, executive, civil

society, etc.

a. Establish (or strengthen) long-term think

tanks (both inside and outside the

government)

b. Establish (or strengthen) strategy units in

central agencies and other government

bodies

c. Establish (or strengthen) independent bodies

to undertaken long-term fiscal forecasting

and advise on long-term fiscal issues

a. Enhance the information base

(transparency)

b. Enhance long-term risk

identification

c. Enhance the analysis of long-

term policy issues and options

d. Enhance the quality of political

debate

Develop new conceptual

approaches, analytical

frameworks, methodologies,

metrics and accounting

conventions designed to

assist with decision-making

under uncertainty and ensure

that long-term considerations

are considered at all stages of

the policy process

a. Develop new approaches to discounting for

analysing policy issues with long-term costs

and/or benefits

b. Develop further and apply the concepts of

national wealth accounting, natural capital

accounting, and the valuing of ecosystem

services

c. Institute better monitoring of changes in the

stocks of natural, human and social capital,

and incorporate such data into relevant

national reporting frameworks

d. Develop further and apply more holistic

analytical frameworks for policy analysis,

such as the Australian Treasury’s Wellbeing

Framework and the New Zealand Treasury’s

Living Standards Framework, and new

policy approaches for handling deep

uncertainty (e.g. ‘robust decision-making’

models)

e. Develop new policy rules for maintaining

and improving all capital stocks (rather than

simply maximizing flows, etc.)

f. Develop, and extend the application of,

outcome-based performance measurement

and budgeting

g. Reform public sector financial management

regimes, with multi-year and cross-agency

budgeting, the use of forward liability

models, etc.

h. Develop new metrics for assessing long-term

organizational and policy performance (e.g. a

long-term impact index)

i. Enhance reliance on evidence-based policy

making; harness the findings and

opportunities of big data and policy

evaluations/pilots

a. Change mental models (hearts

and minds)

b. Change the framing of policy

problems

c. Increase the incentives on

decision-makers to consider

future interests

d. Enhance the information base

(transparency)

e. Change what counts politically

f. Enhance accountability for

long-term outcomes

Enhance long-term

governmental, organizational

and societal resilience

a. Maintain organization slack or redundancy to

cope with unexpected shocks or ‘rude’

surprises

b. Improve future-proofing of all forms of

infrastructure

a. Improve preparedness for

economic, environmental,

seismic, meteorological and

other shocks

b. Improve the capacity to recover

from shocks

Create a more conducive

enabling environment for

prudent long-term decision-

making

a. Enhance governmental transparency and

openness

b. Increase investment in (strategic) research

and development

c. Enhance long-term planning and strategizing

by civil society organizations and business

d. Encourage the formation of more

encompassing interest groups (e.g. a more

corporatist approach)

e. Support the creation and funding of groups to

represent dispersed interests, especially inter-

temporal interests

f. Encourage more farsighted political leaders

via better civic education, exposure to

foresight methods, analysis of ethical values

and virtues (e.g. prudence), etc.

g. Apply the insights of behavioural economics

(e.g. choice architecture)

h. Change aspects of the human condition (e.g.

using genetic engineering for ‘moral

enhancement’)

i. Seek to change the inter-temporal

preferences of citizens and foster greater

empathy with the needs and interests of

future generations (e.g. via deliberation days

to focus on the future)

j. Change regulatory frameworks to encourage

decision-makers in the private sector (both

commercial and non-commercial) to give

more emphasis to the long-term

k. Establish institutional mechanisms designed

to enhance understanding of, and seek greater

political consensus on solutions to, long-term

policy issues (e.g. deliberative or

collaborative governance arrangements)

l. Undertake initiatives designed to enhance

societal trust and solidarity (e.g. by reducing

income and wealth inequality, and other

forms of social inequality, and encouraging

social mobility)

a. Enhance the evidence base for

decision-making

b. Enhance the identification of

future risks and opportunities

c. Enhance the quality of policy

debate

d. Enhance the quality of civil

society programmes and actions

e. Increase the incentives for

policy-makers to consider future

interests

f. Enhance the effectiveness of

policy interventions

Table 2: The intervention logics underpinning four proposals to enhance policy farsightedness

Proposal

Intervention logic

Core assumptions

Risks and

problems

Empirical evidence

Insert specific

wording in

constitutions to

protect the interests,

needs and/or rights

of future generations

(or to protect a

healthy

environment)

Decision-makers in

democracies can be

constrained by the rule

of law (legal authority)

to give greater

protection to future

generations

• The constitution is

able to be changed

• The new provisions

are appropriate and

justiciable

• Relevant cases come

before the courts

• The courts give

weight to the

relevant provisions

and are willing to

override the

legislature

• The courts are

authoritative and

their rulings are

adhered to

• Some democracies

lack an entrenched

written constitution

• One or more of the

assumptions is not

valid

• The revised

constitution results

in less protection

for future

generations than

expected and is

difficult to change

• Few relevant

cases have been

brought before the

courts in countries

with specific

constitutional

protection for

future generations

(or the

environment

• Little impact on

policy or overall

outcomes

Establish institutions

(legislative,

executive, etc.) with

specific long-term

analytical and

advisory

responsibilities (e.g.

a Parliamentary

Committee for the

Future, a Sustainable

Development

Commission)

Institutions of this kind

can encourage policy

farsightedness by

changing the structure

of political

incentives – via better

information, risk

identification, analysis

of long-term issues and

options, contributing to

enhanced political

debate, public

understanding and

accountability

• The institution is

adequately

resourced

• Analyses are

rigorous, with clear

policy implications

• Reports attract

political and public

attention, and prove

persuasive

• Governments

change policy

settings in response

• One or more of the

assumptions is not

valid

• The institution is

not durable

• Many institutions

of this kind have

been created

• Many have not

survived

• Few appear to have

had a significant or

on-going influence

on policy

Require regular fiscal

(or environmental)

sustainability reports

by an independent

agency (e.g. the

Office for Budget

Responsibility) – and

require a timely

government response

Regular reports of this

kind can encourage

policy farsightedness

by changing the

structure of political

incentives – via better

information, risk

identification, analysis

of long-term issues and

options, and

mandatory government

responses contributing

to enhanced political

debate, public

understanding and

accountability

• The institution is

adequately

resourced

• Analyses are

rigorous, with clear

policy implications

• Reports attract

political and public

attention, and prove

persuasive

• Governments

change policy

settings in response

• One or more of the

assumptions is not

valid

• The credibility of

the institution is

undermined

• Regular reporting

is discontinued

• Many countries

have instituted

regular reporting of

this kind, especially

on fiscal

sustainability

matters

• There is as yet little

evidence of such

reports having had

a major impact on

policy

Institute substantive

policy rules for

maintaining

aggregate stocks of

natural capital (e.g. at

the national level)

Such rules serve as

commitment devices,

and can constrain

decision-makers and

change the political

incentives they face –

• The policy rules are

clear and

enforceable

• There are adequate

mechanisms for

enforcement

• Reaching

agreement on

meaningful and

enforceable rules,

especially for non-

renewable natural

• Such rules have yet

to be implemented

• Global application

would be necessary

for goals to be fully

realized

via new and better

information, specific

goals/targets, etc.

contributing to

changes in public

attitudes/values, and

enhanced

accountability for

performance

• There are few, if

any, override

provisions

• The relevant

information is

available (or can be

generated) to

ensure effective

implementation and

compliance

• Sub-national

decisions do not

undermine national-

level policy goals

• Climate change and

other external

shocks (e.g.

invasive species) do

not undermine

policy goals

capital, may be

difficult

• One or more of the

assumptions is not

valid

• Maintaining

aggregate stocks

may be insufficient

where significant

ecological damage

or degradation has

occurred

References

Agranoff, R. (ed.) (1999) Accommodating Diversity: Asymmetry in Federal States Baden-Baden, Nomos.

Ansolabehere, S. and D. Konisky (2014) Cheap and Clean: How Americans Think about Energy in the Age of

Global Warming Boston, MIT Press.

Ascher, W. (2009) Bringing in the Future: Strategies for Farsightedness and Sustainability in Developing

Countries Chicago, Chicago University Press.

Beckman, L. (2008) ‘Do global climate change and the interest of future generations have implications for

democracy?’, Environmental Politics, 17, 4, pp. 610–624.

Bernauer, T. and V. Koubi (2009) ‘Effects of political institutions on air quality’, Ecological Economics, 68, 5, pp.

1355–1365.

Berns, G., D. Laibson and G. Loewenstein (2007) ‘Intertemporal choice--toward an integrative framework’, Trends

in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 11, pp.482-488.

Bertram, G. and S. Terry (2010) The Carbon Challenge: New Zealand’s Emission Trading Scheme Wellington,

Bridget Williams Books.

Binder, S. (2006) ‘Can Congress Legislate for the Future?’, John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress, New

York University, Research Brief No. 3.

Birkland, T. (2006) Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change After Catastrophic Events Washington D.C., Georgetown

University Press.

Black, J. (2014) ‘Learning from Regulatory Disasters’, Policy Quarterly, 10, 3, pp.3-11.

Boettke, P. (2006) ‘Institutional transition and the problem of credible commitment’

Bosselmann, K. (2008) The principle of sustainability: transforming law and governance Aldershot, Ashgate.

Boston, J. (2010) ‘Holding humanity to account for the future state of the planet’, Stimulus: The New Zealand

Journal of Christian Thought and Practice, 18, 1, pp. 19–31.

Boston, J. (2013) ‘The challenge of securing durable reductions in child poverty in New Zealand’, Policy Quarterly,

9, 2, pp.3-11.

Boston, J. and A. Mladenovic (2010) ‘Political equality and the regulation of election spending by parallel

campaigners’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 45, 4, pp. 623–642.

Boston, J. and F. Lempp (2011) ‘Climate Change: Explaining and Solving the Mismatch Between Scientific

Urgency and Political Inertia’, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 24, 8, pp. 1000–21.

Boston, J. and R. Prebble (2013) ‘The Role and Importance of Long-Term Fiscal Planning’, Policy Quarterly, 9, 4,

pp.3-8.

Boston, J. and S. Chapple (2014) Child Poverty in New Zealand Wellington, Bridget Williams Books.

Boston, J., J. Wanna, V. Lipski and J. Pritchard (eds) (2014) Future-Proofing the State: Managing Risks,

Responding to Crises and Building Resilience Canberra, ANU Press.

Bourgon, J. (2009) ‘New Governance and Public Administration: Towards a Dynamic Synthesis’, Canberra, 24

February.

Bourgon, J. (2011) A New Synthesis of Public Administration: Serving in the 21

Century (Montreal, McGill-

Queens University Press).

Boyd, J. (2007) ‘Nonmarket benefits of nature: What should be counted in green GDP?’, Ecological Economics, 61,

4, pp. 716–723.

Boyd, J. and S. Banzhaf (2007) ‘What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting

units’, Ecological Economics, 63, 2, pp. 616–626.

Brand, C. and B. Boardman (2008) ‘Taming of the few—The unequal distribution of greenhouse gas emissions

from personal travel in the UK’, Energy Policy, 36, 1, pp. 224-238.

Brocas, I., J. Carrillo and M. Dewatripont (2004) ‘Commitment Devices Under Self-Control Problems: An

Overview’.

Broome, J. (2008) ‘The Ethics of Climate Change’, The Scientific American (online), June 2008.

Bryan, G. et al., (2010) ‘Commitment Devices’, Annual Review of Economics, 2, pp.671-698.

Buffet, W. (1977) see http://warrenbuffettoninvestment.com/how-inflation-swindles-the-equity-investor/

Bührs, T. (2009) Environmental Integration: Our Common Challenge New York, Suny Press.

Cabinet Office (2014) ‘Review of Cross-Government Horizon Scanning’, London.

Cameron, A. (ed.) (2011) Climate Change Law and Policy in New Zealand Wellington, LexisNexis.

Caney, S. (2008) ‘Human rights, climate change, and discounting’, Environmental Politics, 17, 4, pp. 536–555.

Caney, S. (2009) ‘Climate Change and the Future: Discounting for Time, Wealth, and Risk’, Journal of Social

Philosophy, 40, 2, pp.163-186.

Caney, S. (2015) ‘Climate Change, Intergenerational Equity and the Social Discount Rate’, Politics, Philosophy

and Economics, (forthcoming).

Carroll, J. (2003) ‘The Future of Public Action – Towards the Domestic Security State’ in D. Rejeski (ed.) (2003)

Government Foresight: Myth, Dream or Reality? Washington, D.C., Woodrow Wilson International Centre

for Scholars.

Chapman, R., J. Boston and M. Schwass (eds) 2006, Confronting Climate Change: Critical Issues for New Zealand

Wellington, Victoria University Press.

Clegg, N. (2010) ‘Governing for the long term’, The Voice, 10 September.

Collander D. and R. Kupers, (2014) Complexity and the Art of Public Policy: Solving Society’s Problems from the

Bottom Up Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Commission on the Future of Sweden (2013) Future Challenges for Sweden, Final Report Stockholm, Prime

Minister’s Office.

Committee on the Fiscal Future of the United States (2010) Choosing the Nation’s Fiscal Future Washington, D.C.,

The National Academies Press. National Research Council and National Academy of Public Administration

Committee for the Future (2012) ‘The Committee for the Future’s Vision, Strategy and Operational Plan for 2011-

15’, Helsinki, Eduskunta (Parliament of Finland), 17 April.

Committee for the Future (2014) Chinese – Finnish Green Growth Cooperation Helsinki, Eduskunta, No.7.

Congleton, R.D. (1992) ‘Political institutions and pollution control’, Review of Economics and Statistics, 74, 3, pp.

412–421.

Conti, G. and Heckman, J. (2012) ‘The economics of child well-being’, NBER Working Paper Series, Working

Paper 18466.

Cooper, M., J. Boston and J. Bright (2013) ‘Policy challenges for livestock emissions abatement: Lessons from

New Zealand’, Climate Policy, 13, 1, pp. 110–33.

Cornforth, A. (2009) ‘Behaviour change: insights for environmental policy making from social psychology and

behavioural economics’, Policy Quarterly, 5, 4, pp. 21–28.

Coston, J. (1998) ‘Administrative avenues to democratic governance: the balance of supply and demand’, Public

Administration and Development, 18, pp.479-493.

Council of Australian Governments (2011) National Strategy for Disaster Resilience Canberra, February.

Cullen, M. (2013) ‘The Political Economy of Long-Term Fiscal Planning from a Social Democratic Perspective’,

Policy Quarterly, 9, 4, pp.15-20.

Cunha, F. and J. Heckman (2007) ‘The technology of skill formation’, American Economic Review’, 97, 20, pp.31-

47.

Daniels, R., D. Kettl and H. Kunreuther (eds) (2006) On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina

Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press.

Day, N. (2013) ‘The Politics of Posterity: Expertise and Long-Range Decision-Making’, Networks, Publics and

Policy, Oxford Martin School.

Debrun, X. and M. Kumar (2007) ‘Fiscal Rules, Fiscal Councils and All That: Commitment Devices, Signaling

Tools or Smokescreens’, Proceedings of the Banca d’Italia Public Finance Workshop, Banca d’Italia, Rome.

Demeny, P. (1986) Population and the invisible hand New York, Population Council.

Department of Industry (2014) Energy White Paper: Green Paper 2014 to Inform Preparation of a White Paper

Canberra, Australian Government.

Deschouwer, K. (2005) ‘Pinball Wizards: Political Parties and Democratic Representation in the Changing

Institutional Architecture of European Politics’, in A. Römmele, D. Farrell and P. Ignazi (eds) Political parties

and political systems: the concept of linkage revisited Wesport, Conn., Praeger.

Dewar, J. (2006) ‘Improving Legislation on Long-Range Issues’, John Brademas Center for the Study of Congress,

New York University, Research Brief No. 3.

Diamond, J. (2005) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive London, Penguin.

Dionne, E. (2012) Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent New

York, Bloomsbury.

Dobson, A. (1996) ‘Representative democracy and the environment’, in W. Lafferty and J. Meadowcraft (eds),

Democracy and the environment Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Dreyer, I. and G. Stang (2013) ‘Foresight in governments – practices and trends around the world’, Yearbook of

European Security.

Dror, Y. (2003) ‘Gearing Government for Weaving the Future’, in D. Rejeski (ed.) (2003) Government Foresight:

Myth, Dream or Reality? Washington, D.C., Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.

Duncan, G. and K. Magnuson (2013) ‘The importance of poverty: early in childhood’, Policy Quarterly, 9, 2,

pp.12-17.

Duncan, G., K. Ziol-Guest and A. Kalil (2010) ‘Early childhood poverty and adult attainment, behaviour and

health’, Child Development, 81, 1, pp.306-25.

Early Action Taskforce (2014) Towards Effective Prevention: Practical Steps for the Next Government London,

Community Links.

Eaton, J.G. (2002) ‘The beauty of asymmetry: An examination of the context and practice of asymmetric and

unconventional warfare from a Western/Centrist perspective’, Defence Studies, 2, 1, pp. 51–82.

Ekeli, K.S. (2005) ‘Giving a voice to posterity – deliberative democracy and representation of future people’,

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 5, pp. 429–450.

Ekeli, K.S. (2009) ‘Constitutional Experiments: Representing Future Generations Through Submajority Rules’,

Journal of Political Philosophy, 17, 4, pp.440-461.

Elster, J. and R. Slagstad (eds) (1988) Constitutionalism and Democracy Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Eppel, E. (2013) Collaborative Governance Case studies: the Land and Water Forum, working paper 13/05,

Wellington, Institute for Governance and Policy Studies,

http://igps.victoria.ac.nz/publications/publications/show/300

Esty, D.C., M. Levy, T. Srebotnjak, T. and A. de Sherbinin (2005) 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index:

Benchmarking National Environmental Stewardship New Haven, Yale Center for Environmental Law and

Policy.

European Commission (2009) The World in 2025: Contributions from an Expert Group Luxembourg Office for

Official Publications of the European Communities.

Expert Advisory Group (2012) Solutions to child poverty in New Zealand: evidence for action Wellington, Office

of the Children’s Commissioner, December.

Farzin, Y. and C. Bond (2006) ‘Democracy and environmental quality’, Journal of Development Economics, 81, 1,

pp. 213–235.

Frederiksson, P., E. Neumayer, R. Damania and S. Gates (2005) ‘Environmentalism, democracy, and pollution

control’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 49, 2, pp. 343–365.

Fuerth, L. with E. Faber (2012) Anticipatory Governance: Practical Upgrades – Equipping the Executive Branch to

Cope with Increasing Speed and Complexity of Major Challenges Washington, D.C., Elliott School of

International Affairs, The George Washington University.

Fuerth, L. with E. Faber (2013) ‘Anticipatory Governance: Winning the Future’, The Futurist, July-August, pp. 42-

49.

Fukuyama, F. (ed.) Blindside: How to Anticipate Forcing Events and Wild Cards in Global Politics Washington,

D.C., The Brookings Institution Press.

GAO (2005) 21

Century Challenges Washington, D.C., GAO-05-325SP.

GAO (2008) A Call for Stewardship: Enhancing the Government’s Ability to Address Key Fiscal and Other 21

Century Challenges Washington, D.C., GAO-08-93SP.

GAO (2013) High Risk Series – An Update, Report to Congressional Committees Washington, D.C., GAO-13-283.

Gardiner, S.M. (2009), “Saved by Disaster? Abrupt Climate Change, Political Inertia, and the Possibility of an

Intergenerational Arms Race”, Journal of Social Philosophy, Vol. 40 No. 2, pp. 140–162.

Garnaut, R. (2008) The Garnaut Climate Change Review Melbourne, Cambridge University Press.

Garri, I. (2010) ‘Political Short-termism: A Possible Explanation’, Public Choice, 145, pp.197-211.

Geelen, J. and M. Harvey (2013) The Future of History Ottawa, Government of Canada, Policy Horizons Canada.

Gill, D. et al. (2011) ‘The Future State Project: Meeting the Challenges of the Twenty-first Century’ in B. Ryan and

D. Gill (eds) Future State: Directions for Public Management Reform in New Zealand Wellington, Victoria

University Press.

Gleisner, B., M. Llewellyn-Fowler and McAlister (2011) ‘Broadening our understanding of living standards:

Treasury’s new policy framework,’ Policy Quarterly, 7, 3, pp. 13-19.

Gonzalez-Ricoy, I. and A. Gosseries (eds) (forthcoming) Institutions for Future Generations.

Goodin, R. (2007) ‘Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 35, 1,

pp.40-68.

Gore, A. (1992) Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit New York, Houghton Mifflin.

Greif, A., P. Milgrom and B. Weingast (1988) ‘Coordination, Commitment, and Enforcement: The Case of the

Merchant Guild’, in J. Knight and I. Sened (eds) Explaining Social Institutions Ann Arbor, University of

Michigan Press.

Haas, P., R. Keohane and M. Levy (1993) Institutions for the earth: sources of effective international

environmental protection Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.

Hagemann, R. (2011) ‘How Can Fiscal Councils Strengthen Fiscal Performance’, OECD Journal: Economic

Studies, 2011, 1, pp.75-98.

Hamilton, K. and J. Hartwick (2014) ‘Wealth and Sustainability’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30, 1, 170-

187.

Handmer, J. and S. Dovers (2007) Handbook of Disaster and Emergency Policies and Institutions London,

Earthscan.

Hansen, J. (2009) Storms of My Grandchildren London, Bloomsbury.

Hansen, J. and M. Sato (2011) ‘Paleoclimate Implications for Human-Made Climate Change’, in A. Berger, F.

Mesinger and D. Šijački (eds) Climate Change at the Eve of the Second Decade of the Century: Inferences

from Paleoclimate and Regional Aspects: Proceedings of Milutin Milankovitch 130

Anniversary Symposium

Berlin, Springer.

Hawke, G. (ed.) (1997) Guardians for the Environment Wellington, Institute of Policy Studies.

Hayward, T. (2005) Constitutional environmental rights Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Heckman, J. (2007) ‘The economics, technology and neuroscience of human capital formation’, Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences, August.

Heller, P. (2003a) Who Will Pay? Coping with Aging Societies, Climate Change and Other Long-Term Fiscal

Challenges Washington, D.C. IMF.

Heller, P. (2003b) ‘Who Will Pay?’ Finance and Development, September.

Heller, P. (2006) ‘Policy Options for Addressing Long-Term Fiscal Challenges’, in I. Kaul and P. Coneiçao (eds)

The New Public Finance: Responding to Global Challenges New York, Oxford University Press.

Helm, D. and C. Hepburn (eds.) The Economics and Politics of Climate Change Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Helm, D. (2014) ‘Taking natural capital seriously’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30, 1, 109-125.

HM Government (2005) Securing the Future: The UK Government Sustainable Development Strategy London,

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Holmes, S. (1988) ‘Precommitment and the Paradox of Democracy’, in J. Elster and R. Slagstad (eds) (1988)

Constitutionalism and Democracy Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee (2007) Governing the Future, Second Report of

Session 2006-07, London, 22 February.

House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2014) Government Horizon Scanning, Ninth Report of

Session 2013-14, London, 4 May.

Howarth, R. (2007) ‘Towards an operational sustainability criterion’, Ecological Economics, 63, 4, pp. 656–663.

Howell, L. (ed.) (2013) Global Risks 2013, Eighth Edition Geneva, World Economic Forum.

Hume, D. (1985) A Treatise of Human Nature London, Penguin.

Hughes, P. and J. Smart (2012) “You Say You Want a Revolution’ … The Next Stage of Public Sector Reform in

New Zealand’, Policy Quarterly, 8, 1, pp.3-8.

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report Cambridge,

Cambridge University Press.

IPCC (2013) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of

Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

IPCC (2014a) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change.

IPCC (2014b) Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution

of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

International Energy Agency (2013) World Energy Outlook: Energy Subsidies Paris, IEA.

Jackson, T. (2009) Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet London, Earthscan.

Jacbos, A. (2008) ‘The Politics of When: Redistribution, Investment and Policy Making for the Long Term’, British

Journal of Political Science, 38, 2, pp. 193–220.

Jacobs, A. (2009) Governing for the Long-Term Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Jacobs, A. and J. Matthews (2012) ‘Why Do Citizens Discount the Future? Public Opinion and the Timing of

Policy Consequences’, British Journal of Political Science, 42, pp.903-935.

James, C. (2013) ‘Making Big Decisions for the Future’, Policy Quarterly, 9, 4, pp.21-28.

Kadtke, J. and Linton Wells II (2014) ‘Policy Challenges of Accelerating Technological Change: Security Policy

and Strategic Implications of Parallel Scientific Revolutions’, Washington D.C., Center for Technology and

National Security Policy and National Defense University.

Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking, Fast and Slow London, Macmillan.

Kaul, I., I. Grunberg and M. Stern (eds) (1999), Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21

Century New York, Oxford University Press.

Kay, J. (2012) The Kay Review of UK Equity Markets and Long-Term Decision Making, Final Report, London, July.

King, A. and I. Crewe (2014) The Blunders of Our Governments London, Oneworld.

Kiss, A. (1995) ‘The Rights and Interests of Future Generations and the Precautionary Principle’, in D. Freestone,

and E. Hey (eds) The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The Challenge of Implementation,

Kluwer, The Hague.

Knight, J. and I. Sened (eds) Explaining Social Institutions Ann Arbor, Michigan University Press.

Kuosa, T. (2011) Practicing Strategic Foresight in Government: The Cases of Finland, Singapore and the

European Union Singapore, RSIS Monograph, No 19.

Ladd, H. (2012) ‘Education and poverty: confronting the evidence’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,

31, 2, pp.203-227.

Lazarus, R. (2009) ‘Super Wicked Problems and Climate Change: Restraining the Present to Liberate the Future’,

Cornell Law Review, 94, 5, pp.1153–1234.

La Porte, T. (2007) ‘Anticipating Rude Surprises: Reflections on “Crisis Management” Without End’, in D.

Gibbons (ed.), Communicable Crises: Prevention, Management and Resolution in the Global Arena Charlotte,

N.C., Information Age Pub.

Lee, B. et al. (2012) Resources Futures: A Chatham House Report London, Chatham House.

Lempert, R. (2007a) ‘Creating Constituencies for Long-Term, Radical Change’, John Brademas Center for the

Study of Congress, New York University, Research Brief No. 2.

Lempert, R. (2007b) ‘Can Scenarios Help Policymakers to be Both Bold and Careful?’ in F. Fukuyama (ed.)

Blindside: How to Anticipate Forcing Events and Wild Cards in Global Politics Washington, D.C., The

Brookings Institution Press.

Lempert, R., S. Popper and S. Bankes (2003) Shaping the Next One Hundred Years: New Methods for Quantitative,

Long-Term Policy Analysis Santa Monica, RAND MR-1626-RPC.

Lempert, R. and S. Popper (2005) ‘High-Performance Government in an Uncertain World,’ in R. Klitgaard and P.

Light (eds) High Performance Government: Structure, Leadership, and Incentives Santa Monica, The RAND

Corporation.

Lempert, R. et al (eds) (2009) Shaping Tomorrow Today: Near-Term Steps Towards Long-Term Goals Santa

Monica, The RAND Corporation.

Leyden, D.P. (2005) Adequacy, accountability, and the future of public education funding New York, Springer.

Lohmann, S. (1998) ‘An Information Rationale for the Power of Special Interests’, The American Political Science

Review, 92, 4, pp. 809–827.

Low, N. and Gleeson, B. (1998) Justice, society, and nature: an exploration of political ecology London, Routledge.

McLeod, T. (2013) Governance and Decision-Making for Future Generations Background Paper for Oxford

Martin Commission on Future Generations, Oxford.

Macey, A. (2014) ‘Climate Change: Towards Policy Coherence’, Policy Quarterly, 10, 2, pp. 49-56.

Marsh, J. (1988) ‘Preferences, Power and Democracy’, in I. Shapiro and G. Reeher (eds) Power, Inequality and

Democratic Politics: Essays in Honor of Robert A. Dahl Boulder, Westview Press.

Melillo, J., T. Richmond, and G. Yohe (eds) (2014) Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The Third

National Climate Assessment U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington D.C., U.S. Government

Printing Office.

Mihn, C. (2013) ‘Performance Auditing: The Experiences of the United States Government Accountability Office’,

Statement of J. Christopher Mihm, Managing Director, Strategic Issues, Testimony Before the Committee on

Budget Control, European Parliament, GAO-13-868T.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis Washington, D.C., Island

Press.

Mulgan, G. (2009a) The Art of Public Strategy: Mobilizing Power and Knowledge for the Common Good Oxford,

Oxford University Press.

Mulgan, G. (2009b) ‘Europe 2025: Discovering the future through action as well as analysis’, in European

Commission, The World in 2025: Contributions from an Expert Group Luxembourg, Office for Official

Publications of the European Communities.

Mumford, P. (2011) Enhancing Performance-Based Regulation: Lessons from New Zealand’s building control

system Wellington, Institute of Policy Studies.

Nagel, J. (1988) ‘The Marriage of Normative Values and Empirical Concepts: Mutual Integrity or Reciprocal

Distortion’, in I. Shapiro and G. Reeher (eds) Power, Inequality and Democratic Politics: Essays in Honor of

Robert A. Dahl Boulder, Westview Press.

NAPA (2014) Anticipating the Future: Developing a Vision and Strategic Plan for the Social Security

Administration for 2025-2030 A Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration For the

Social Security Administration Washington, D.C. July.

National Audit Office (2013) Early Action: Landscape Review London, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor

General, HC 683 Session 2012-13.

Natural Capital Committee (2013) The State of Natural Capital: Towards a framework for measurement and

valuation London, First Report from the Natural Capital Committee.

Natural Capital Committee (2014) The State of Natural Capital: Restoring our Natural Assets London, Second

Report from the Natural Capital Committee.

Nordhaus, W. (1997) ‘Discounting in Economics and Climate Change: An Editorial Comment’, Climate Change,

37, 2, pp. 315–328.

Nordhaus, W. (2013) The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and Economics for a Warming Planet New Haven,

Yale University Press.

North, D. (1988) ‘Five Propositions about Institutional Change’, in J. Knight and I. Sened (eds) Explaining Social

Institutions Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.

Obama, B. (2014) ‘Remarks by the Present at U.N. Climate Change Summit’, United Nations Headquarters, New

York, 23 September.

O’Donnell, G. et al., (2014) Wellbeing and Policy London, Legatum Institute

OECD (2009) Doing Better for Children Paris, OECD.

OECD (2011a) Doing Better for Families Paris, OECD.

OECD (2011b) Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising Paris, OECD.

Oxford Martin Commission (2013) Now for the Long Term Oxford, Report of the Oxford Martin Commission for

Future Generations.

Partridge, E. (2003) ‘Future generations’, in D. Jamieson (ed.) A Companion to Environmental Philosophy Oxford,

Blackwell.

Pellegrini, L. and R. Gerlagh (2006) ‘Corruption, Democracy, and Environmental Policy’, The Journal of

Environment and Development, 15, 3, pp.332–354.

Pierson, P. (2004) Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Polk, A. and A. Schmutzler (2005) ‘Lobbying against environmental regulation versus lobbying for loopholes’,

European Journal of Political Economy, 21, 4, pp. 915–931.

Porritt, J. (2009) ‘The Standing of Sustainable Development in Government’. Cheltenham.

Posner, P. (2011) ‘Will it Take a Crisis’, Paper prepared for the Federal Budget Reform Initiative, The Pew

Charitable Trusts.

Prime Minister’s Office (2009) Government Foresight Report on Long-term Climate and Energy Policy: Towards a

Low-carbon Finland Helsinki, Prime Minister’s Office.

Prime Minister’s Office (2013) Government Report on the Future: Well-being Through Sustainable Growth,

Helsinki, Prime Minister’s Office.

Prime Minister’s Office (2014) Cooperative and Continuous Foresight: A Proposal for a National Foresight

Approach Helsinki, Prime Minister’s Office.

Princen, T. (2009) ‘Long-Term Decision-Making: Biological and Psychological Evidence’, Global Environmental

Politics, 9, 3, pp.9-19.

Raffensberger, C., T. Giannini and B. Docherty (2008) ‘Models for Protecting the Environment for Future

Generations’, Science and Environmental Health Network and The International Human Rights Clinic at

Harvard Law School (online).

Rashbrooke, M. (ed.) (2013) Inequality: A New Zealand Crisis Wellington, Bridget Williams Books.

Redburn, F. S. (2014) ‘Practical Imagination: A Possible Future for Federal Budgeting’, Washington, D.C.

Rejeski, D. and Wobig, C. (2002) ‘Long-term goals for governments’, Foresight, 2, 6, pp.14-22.

Rejeski, D. (ed.) (2003) Government Foresight: Myth, Dream or Reality? Washington, D.C., Woodrow Wilson

International Centre for Scholars.

Report of the Secretary General (2013) ‘Intergenerational solidarity and the needs of future generations’, United

Nations, General Assembly.

Reynolds, P. (2011) ‘Biophysical limits and their policy implications: The nature of the problem’, Policy Quarterly,

7 (3), 3-7.

Richardson, K. et al. (2009) Synthesis Report from – Climate Change: Global Risks, Challenges & Decisions

Copenhagen, University of Copenhagen.

Rittel, H. and M. Webber (1973) ‘Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning’, Policy Sciences, 4, pp.155–69

Rockström, J., et al. (2009a) ‘Planetary boundaries: exploring the safe operating space for humanity’, Ecology and

Society, 14 (2), 32ff.

Rockström, J., et al., (2009b) ‘A safe operating space for humanity’, Nature, 461, 24 September, pp.472-5.

Ronan, K. and Johnston, D. (2005) Promoting Community Resilience in Disasters: The Role for Schools, Youth and

Families New York, Springer.

Room, G. (2011) Complexity, Institutions and Public Policy, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar

Rutter, J. and Knighton, W. (2012) Legislated Policy Targets: Commitment Device, Political Gesture or

Constitutional Outrage? London, Institute for Government.

Ryan, B. and D. Gill (eds) (2011) Future State: Directions for Public Management in New Zealand Wellington,

Victoria University Press.

Sadar, Z. (2010) ‘The namesake: futures, futures studies; futurology; futuristic; foresight – What’s in a name?’

Futures, 42, 3, pp.177-184.

Scholten, M., D. Read and A. Sanborn (2014) ‘Weighing Outcomes by Time or Against Time? Evaluation Rules in

Intertemporal Choice’, Cognitive Science, 38, 3, pp.399-438.

Shoham, S. and Lamay, N. (2006) ‘Commission for future generations in the Knesset: lessons learnt’, in J.

Tremmel (Eed.) Handbook of Intergenerational Justice Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.

Siche, J.R., F. Agostinho, E. Ortega and A. Romeiro (2008) ‘Sustainability of nations by indices: Comparative

study between environmental sustainability index, ecological footprint and the emergy performance indices’,

Ecological Economics, 66, 4, pp. 628–637.

Smil, V. (2006) Global Catastrophes and Trends – The Next Fifty Years Boston, MIT Press.

Smith, G. (2001) ‘Taking Deliberation Seriously: Institutional Design and Green Politics’, Environmental Politics,

10, 3, pp.72-93.

Snowden, D. and M. Boone (2007) ‘A Leader’s Framework for Decision-Making’, Harvard Business Review,

November, pp.69-76.

Stern, N. (2006) The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Stiglitz, J., A. Sen and J. Fitoussi (2009) Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance

and Social Progress Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris.

Stiglitz, J. (2012) The Price of Inequality London, Allen Lane.

Stortinget (Norwegian Parliament) (1814; as amended 2007) ‘Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway’, available at:

http://www.stortinget.no/en/In-English/Ab out-the-Storting/The-Constitution/The-Constitution.

Sukhdev, P. et al. (2008) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: An Interim Report European

Communities.

Sunstein, C. (1988) ‘Constitutions and democracies: an epilogue’, in J. Elster and R. Slagstad (eds) (1988)

Constitutionalism and Democracy Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Sunstein, C. (2014) Why Nudge: The Politics of Libertarian Paternalism New Haven, Yale University Press.

Sutton, P. and R. Costanza (2002) ‘Global estimates of market and nonmarket values derived from nighttime

satellite imagery, landcover, and ecosystem service valuation’, Ecological Economics, 41, 3, pp. 509–527.

Taleb, N. (2007) The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable London, Penguin.

Thaler, R and C. Sunstein (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness New Haven,

Yale University Press.

Tiihonen, P. (2011) Revamping the Work of the Committee for the Future, Helsinki, Eduskunta (Parliament of

Finland), Committee for the Future.

Thompson, D. (2005) ‘Democracy in time: popular sovereignty and temporal representation’, Constellations, 12, 2,

pp. 245–261.

Thompson, D. (2010) ‘Representing Future Generations: Political Presentism and Democratic Trusteeship’, Critical

Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 13, 1, pp.17-37.

Thurber, J. (ed.) (2013) Rivals for Power: Presidential-Congressional Relations 5

ed. Lanham, Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers.

Thurber, J. (2013) ‘Assessing Presidential-Congressional Relations: The Need for Reform?’ In J. Thurber (ed.)

Rivals for Power: Presidential-Congressional Relations 5

ed. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Tonn, B. and Hogan, M. (2006) ‘The House of Lords: guardians of future generations’, Futures, 38, pp.115–119.

Treasury (2011) ‘Working Towards Higher Living Standards for New Zealanders’, Wellington, New Zealand

Treasury Paper 11/02, May.

Treasury (2012) ‘Improving the Living Standards of New Zealanders: Moving from a Framework to

Implementation’, Conference Paper, Wellington.

Twyford, P. (2009) ‘Give kids the vote, or at least give it to their parents’, New Zealand Labour Party, available at:

http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009 /07/05/give-kids-the-vote-or-at-least-give-it-to-their-parents/

(accessed 30 August 2009).

United Nations (2013) ‘High Level Representative for Future Generations’, The General Assembly, Draft, 23 July.

Upton, S. (2012) ‘Long Term Fiscal Risks – New Zealand’s case in the context of OECD countries’, Paper

prepared for a conference on Affording the Future, Wellington.

Upton, S. (2013) ‘Fiscal and Other Risks over the Long Term’, Policy Quarterly, 9, 4, pp.9-14.

Van Parijs, P. (1998) ‘The Disenfranchisement of the Elderly, and Other Attempts to Secure Intergenerational

Justice’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 27, 4, pp.292-333.

Vestergaard, J. and R. Wade (2012) ‘Establishing a New Global Economic Council: Governance Reform at the G20,

the IMF and the World Bank’, Global Policy, 3, 3, pp.256-269.

Walker, W., R. Lempert and J. Kwakkel (2012) ‘Deep Uncertainty’, Santa Monica, RAND Corporation.

Ward, H. (2011) ‘Beyond the Short Term: Legal and Institutional Space for Future Generations in Global

Governance’, Yearbook of International Environmental Law, 22, 1, pp.3-36.

Wattenberg, M.P. (2008) Is voting for young people? New York, Pearson Education.

Watts, R.L. (1999) Comparing Federal Systems, 2nd ed., Montreal, McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Weaver, R. K. and N. Rockman, B. (1993) Do Institutions Matter: Government Capabilities in the United States

and Abroad Washington D.C., Brookings Institution.

Welsh Government (2014) Future Generations Bill – Administrative Impact Appraisal Cardiff, May.

Welsh Government (2014) Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Bill Cardiff.

Whitby, A. et al., (2014) The BRAINPOol Project: Summary, Recommendations and Next Steps London, Bringing

Alternative Indicators Into Policy Project.

White, B. (2003) ‘Will Policymakers Use Long-Range Forecasts?’ in D. Rejeski (ed.) (2003) Government

Foresight: Myth, Dream or Reality? Washington, D.C., Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.

Wolf, C. (1987) ‘Market and Non-market Failures: Comparison and Assessment’, Journal of Public Policy, 7, 1, pp.

43–70.

Wood, P. (2004) ‘Intergenerational justice and curtailments on the discretionary powers of governments’,

Environmental Ethics, 26, 4, pp. 411–428.

World Future Council (2012) The High Commissioner for Future Generations: The Future We Want Washington,

D.C., The Centre for International Environmental Law.

World Future Council (2014) Global Policy Action Plan: Incentives for a Sustainable Future Hamburg.