Maintitle

Copyrights

José Manuel Salazar-Xirinachs

Executive Secretary

Raúl García-Buchaca

Deputy Executive Secretary

for Management and Programme Analysis

Cielo Morales

Chief, Latin American and Caribbean Institute

for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES)

Sally Shaw

Chief, Documents and Publications Division

This document was prepared under the supervision and coordination of Cielo Morales, Chief of the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES) of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). Elena Díez Pinto and Carlos Sandoval, staff members of ILPES, participated in the drafting of the document, with contributions by Luis Riffo, María del Pilar Délano and Valeria Torres, also of ILPES. The following consultants also participated in the preparation of the document: Paola Aceituno, Silvina Papagno and Javier Vitale.

The United Nations and the countries it represents assume no responsibility for the content of links to external sites in this publication.

United Nations publication

LC/CRP.19/3

Distribution: G

Copyright © United Nations, 2023

All rights reserved

Printed at United Nations, Santiago

S.23-00688

This publication should be cited as: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Foresight for Development: Contributions to Forward-looking Territorial Governance (LC/CRP.19/3), Santiago, 2023.

Applications for authorization to reproduce this work in whole or in part should be sent to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Documents and Publications Division, publicaciones.cepal@un.org. Member States and their governmental institutions may reproduce this work without prior authorization, but are requested to mention the source and to inform ECLAC of such reproduction.

Contents

Maintitle

Copyrights

Introduction

Chapter I

The theoretical framework of foresight and contributions to the definition of foresight for development

Chapter II

Planning systems in Latin America and the Caribbean: advancements in foresight systems

Chapter III

The social construction of futures: the linkages between foresight, participation, deliberation and citizen ownership

Chapter IV

Methodological pathways to deploy foresight for development in public institutions: a proposal

Chapter V

Conclusions

Introduction

Latin America and the Caribbean is in the throes of a period of low economic growth, high-inflation processes, increasing extreme poverty and rising food and fuel prices, the result of unresolved structural gaps and the effects of the pandemic and the armed conflict between the Russian Federation and Ukraine.

These conditions have set the stage for cascading crises that undermine the achievement of the targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The report Halfway to 2030 in Latin America and the Caribbean: progress and recommendations for acceleration[1] shows that 27% of the targets are moving backwards and will not be met by 2030, and only 25% of them appear to be on course to be met by 2030.

To counter this, the first step is to strengthen countries’ planning processes with a view to identifying ambitious public policies that would make it easier to focus public and private investment on strategic sectors that drive sustainable growth, knowledge, innovation, quality employment and gender equality and lower the carbon footprint.[2]

Secondly, States must engage in anticipatory governance, which involves anticipating social paradigms and possible changes in the environment, and exploring the future on a systematic and ongoing basis in order to adapt to it and shape it with the help of better, more sophisticated measures.[3]

Foresight for development facilitates anticipatory governance not only because it involves reflection on probable futures and the opportunity to shape and model them, but also because these probable futures are collectively constructed and owned by citizens.[4]

Applying foresight for development requires technical capacities in addition to convening power, negotiation skills and strategic planning, and also requires States to engage in joint leadership to anticipate change, strategically guide joint action in dialogue with stakeholders and coordinate public policies at all levels of government and the territory.

In the most recent position document presented to planning authorities for consideration at the eighteenth meeting of the Regional Council for Planning of the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES), held virtually in October 2021, entitled Resilient institutions for a transformative post-pandemic recovery in Latin America and the Caribbean: inputs for discussion,[5] ILPES suggests that, in view of the multiple health, economic, social and political crises that must be addressed by the countries of the region, and the internal and external crises related to economic shocks, climate change, mass migration and other factors they may face tomorrow, States must strengthen their institutional capacities to become more resilient and adopt instruments that allow them to anticipate, prepare for, and respond and adapt to increasingly complex new realities.

The document includes recommendations to strengthen the following institutional capacities: foresight; planning, to mainstream territory, gender and participation; openness and negotiation; and public leadership to make public management a more collective endeavour.

The present document was prepared as a follow-up to that proposal. It explores the need to institutionalize foresight capacities in the public apparatus in order to foster anticipatory governance, recognizing the efforts countries have made and the different stages of foresight capacities they have attained, and proposes flexible methodological pathways to respond to varying institutional realities, territorial scales and development objectives and the social context in which they are implemented.

This document is based on three premises. The first is that the use of foresight tools in the development of future scenarios and in planning processes is flexible. The second is that foresight for development, like planning, is a technical and political exercise that requires technical rigour, commitment and a solid relationship between stakeholders, as well as between stakeholders and public institutions, in the face of the multiple future scenarios proposed. The third is that the application of foresight, owing to its nature, provides the State with tools for governance and governability at all territorial levels.

This document, based on observation and experience in technical cooperation services developed with the countries of the region, invites readers to reflect on the following questions:

•How can the concept of foresight be applied to the building of future scenarios for territorial development?

•What conditions are needed to institutionalize and maintain foresight capacities in government apparatuses?

•How can citizens be encouraged to participate in, take ownership of and monitor future scenarios?

•What are the tools and methodologies available to apply foresight in the territories? What capacities must be developed?

This document includes four chapters and concluding remarks, along with annexes that outline specific cases of countries and territories in the region that relate to the contents of the text.

Chapter I focuses on the theoretical framework of foresight and lays the ground for the discussion on the concept of foresight for development and its characteristics. This theoretical framework is considered necessary, bearing in mind that foresight is not understood or practiced in the same way in all countries, and related exercises have different objectives or are implemented using different methodologies. This chapter addresses themes related to futures studies and the theoretical framework of foresight, trends in futures studies in the region, foresight for development and its importance for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, developing anticipatory governance and the characteristics of foresight for development.

Chapter II examines the development of a forward-looking culture in public institutions, as well as countries’ long-term planning and how they have incorporated this into national planning systems. The chapter also addresses the challenge of intertemporality of government and State policies, along with the building of possible future scenarios for all territorial scales, systematizing and characterizing cases that are representative of the region and that combine the development policies currently being implemented. Lastly, it focuses on the institutionalization of foresight and related challenges, and the combination of foresight and innovation in government.

Chapter III examines the necessary participation, deliberation and ownership of future scenarios that broaden the knowledge base to validate the results of foresight exercises. It also refers to the leadership changes required to steer these processes amid distrust and considerable polarization at the national and subnational levels, as currently seen in the region. The key issues addressed include trust as a driver of cohesion among actors; citizen participation and deliberation; and new forms of citizenship and public leadership to guide these processes in the territory.

Chapter IV discusses the flexibility of applying foresight for development in each stage of the public management cycle and proposes seven methodological pathways to incorporate this concept into public institutions, according to the type of institution that applies it and the territorial scale.

This document is intended to encourage reflection on foresight for development and planning, based on the different types of foresight exercises conducted in the region along with their characteristics and approaches, as well as the enabling conditions for and obstacles to their institutionalization in the State apparatus.

It is also expected to contribute to the discussion on the importance of citizen deliberation in the ownership of future scenarios, and the challenge of building trust as a unifier of actors.

Lastly, it serves as a starting point for identifying methodological pathways as flexible courses of action in exercises incorporating a collective vision of the future and for formulating policies and programmes that offer new development opportunities, as well as for expanding the institutionalization of foresight in the public apparatus and anticipating responses to possible social and natural disasters, among other issues.

1. [1] Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Halfway to 2030 in Latin America and the Caribbean: progress and recommendations for acceleration, 2023 (LC/FDS.6/3/Rev.1), Santiago, 2023.

2. [2] To strengthen the big push for sustainability, the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) recommends investment in a set of strategic sectors that can boost competitiveness and employment, lower the environmental footprint and reduce socioeconomic and gender inequalities: renewable energies, sustainable transport, the circular economy, the health industry, the care economy, sustainable tourism, digital transformation and the bioeconomy.

3. [3] ECLAC, Resilient institutions for a transformative post-pandemic recovery in Latin America and the Caribbean: inputs for discussion (LC/CRP.18/3), Santiago, 2021.

4. [4] Ibid.

5. [5] Ibid.

Chapter I

The theoretical framework of foresight and contributions to the definition of foresight for  development

A. The theoretical framework of futures studies and foresight

B. Foresight for development and its contribution to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda

C. Foresight for development: contributions to the development of the concept

Bibliography

Annex I.A1

A. The theoretical framework of futures studies and foresight

Concern about the future has been a constant throughout human history. Whether expressed through imagination or art or giving rise to some methodological resource, the interest in knowing and reflecting on the future characterizes human beings and is linked to their need to transcend and give meaning to their existence (Barbieri, 1992).

In seeking to satisfy this need, human beings have devised different ways to envisage the future, and foresight is one of them. Foresight analysis is a discipline that sets out to anticipate and construct the future in order to reduce uncertainties and enhance the ability of institutions and society to plan, prepare for and respond to future events.

In increasingly challenging circumstances where the region and the world face multiple mutually reinforcing crises in the economic, health, social, environmental and political spheres, where local events can have global consequences, and where citizens are demanding solutions to mitigate the uncertainties that threaten their survival, working out alternative future scenarios to construct anticipatory knowledge can contribute to territorial governance.

1. Futures studies and the specificity of foresight

Futures studies emerged in the mid-twentieth century as a discipline based on the systematic interrogation of coming events (Hodara, 1984). Prior to these studies, thinking about the future was based on magical, mythical or religious practices, but the use of data and new technologies stimulated long-term studies of alternative futures with the aim of selecting the best one and constructing it strategically. In this new concept, the future was no longer simply “fate” or an inevitability, but rather was understood as “human action” that could be designed and constructed to serve human interests (Máttar and Cuervo, 2016).

Future studies is a discipline that focuses on a systematic and structured exploration of the ways in which the future might take shape (Conway, 2015). It is an effort to understand, explore, map and create, but not to predict (Slaughter, 1998). Its results are linked to strategic planning and decision-making (Aceituno, 2017).

As part of this discipline, instruments such as scenario planning, forecasting and foresight have been developed (Godet and Durance, 2011). The results obtained with these instruments are considered to be scenarios (Silva Oliveira and others, 2018), which are constructed by identifying strategic variables and the configurations these will take in the long term (Aceituno, 2017).

Scenario planning was originally applied in military security fields and was associated with research by the RAND Corporation.[1] In the 1960s, it was used mainly by business and was carried out by researchers such as Herman Kahn, Theodore Gordon and Olaf Helmer, who contributed two methods of thinking: intuitive, creative thinking for the construction of alternative scenarios, and a probabilistic method of thinking involving modelling of the future.

Forecasting is a probabilistic statement about the future, representing reasoned judgements about a particular outcome that is believed to be the best suited to serve as a programme of action (Medina, 1996). Thus, it presents events that are likely to occur and that can be approximated by hypotheses about the future (Medina, Becerra and Castaño, 2014). These studies give rise to trend analyses, which take variables in the present and project their behaviour into the future.

Lastly, foresight analysis is an instrument that emerged as the result of a collective movement among authors such as Gaston Berger (1964) and Bertrand de Jouvenel, who laid down the philosophical and epistemological foundations of this “intellectual indiscipline”, a term coined by Pierre Massé (1973), with contributions from Jacques Lesourne and institutions such as the Interministerial Delegation for Land Planning and Regional Attractiveness (DATAR) in France and Futuribles International.

Berger considered foresight to be a reflection on the future that could be envisaged, designed and actively constructed by the use of creativity and imagination (Medina, 1996). It was Michel Godet who succeeded in operationalizing foresight and giving it a greater international reach and impact by creating a set of methodologies that were usable while being flexible and consistent with their philosophical and theoretical underpinnings.

According to Godet, the three components that explain foresight are anticipation, appropriation and action. These components are interrelated and shape thinking about the construction of the future, as well as being present in the implementation of actions to achieve it. Anticipation involves conceiving of the future by producing images, while appropriation is a process of dialogue whereby the future is debated with social actors, and action is an effort to model the future by implementing a plan or programme that translates images of it into concrete facts.

Godet also proposes a classification of foresight scenarios into possible, probable, desirable and preferable scenarios, which may be exploratory, trend-based or normative in nature (Aceituno, 2017). Although this division often fails to capture all future possibilities, it is important to consider the different combinations, as all these scenarios could arise in a long-term time frame.

Medina, meanwhile, defines foresight as a multidisciplinary field of knowledge for considering, debating, and modelling the future that uses a variety of methods and techniques to analyse and monitor changes in the present. It therefore involves a structured and systematic reflection on alternative futures for a country, territory, sector or institution via organized interaction between social actors, specialists, networks and communities based on evidence- and data-driven dialogue. It is a collective effort by multiple actors to build a shared vision of the future which may be appropriated by society as a whole, a sector or a particular institution.

2. The evolution and current status of futures studies in Latin America and the Caribbean

Son (2015) argues that futures studies in the West have gone through three phases since their inception. The first was between 1945 and the 1960s, when futures studies first became professionalized and began to utilize rationalization and scientific research, with technological foresight and the emergence of alternative futures predominating. In this phase, futures studies abandoned traditional approaches such as utopias, science fiction and religions.

The second phase, from 1970 to 1980, saw a progression towards a global approach and industrialization of the future. This stage was marked by the discourse about global futures, the development of normative futures and the interest of the business community in introducing them into its processes.

The third phase, beginning in the 1990s and still ongoing, reflects a number of aspects: the era of the free market, the fragmentation of futures, the risk society, and the rise of critical futures studies. This phase has tended to focus on support for strategic planning, while futures studies oriented towards the global community have been restricted.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, two important events marked the beginning of foresight studies. The first was the establishment in Mexico in 1975 of the Javier Barros Sierra Foundation,[2] the first Latin American institution dedicated to foresight. Since its creation, the Foundation has generated and disseminated foresight research and studies in areas such as education, science and technology, industry, energy, health and food, the environment and water, communications and transport, urban planning and population, and politics and economics.

The second major event was the publication of the report ¿Catástrofe o nueva sociedad?: modelo mundial latinoamericano (Herrera, 1977), prepared by scientists at the Bariloche Foundation in Argentina. This document was a response to the report The Limits to Growth (Meadows and others, 1972) presented by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)[3] and the Club of Rome,[4] which contained a forecast of global collapse due to stress on natural resources, population growth and a number of other projections.

Between 1980 and 1990, foresight and futures studies in most Latin American and Caribbean countries were marked by the neoliberal trend that predominated among the region’s governments. These prioritized their actions on the basis of the precepts of effectiveness, efficiency and reduction in the size of the State, with an emphasis on the short term. Only sectors such as energy and public services, which have always required longer time horizons, continued with long-term thinking (Medina, Becerra and Castaño, 2014).

Thus, formal, systematic futures studies have evolved in the way they approach and explain the future. Different methods and perspectives now coexist and have spread around the world to form a discipline that epistemologically posits the existence of a variety of futures (as postulated by the Berger and Jouvenel school) and the possibility of influencing them through human action.

In the early twenty-first century, in step with the new global agendas adopted within the framework of the United Nations, planning in the region was strengthened and there was recognition of the need to generate new styles of development which would be more sustainable and enable the region to move towards less unequal societies, and in which the State would play a leading role. Accordingly, the region’s governments opted to conduct prospective studies and construct long-term visions and national development strategies.

In the last two decades, the work of the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES) of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) has reflected a renewed interest in revisiting foresight among the region’s countries, in relation both to specific topics not hitherto studied in depth in the region and to economic foresight (Cuervo, 2012) or, more generally, to exercises in constructing long-term visions for development by examining emblematic cases of such visions, including those of Brazil, Colombia, the Dominican Republic and Peru (Rodríguez and Cuervo, 2014), later expanded with the inclusion of references to Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador and Guatemala. The main links between foresight and public policy have also been identified (Medina, Becerra and Castaño, 2014).

In the area of capacity-building, the training activities (courses, workshops and seminars within a technical assistance framework) conducted by ILPES in classroom and virtual formats have been part of the effort to position foresight in the regional public agenda as a major tool for the countries’ development. This has resulted in the training of more than 1,400 civil servants and members of academia and civil society in conceptual, instrumental and territorial aspects of foresight.

B. Foresight for development and its contribution to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda

1. The convergence between foresight and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

The link between foresight and sustainable development may be traced back to the 1970s. As Destatte (2010) argues, foresight was already present in the international efforts of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972, in the report The Limits to Growth commissioned from MIT by the Club of Rome and published in 1972, and in the 1979 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) publication Facing the Future.

The same author states that those interested in the future have treated the concept of sustainable development as an end in itself, and one that is achievable in the long term. Stoffaës (2001) even argues that, in a constantly changing world, the ultimate purpose of foresight is sustainable development.

Looking at the characteristics of the discipline of foresight, it is possible to discern its influence on and convergence with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The comprehensive, systemic approach of the pillars of the 2030 Agenda, the interdependence of its goals and targets, the multi-stakeholder nature of the actions to be carried out to achieve the goals and the long-term time frame all fit foresight’s vision of scenarios for desirable or preferable futures. Foresight converges with the 2030 Agenda in its systemic dimension, incorporating external and internal variables; in its participatory nature, including as many actors as possible; and in its anticipatory nature, which allows for both flexible strategic management and better preparedness and response to adverse effects and emerging opportunities (see box I.1).

Box I.1

The contributions of foresight to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

According to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP, 2017), foresight can contribute to the achievement of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in at least four areas:

(i)Alignment of visions of development with the 2030 Agenda. In this area, foresight could provide tools to construct a vision of development that is realistic and also aspirational about preferences for the future.

(ii)Anticipatory governance and strategic management. The institutionalization of foresight systems provides governments with elements that allow them to anticipate emerging variables and assess their implications and impacts on the Agenda 2030 goals and targets. This exercise facilitates better decision-making and the possibility of regaining a sense of direction about the future to be achieved.

(iii)Flexible planning exercises. The ability to monitor and review future scenarios from the perspective of the present moment helps States to rise above volatile, uncertain and increasingly challenging contexts. The exercises provide tools to make this uncertainty and unpredictability manageable.

(iv)Innovation in public services. Foresight naturally goes together with public innovation, as it makes it possible not only to construct alternative futures that are designed and built in innovative ways but also to carry out concrete actions to achieve them, encouraging citizen participation and stakeholder cooperation and leading to the emergence of new ways of making public policy.

Source: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), “Manual de análisis prospectivo para el desarrollo sostenible”, Panama City, 2017.

2. The role of foresight in accelerating implementation of the 2030 Agenda in the Decade of Action[5]

There is a general consensus about global and regional change as it affects the conditions for achieving the 2030 Agenda and its goals. The world in which the 2030 Agenda was negotiated and born is not the same as today’s world.

Nevertheless, the commitment of States to the spirit and goals of the 2030 Agenda remains, and to date 32 of the 33 countries in the region have submitted their voluntary national reviews[6] to the United Nations high-level political forum on sustainable development.

Similarly, territories have embarked on a path towards the generation of voluntary local reviews as a route for triggering multi-stakeholder, multi-level dialogue and building a long-term vision of territorial development.

The persistent challenges faced by States in implementing the 2030 Agenda are reflected in the inadequate results achieved to date. The report Halfway to 2030 in Latin America and the Caribbean: progress and recommendations for acceleration (ECLAC, 2023) shows that in 27% of cases the trend of the indicators is away from the targets and there is no prospect of the latter being achieved by 2030, 48% are on track but measures are needed to accelerate implementation, and only 25% of the targets for which information is available have been or are on their way to being achieved.

The call by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the whole international community and all development actors to take action to get back on track with the 2030 Agenda requires a search for new forms of public policymaking. What is needed are planned, prioritized and comprehensive public policies (intersectoral, multi-level, multitemporal and multi-stakeholder) that are reflected in State budgets and public investment plans. Collaborative inter-institutional implementation and new forms of strategic management, involving society as a whole, must also be put in place.

In the report mentioned, ECLAC presented a proposal for transformative initiatives to accelerate implementation of the 2030 Agenda, setting out seven lines of action that can create synergies to boost progress towards several targets and would be developed on the basis of long-term foresight scenarios, in a context of multi-stakeholder interactions. The report argues that foresight needs to be institutionalized in the structure of the State for these initiatives to produce the desired results. It also mentions that foresight is useful for envisaging the future in today’s unstable, polarized, uncertain and confrontational contexts, as it provides a multi-stakeholder space for discussing the development model and strategic decision-making.

It also notes that the institutionalization of foresight would facilitate the generation of State policies and anticipatory governance to strengthen the responsiveness of institutions and enable them to become more resilient to external shocks, which will grow increasingly frequent as a result of the manifold economic, political and social crises brought about by climate change and other disruptive phenomena.

3. Towards anticipatory governance

The concept of anticipatory governance, meaning the capacity of States to cope with the present and prepare for the future, has penetrated a wide range of knowledge domains, ranging from public administration to sociology, science and technology (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020). One of the most widely used definitions is offered by Fuerth and Faber (2012), who argue that anticipatory governance is an approach to coping with accelerating, complex forms of change that have an impact on societies.

It is thus a “system of systems” comprising a disciplined linkage between foresight and public policy, including the way these are integrated with respect to vision, mission, budgets and feedback systems (such as monitoring and evaluation) in order to coordinate the functioning of public institutions.

Anticipatory governance implies the ability to register and track events that are just barely visible at the event horizon, self-organize to deal with the unexpected and the discontinuous and adjust rapidly to the interactions between policies and problems (Fuerth and Faber, 2012, p. 7).

The OECD Strategic Foresight Unit offers its own definition of anticipatory governance, which it understands as systematic embedding and application of strategic foresight throughout the entire governance architecture, including policy analysis, engagement and decision-making (OECD, 2019). It also argues that this type of governance can be constructed, as long as governments have high-quality foresight analyses available and decision-makers employ them.

Accordingly, governments should provide for two aspects: (i) a systemic governance architecture and incentives that sustain a culture and practice of regular, useful, impactful foresight and its subsequent use in decision-making; and (ii) interventions in the form of activities and studies during which the future is considered and a strategic dialogue is undertaken with the purpose of better identifying emerging development challenges for the construction of better strategies (OECD, 2019, p. 4).

Anticipatory governance requires inter-institutional collaboration and institutional channels to ensure broad participation by development actors in the construction of anticipatory knowledge. Citizens, academia, the private sector and organized civil society can contribute from their different roles and perspectives to the design and implementation of plans and policies that ensure the common good, as well as playing an important role in the development of future scenarios and supporting the monitoring of these in order to suggest adjustments to them. As mentioned, foresight is a collective multi-stakeholder exercise in which participants are engaged in building a shared vision of the future together and designing and implementing concrete actions to make it viable.

For their part, the State and decentralized bodies should encourage and support the production of anticipatory knowledge and the construction of desired futures by managing the institutional and multi-stakeholder network so as to balance power relations and foster the design and implementation of plans, policies and programmes consistent with sustainable development that transcend cycles of government (Silke and Hanspeter, 2019).

C. Foresight for development: contributions to the development of the concept

1. The complementarity between foresight and foresight for development

At this point, it is important to recognize that there is a major difference between foresight and foresight for development, even though both disciplines address the future in multiple ways. While both deal with analysing the future, the object of study varies and the type of reflection they prompt creates differences that are reflected in their priorities and the specific themes they address (see table I.1).

Table I.1

Comparison of foresight with foresight for development

Foresight

Foresight for development

Thematic emphasis; it sets out to analyse a sector or institution in detail and thence construct the future

Its object of study is sustainable development; it considers the complexity and interrelationships of the three pillars of this and of the institutions tasked with making development goals achievable

Does not necessarily prioritize linkages with other public policy or planning instruments

Needs to be closely linked to the design and implementation of plans, policies and programmes

Emphasizes the desired future, thus prioritizing the link to strategic planning

Emphasizes the analysis of multiple future scenarios and their implications for the achievement of development goals

One-off exercise in which scenarios are envisaged without the effects necessarily being monitored

Continuous, ongoing process that is part of the regular functioning of the system of public institutions

Social actors are analysed in relation to implementation of the proposals formulated

Social actors are the basis for the construction and social appropriation of the future

May originate from actors in the private sector, civil society or academia

Is initiated and conducted mainly through the institutional framework of the State

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Foresight studies as a general discipline seeks to define possible (anticipatory, desirable, probable, etc.) futures, without necessarily giving direct consideration to the social participation of stakeholders, as is the case with foresight applied to the world of business or technological studies.

For its part, foresight for development aims at integration into the management of the State and introduces new objectives, principles and limits, such as the need for social participation and the introduction of prioritized development objectives through strategic planning, be they national or territorial. This means that foresight for development also has both a technical and a political character because, even as it seeks to participate in the construction of alternative futures of which society as a whole can take ownership, it also attempts to identify the conditions for the viability of these scenarios by contributing to territorial governance.

The field of action of foresight for development is at the intersection between the pillars of sustainable development and the institutions in charge of implementing plans, policies and programmes, while at the same time it benefits from sectoral foresight by pursuing synergies between the different areas of sustainable development (see diagram I.1).

Diagram I.1

Dimensions of sustainable development and some examples of foresight typologies

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

2. Elements of the concept of foresight for development

More than a decade of experience in strengthening and combining foresight and development planning capabilities, applying the Planbarometer[7] methodology to characterize planning systems (both national and territorial) in at least 10 countries of Latin America and the Caribbean, and providing technical cooperation to support the countries of the region in their efforts to institutionalize foresight in their State apparatus have led to a reflection on which elements constitute foresight for development and which may be particularly characteristic of foresight exercises initiated by the State.

This reflection, presented for the consideration of States, aims to contribute to the development of a conceptual, methodological and practical proposal for incorporating foresight into the design and management of public policies in the countries of the region, with a recognition of the contributions that could be made by other disciplines, such as strategic planning and institutional or sectoral foresight.

It also aims to follow up on the document Resilient institutions for a transformative post-pandemic recovery in Latin America and the Caribbean: Inputs for discussion,[8] published in 2021 and presented for the consideration of member countries at the eighteenth meeting of the Regional Council for Planning of ILPES. This publication describes foresight and anticipatory governance as a State capacity that must be strengthened to address the growing complexity of development processes, characterized by cascading economic, social, environmental and political crises and the unsustainability of current production and consumption patterns.

It is important to note that an enabling condition for this proposal is the existence of governance in which collaborative relationships among institutions and between institutions and citizens prevail, so that the key actors driving the political process (governmental agents) become co-creating leaders and managers of multi-stakeholder foresight processes.

Thus, foresight for development could be defined as a permanent and systematic technical and political process of participatory reflection on the different options for the future, in which the State, at any of its levels (national and subnational), takes a position of leadership and is the driving force behind the production of anticipatory knowledge and the construction of futures agreed upon with the community, which are translated into national and territorial public policies to achieve sustainable development (see diagram I.2).

Diagram I.2

Characteristics of foresight for development

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

This proposal adds some additional, mutually reinforcing features to what has hitherto been understood as foresight:

•It provides a view of systemic interactions in society entailing ongoing, permanent relations of causality and interdependence between the different sectors and subject areas of development. The systemic approach simultaneously incorporates systematic analysis of the relationships of the system with its environment and with other systems, as well as the importance of the feedback flows generated within the system itself. It therefore adopts an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary approach.

•It recognizes the future as a space of multiple possibilities and alternatives constructed on the basis of variables and hypotheses about what might occur, according to what is known about the present. Scenarios are meant to perform the function of identifying the multiple future possibilities that could affect the achievement of the strategic objectives of national and territorial development and making it possible to prepare for whichever scenario might arise (anticipatory governance). It is important to note that there is an implicit possibility that States and territories may pass through any or all of the scenarios at different points in their management of public affairs, making it imperative to strengthen their capacity to anticipate and respond to events as they arise.

•It promotes collective construction of the future, recognizing the essential need for agreements and compacts between the different representative actors in society who can formulate aspirations for the common good and generate transformative changes in institutions and society.

•It treats anticipation as a form of action and posits the need to anticipate situations that may affect the achievement of the objectives set. This function is performed by exploring the variables of the system, identifying scenarios and building warning systems to give time to prepare when circumstances change.

•It treats the long term as an ongoing, permanent space for action. Foresight approaches the long term as a time horizon, proposing actions in the present, such as the development of a road map for the achievement of desirable future scenarios and continuous feedback to adjust and improve this tool.

•It positions the State and territory as a driver and facilitator of the production of anticipatory knowledge and the construction of futures which are agreed with the community and are politically viable and in which sustainable development is achieved through comprehensive national and territorial development policies.

The differences between foresight and foresight for development lie, first, in the ways they are anchored in the collective and multi-stakeholder dimensions in the effort to identify the conditions for the political viability of the desired scenario so that sustainable development can be achieved, and second, in the fact that foresight for development is initiated and conducted mainly by the State, with a view to integrating it into the State apparatus so that it can be translated into public plans, policies and programmes.

The characteristics suggested are intended to broaden the conceptual framework generated by different authors in a way that reflects the difficulty of constructing prospective scenarios for development in contexts of multiple crises involving high degrees of uncertainty and complexity and political polarization, such as those faced by the world and the region. Another aim is to distinguish foresight in which the State is the driver and facilitator of the prospective exercise.

It is important to realize that none of the foresight processes carried out and systematized in the region have all the characteristics described; rather, they are all at different stages. The idea is for this compilation of desirable characteristics to provide a goal to aspire to in the effort to strengthen exercises in national and territorial foresight for development so that applying them contributes to national and territorial governance.

Bibliography

Aceituno, P. (2017), Prospectiva: bases y práctica fundamental para la toma de decisiones, Santiago, Ediciones UTEM.

Arroyo, M. J. (2008), Prospectiva, gobernabilidad y riesgo político. Instrumentos para la acción, Mexico City, Limusa.

Barbieri, E. (1992), The Futures of Cultures, Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Beenakker, I. V. (2022), “The implementation of a territorial foresight outcome through aligning goal frames: A pilot case of the gas disconnection in the Netherlands”, Futures, vol. 135.

Berger, G. (1964), “The prospective attitude”, Management International, vol. 4, No. 3.

Conway, M. (2015), Foresight: an Introduction. A Thinking Futures Reference Guide, Melbourne, Thinking Futures.

Cuervo, L. M. (2012), “Prospectiva económica: una primera aproximación al estado del arte”, Gestión Pública series, No. 76 (LC/L.3485), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Destatte, P. (2010), “Foresight: A major tool in tackling sustainable development”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 77, No. 9.

ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2023), Halfway to 2030 in Latin America and the Caribbean: progress and recommendations for acceleration (LC/FDS.6/3/Rev.1), Santiago.

____(2019), Planning for sustainable territorial development in Latin America and the Caribbean (LC/CRP.17/3), Santiago.

Fuerth, L. and E. Faber (2012), Anticipatory Governance Practical Upgrades. Equipping the Executive Branch to cope with increasing speed and complexity of major challenges, National Defense University.

Godet, M. and P. Durance (2011), La prospectiva estratégica para las empresas y los territorios [online] https://www.ceplan.gob.pe/documentos_/la-prospectiva-estrategica-para-las-empresas-y-los-territorios/.

Herrera, A. (1977), Catástrofe o nueva sociedad: modelo mundial latinoamericano, Bogotá, International Development Research Centre (IDRC).

Hodara, J. (1984), Los estudios del futuro: problemas y métodos, Instituto de Banca y Finanzas.

Massé, P. (1973), La crise du développement, Gallimard.

Máttar, J. and L. Cuervo (comps.) (2016), “Planificación y prospectiva para la construcción de futuro en América Latina y el Caribe: textos seleccionados 2013-2016”, Páginas Selectas de la CEPAL (LC/M.33), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), September.

Meadows, D. and others (1972), The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind, New York, Universe Books.

Medina, J. (2011), “La prospectiva: Conceptos fundamentales y aplicaciones contemporáneas”, presentation at the Seminar on foresight and Latin America, Santiago, Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES).

____(1996), “Los estudios del futuro y la prospectiva: claves para la construcción social de las regiones”, Santiago, Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES).

Medina, J., S. Becerra and P. Castaño (2014), Prospectiva y política pública para el cambio estructural en América Latina y el Caribe, ECLAC Books, No. 129 (LC/G.2622-P), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2019), Strategic Foresight for Better Policies. Building Effective Governance in the Face of Uncertain Futures, October.

Rodríguez, L. A. and L. M. Cuervo (2014), “Visiones de desarrollo y planeación de largo plazo en América Latina y el Caribe. Notas a partir de la experiencia de cuatro países”, Public Management series, No. 82 (LC/L.3837), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Salas, M. (2014), “Prospectiva territorial: acercamiento a los territorios posibles”, Prospectiva territorial y urbana, Bogotá, Open and Distance University.

Silke, A. and K. Hanspeter (2019), “The network approach”, Theories of the Policy Process, A. Silke and K. Hanspeter, Boulder, Routledge.

Silva Oliveira, A. and others (2018), “Prospective scenarios: A literature review on the Scopus database”, Futures, vol. 100.

Slaughter, R. (1998), “Futures studies as an intellectual and applied discipline”, American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 42, No. 3.

Son, H. (2015), “The history of Western futures studies: an exploration of the intellectual traditions and three-phase periodization”, Futures, vol. 66.

Stoffaës, C. (2001), “La prospective stratégique : les logiciels de la pérennité”, Prospective stratégique d’entreprise, J. Lesourne and C. Stoffaës, Dunod.

Tõnurist, P. and A. Hanson (2020), Anticipatory innovation governance. Shaping the future through proactive policy making, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2017), “Manual de análisis prospectivo para el desarrollo sostenible”, Panama City.

Annex I.A1

Table I.A1.1

Foresight technical assistance activities of the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES), 2017–2023

Year

Institution or territory

Country or area

Activity

Number of participants

2017

Province of Tucumán

Argentina

Provincial planning scenarios

25

2017

Externado University of Colombia

Colombia

Support for training and specialization

in territorial foresight

20

2018

Province of Buenos Aires

Argentina

Long-term strategies for provincial production development

40

2018

Province of Jujuy

Argentina

Scenarios for the territorialization of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

50

2018

Province of Corrientes

Argentina

Scenarios for the territorialization of the SDGs

40

2018

Municipality of Junín

Argentina

Scenarios for the territorialization of the SDGs

50

2018

Higher School of Public Administration (ESAP)

Colombia

Technical support for the incorporation of foresight

into ESAP curricula

10

2018

National Planning Directorate of the Technical and Planning Secretariat of the Office of the President

of El Salvador

El Salvador

Support for the mainstreaming of foresight in the prioritization of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

20

2018

Planning and Budget Office (OPP)

Uruguay

Support for workshops to develop territorial scenarios

in the central region

100

2018

Technical Secretariat for Economic and Social Development Planning (STP)

Paraguay

Support for the creation of future scenarios for the achievement of the 2030 Agenda at the territorial level

30

2019

Ministry of the Economy and Finance (MEF)

Panama

Prospective Planbarometer application

20

2020

Regional

Regional

Meeting of foresight specialists titled “The role of foresight in the face of COVID-19 and the post-pandemic stage

in Latin America and the Caribbean”

30

2020

Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy (MIDEPLAN)

Costa Rica

Workshop on application of the Planbarometer foresight module in the design of regional development policy

20

2020

Honduran Institute of Science, Technology

and Innovation (IHCIETI)

Honduras

Support for the incorporation of foresight into

the science and technology plan of Honduras

30

2020

Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development

Argentina

Support for the incorporation of foresight into land-use planning

30

2020

Technical Secretariat for Economic and Social Development Planning (STP)

Paraguay

Technical support for the incorporation of foresight into energy sector planning

32

2021

Regional

Regional

Foresight methodology for sustainable mobility, “Inclusive, sustainable and smart cities (ISCI)” project with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

60

2021

Regional

Regional

Simulation model for sustainable mobility scenario-building, “Inclusive, sustainable and smart cities (ISCI)” project with the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

30

2021

Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF)

Panama

Territorial planning scenarios

30

2022

State of Guanajuato

Mexico

Evaluation of the foresight component of the Guanajuato State Development Plan

20

2022

Secretariat for Planning and Programming of the Office of the President (SEGEPLAN)

Guatemala

Foresight for government priorities

25

2022

Economic Commission for Latin America

and the Caribbean (ECLAC)

ECLAC

Capacity-building in the use of scenario simulation models, “Inclusive, sustainable and smart cities (ISCI)” project with Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)

20

2023

Regional

Regional

United Nations Development Account project “Inclusive and resilient public management systems for sustainable development in Latin America and the Caribbean”; course

on foresight institutionalization methodology

30

2023

Regional

Regional

Planning for development network; foresight and territorial resilience forum

30

2023

Secretariat for Strategic Affairs (SAE)

Argentina

“Regional cooperation for the sustainable management of mining resources in the Andean countries (MinSus)” project

25

817

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Table I.A1.2

Foresight training activities of the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES), 2013–2023

Subject

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

online courses

2021

online courses

2022

online courses

2023

online

courses

Grand total

Introduction to foresight for development and the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda

20

19

39

Foresight in designing national science, technology and innovation plans

31

31

Foresight for the energy sector

31

31

Foresight in Latin America and the Caribbean: approaches, educational institutions

and application

26

26

Strategic foresight and public policy

for development in Latin America

and the Caribbean

17

49

66

Foresight for development and the SDGs

of the 2030 Agenda

29

35

29

67

50

30

240

Foresight for sustainable mobility

61

61

Territorial foresight

2

31

43

10

86

Foresight and development in Latin America and the Caribbean

19

30

49

Foresight techniques and tools

30

30

Grand total

19

73

51

29

66

29

67

112

73

121

19

659

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

1. [1] RAND Corporation is a non-profit research and development organization based in the United States. It was established in 1948 to support the United States military with research and analysis. For more information, see [online] https://www.rand.org/.

2. [2] See [online] https://fundacionbarrossierra.org.mx/.

3. [3] MIT is a private university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the United States, and is considered to be one of the world’s most prestigious technical universities.

4. [4] The Club of Rome is a think tank founded in Rome in 1968 and staffed by specialists from various countries. Its work continues, and it continues to produce reports on a variety of issues of global interest.

5. [5] In 2019, the Secretary-General of the United Nations called on all sectors of society to mobilize for a decade of action on three levels: global action to secure greater leadership, more resources and smarter solutions for the Sustainable Development Goals; local action embedding the needed transitions in the policies, budgets, institutions and regulatory frameworks of governments, cities and local authorities; and people action, including by youth, civil society, the media, the private sector, unions, academia and other stakeholders, to generate an unstoppable movement pushing for the required transformations (see [online] https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/es/decade-of-action/).

6. [6] Voluntary national reviews are part of monitoring and reporting countries’ progress in achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda and in fulfilling the promise to leave no one behind.

7. [7] The PlanBarometer is a tool designed by ILPES to classify countries’ national or territorial planning systems in five areas: the institutional framework, design, implementation, outcomes of public policy, as well as the degree to which global and regional commitments are fulfilled. There are criteria for each of these areas and the results are displayed graphically to illustrate strengths and areas for improvement in the systems (see [online] https://observatorioplanificacion.cepal.org/es/nota/planbarometro-herramienta-para-mejorar-la-calidad-de-la-planificacion).

8. [8] LC/CRP.18/3.

Chapter II

Planning systems in Latin America and the Caribbean: advancements in foresight systems

A. A forward-looking culture in public institutions

B. Territorial foresight and building future scenarios in the territory

C. Incorporating foresight in national public institutions in the region

D. Innovation in public administration as a key element of developing foresight

Bibliography

Annex II.A1

Annex II.A2

A. A forward-looking culture in public institutions

Building a forward-looking culture in public institutions entails profound shifts in mindsets (Naisbitt, 2006) and adoption of future-oriented approaches at all levels of government (Welch and Nuru, 2006).

The components that are key to fostering this culture include:

•A long-term vision and strategy: it is essential to have a vision of the desired future and to build a long-term strategy to realize that vision. This entails building links between policy instruments and the vision, to give rise to synergies and virtuous circles, as well as setting long-term targets and goals and working proactively to meet them. There are notable experiences in the region, such as Guatemala’s “K’atun: Our Guatemala 2032” National Development Plan, the Dominican Republic’s 2030 National Development Strategy (END 2030) and more recently that of Peru.

•Forward-thinking and anticipatory knowledge: fostering forward-thinking entails anticipating future changes and challenges. This includes informing oneself concerning possible future trends and uncertainties and considering how they might affect public administration (Baena, 2005). It also includes the social construction of futures in relation to decision-making processes (Medina, 2003).

•Capacity development: it is important to encourage development of capacities to build a forward-looking culture in public institutions. This entails providing training and career development opportunities for public servants, so that they can acquire the skills and competencies needed to address future challenges and adopt innovative approaches (Nussbaum, 2011). It also entails establishing foresight practices in the design, monitoring and evaluation of public policies.

•Innovation in management: fostering a forward-looking culture involves promoting innovation and change in the public sector. Public institutions must be open to adopting new administration ideas, approaches and technologies, and to learning from mistakes. This calls for conditions that promote creativity and collaboration, and a willingness to take risks.

•Social and citizen participation: involving citizens in decision-making processes and in the design of public policies is key to building a forward-looking culture in public institutions. This entails encouraging participation through workshops on foresight and the various foresight approaches and techniques. Different viewpoints and knowledge (from experts and non-experts) can thus be incorporated, to make more informed and sustainable decisions (Cunill, 1997).

•Evaluation and learning: a forward-looking culture requires a mindset of continuous learning and ongoing evaluation of scenarios and implemented strategies. It is important to examine outcomes and learn from experience, to improve and adapt future strategies (Pérez and Vitale, 2023).

•Transparency and accountability: transparency and accountability are vital in inspiring the general public’s trust in government institutions and in fostering a forward-looking culture. It is important to divulge decisions and measures effectively, clearly and openly, and to acknowledge and remedy mistakes if necessary.

Building a forward-looking culture in public institutions is an ongoing process, calling for commitment, political and technical leadership, and the political will to bring about the desired changes and address future challenges.

1. Long-term planning in Latin America and the Caribbean

One of the instruments for building a forward-looking culture in public institutions is long-term planning. Through the Regional Observatory on Planning for Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES) monitors advances in national and local planning systems to determine whether changes are made to institutional frameworks or innovative practices are adopted to design and implement development policies, programmes and projects, in keeping with the practice of designing and formulating long-term road maps, plans and strategies.

In the area of long-term planning, countries are continuing to establish instruments to guide development whose horizon extends beyond government terms of office. By 2021, 19 countries in the region had formulated long-term strategies, plans or road maps with horizons from 2025 to 2050; they were joined in 2022 by Peru, which prepared an instrument with a 2050 horizon to guide development (see diagram II.1, with information updated to January 2023).

Diagram II.1

Latin America and the Caribbean: national long-term planning instruments, January 2023

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Regional Observatory on Planning for Development in Latin America and the Caribbean [online] https://observatorioplanificacion.cepal.org/en.

In Peru, the National Centre for Strategic Planning (CEPLAN) led the process of preparing and disseminating the new 2050 Strategic Plan for National Development (PEDN), which sets out how to implement the Vision for Peru to 2050, the State Policies of the National Agreement and the commitments taken on by the country at the international level.

In the presentation of the document outlining the strategic plan, the Chair of the Board of Directors of CEPLAN described the four national strategic objectives: (i) full development of people’s capabilities, leaving no one behind; (ii) sustainable management of the national territory to avert and reduce risks and threats that affect people and livelihoods, with intensive use of knowledge and communications, recognizing geographic and cultural diversity, in a context of climate change; (iii) improved competitiveness and productivity, with decent employment, based on sustainable use of resources, human capital, intensive use of science and technology, and digital transformation of the country; and (iv) a guaranteed just, democratic, peaceful society and an effective State that serves the people, based on dialogue, national consensus and strengthening of institutions.

The presentation also described the methodology for formulating the new strategic plan, including coordination with the branches of government and autonomous constitutional bodies, regional and local governments, political parties and organizations representing civil society, as well as various technically valid methodologies for direct participation and opinion polling that were used (such as submitting the draft plan to the public for comments). In addition, the presentation recounts the effort made to link an approach based on foresight with (multi-term) strategic planning, with the aim of driving the country’s medium- and long-term development, while at the same time considering implementation of actions in the near term to progressively advance towards the established targets.

The presentation stated that the analysis included identification of 16 challenges linked to structural problems that could hinder achievement of national objectives, as well as megatrends, national perspectives or scenarios that could hamper the development conditions sought for the country. Lastly, the presentation indicated that the 2050 Strategic Plan for National Development is a strategic commitment with a forward-looking approach that puts people at the centre, protecting life and ensuring the functioning of value chains to coordinate the efforts of Peruvian society and the State around them (CEPLAN, 2022).

The components of the concept of foresight for development mentioned in chapter I are clearly present in the presentation of the 2050 Strategic Plan for National Development: the role of the State as the driving force and leader of the construction of consensus-based futures, the complexity and systemic approach to development, the long-term time frame, the importance of multi-stakeholder participation and of building multiple future scenarios.

Long-term planning is also present at subnational levels. By August 2023, according to official sources, in nine countries in the region (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico and Uruguay) there were 67 subnational administrative divisions of different levels with long-term planning instruments, with time horizons ranging from 2028 to 2040 (see annex II.A2).

An analysis of these instruments reveals that in unitary States, planning at the subnational level tends to focus on specific development goals. This is the case in the Dominican Republic, whose mostly provincial subnational instruments centre on economic development, and in Guatemala, whose municipal plans concentrate on land-use planning. In federal countries (such as Argentina, Brazil and Mexico), planning at the provincial and state levels is integral.

What is important is for subnational divisions to have planning instruments to guide long-term policymaking that meets their specific needs and capacities, to close inequality gaps and achieve sustainable development.

2. Linking foresight and planning when formulating State policies

The link between planning, public administration and foresight is a subject of concern that ILPES has addressed in various publications.[1]

The connection between foresight and planning must be understood from two perspectives, which overlap each other. On one hand, methodologically, there is a need to define steps to be taken, starting from a desired scenario or course of action built in a participatory way through a foresight process, to be able to draw strategic implications that would enable the scenario to materialize. On the other hand, there is a need to determine how to build bridges for dialogue between foresight knowledge and anticipatory knowledge, generally produced by and well-established in academic institutions, research centres or civil society organizations, and those responsible for decision-making on public policy.

One of the premises concerning foresight is that, although it is methodologically structured reflection, it is not expected to be theoretical reflection, but one that has implications for action and is capable of transforming circumstances. In the view of Berger (1964), the purpose of foresight is to understand the future in order to influence it. This definition encompasses the political intention of foresight: to influence the future with a view to political and social transformation, by reflecting on and discussing the past and the present.

As regards the methodological approach to the connection between foresight and planning, ILPES has made a recognized contribution, defining foresight as a basic function of planning, together with coordination, evaluation and strategic coordination (Medina and Ortegón, 2006; Martín, 2005; Medina, 2000).

Given the array of crises, such as those described in the introduction and in chapter I, planning must be flexible and innovative in order to at least meet the challenges posed by two factors: the planning time frame and the complexity and volatility of the environment of that which is being planned. The world has become more turbulent because of the pace and scope of change, more complex and therefore harder to understand with traditional models and tools, and more uncertain owing to more numerous and intense interactions, with less predictable outcomes. Therefore, in planning —for social systems ranging from organizations to the world— time frames for what is planned have been extended, more issues of interest have been added, and tools have been created to address the complexities of emerging issues and their interactions with enduring development issues. In both aspects —time frames and complexity of contexts— foresight plays a central role (Alonso, 2012, cited in Medina, Castaño and Becerra, 2014).

Foresight also plays an important role in other branches of government (legislative and judicial) producing State visions and policies. This is the case of the Costa Rican judiciary, which drafted an open justice policy (to implement the open State policy), pledging to engage in horizontal dialogue with society, publicize its work beyond what is published in the media, promote consultation with different stakeholders in society on their needs and proposals to increase legitimacy, and provide a public service that meets the needs of citizens and is efficient, effective and respectful of human rights.

(a) The challenge of intertemporality (or the combination of horizons and deadlines)

As Máttar and Cuervo (2017) state, public measures and actions have different maturity periods and have impacts over different time frames. In addition, stakeholders have different rationales and bases for legitimacy, meaning that the timing and speed of their actions vary. The way a response is offered to the combination of these various time frames (long-, medium-, short-term and immediate) in each system could be said to be the challenge of intertemporality.

Therefore, the tension between the short and long term refers to the risks that arise when making decisions that may have immediate and short-term implications, but also long-term repercussions. In this document, the medium to long term is taken to be that which is longer than a government term of office or cycle, and the short term is taken to be a period that is shorter. The medium to long term is therefore the cornerstone and backbone of foresight studies when considering structural changes.

Experience shows that, in many cases, decisions focused on the short term pursue immediate benefits or outcomes, without considering long-term implications. Decisions focused on the long term are based on a broader view and consider future implications. Such decisions are often more strategic and sustainable, but may call for sacrifices or produce results more slowly in the short term.

The concept of intertemporality is related to the presence of several time periods or time scales in decision-making. It is based on the recognition that actions and decisions can have effects at different points in time and that it is important to consider both the short and long term when planning and making decisions.

This concept highlights the need to make decisions that are beneficial in both the short and long term, considering needs and aims at different time scales. This requires a balanced approach and careful consideration of potential long-term impacts, even when urgent action is taken.

The tension between government policies and State policies appears in this context of this coming together of the short and long term.

Government policies focus on the actions and decisions that a particular government takes during its term of office, with the aim of implementing its political agenda and achieving its goals in the short term. These policies are often subject to change depending on the priorities and ideology of the government in office.

State policies, in contrast, are policies and strategies that are established as part of a long-term framework, separately from changes in government. These policies are designed to extend beyond governmental terms and seek to address long-term challenges and goals that are important for the development and sustainability of national territories.

As Guardamagna and Cueto (2013) put it, society itself calls for and values long-term policies, as is often reflected in the demand for “State policies”, which are considered to be more stable and sustained, and also to have been reached through agreement. However, these desirable characteristics cannot be assumed to be intrinsic, as they depend on the level of consolidation of each policy and its ownership by society.

To successfully consolidate State policies and ensure society takes ownership of them, it is very important to promote means of institutionalizing foresight. This entails establishing institutional structures that are responsible for the system —a community, sector, country or any other social, economic or political body that is too complex to be understood through or changed for any of its component parts— and have the authority and mandate to prepare and coordinate long-term strategies.

As Innerarity (2020, p. 198) argues, the bias in favour of the present is not always a result of disinterest; sometimes it comes from a failure to anticipate and identify problems or to recognize when to act, reflecting a weak strategic capacity of current policy. Implementation of territorial foresight studies contributes to development of technical competencies of a country’s institutions.

(b) From anticipation to action

Planning entails the shift from a current situation to a future situation. This, in public policies, translates into planning instruments (plans, programmes and projects). Two concepts are implicit in the concept: anticipation and construction; changes that may take place are anticipated based on analysis of trends and uncertainties, and construction, based on different programmatic instruments, of the actions required for sustainable development.

According to Arriagada (2002), a territory, an organization or an institution that plans can anticipate contingencies, analyse the feasibility of decisions and understand that planning is not only a technical process, but also a social and political one. This will enable a basis to be formed for the system to be organized and expanded, through systematization of collective intelligence in that territory, drawing on the knowledge of the different stakeholders. One last issue is optimization of resource allocation, which is of utmost importance, given the recurrent limiting situations the region is experiencing.

Actively linking foresight and planning enables us to answer the questions “who are we?” and “where are we?”. The answers to these questions feed into the aims and vision of the planning exercise, which should be based on backward-looking analysis. Building multiple future scenarios also enables stakeholders to design a desired future, meaning that the State can focus on the question “where do we want to go?”, considering what is wanted and what is possible, determining the temporal, spatial and quantitative scope of strategic objectives and targets. Expected outcomes must be precise and realistic, an issue that is examined in the section on feasibility studies, including of political feasibility (see part c of this section).

Lastly, any public measure must be evaluated in terms of its impact and the change it will bring about in the country or territory. To perform this evaluation, indicators must be established, not only to monitor, correct and assess, but also, vitally, to learn from experience.

Diagram II.2 shows key questions for reflection on the future, contributed by foresight to the different phases of the public policy cycle.

Diagram II.2

The contribution of foresight to reflection within the public policy cycle

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

(c) The context of strategic decision-making

As Sotelo (2013) notes, to discuss planning is not to discuss how plans are designed, objectives are set, and indicators are built. Or, at least, that is only part of it. Emphasizing methodological issues focused on short-term results contributed to blurring the role of the State as duty bearer, and as a guarantor of sovereignty in relation to development and social equity, as well as leading to the loss of its role as a proponent and coordinator of planning as a technical and political exercise.

Although in recent years more and more stakeholders have been gradually included in mixed governance and participation models for formulation of public policies, according to Abal (2012) it is understood that the State is the only actor that can combine a short-term vision with a long-term one, management of the economic cycle with promotion of sustained growth, and efforts to bring about change in production systems with those to create social opportunities. It is therefore crucial to analyse the inputs for the State planning function of foreseeing and anticipating potential repercussions of any decision made in the present, based on a combination of retrospective analysis, which enables critical examination of the processes that shaped the current situation, and anticipatory foresight, which can be used to explore the future but also to affect it.

The context of strategic decision-making by the State is crucial, as it does not take place in a vacuum. Such decisions, which must be translated into public policies, are expected to address various multifaceted social demands, knowledge of which is fragmented or incomplete; at the same time there are conflicting interests, and decisions are made in the context of regulations and institutions which do not always function in a coherent manner. The combination of these factors puts political and social pressure on public decision-making and decision-makers which is even more complex when there is uncertainty or indecisiveness.

Carlos Matus (1987) suggests that the feasibility of plans should be assessed during the strategic phase based on two questions that are vital in foresight: “what is possible?” and “what is necessary?”.

Analysis of public policy often reveals clear gaps between objectives set in the planning stage and what is achieved. Consequently, one of the elements that should be included in planning, according to Matus (1987), is a feasibility study, which should examine technical, sociocultural, environmental and budgetary viability. Indeed, the main reason for weak implementation is insufficient analysis of political feasibility of proposals, or a failure to analyse it at all; therefore, it is important to incorporate political foresight, to determine the feasibility of public policy.

On occasion, planning processes derived from foresight analysis that have strategic implications and must be translated into public policies or policy instruments do not include the decision-maker in the process. The risk of this is twofold: politically and socially, there is a risk that expectations may be created that are never met and, in terms of discipline, there is a risk of undermining methodologies and their perceived usefulness.

Foresight connects decision and action, providing different alternatives (Aceituno, 2018) within the traditional public policy cycle, based on the question of what could happen (see diagram II.2). It can therefore be said to be an anticipatory capacity of States. This is one of the features that distinguish it from traditional planning. The combination of foresight and planning referred to here does not offer an idea of a linear future, but rather various paths encompassing past and future trends and uncertainties, as well as the desires, capacities and possibilities of each territory.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic showed that there is a growing urgent need for anticipatory systems in government agencies. As stated in Apuntes N° 2, prepared by the Latin America and the Caribbean Development Planning Network, the effects of COVID-19 on economic, social and environmental dimensions are of such magnitude that planning and foresight must be rethought to improve States’ response capacities (ECLAC/AECID, 2022).

This poses challenges that, for the discipline of foresight, entail successfully incorporating two key types of stakeholders. First, organized civil society must be included, to play an active role in the processes. Second, however, the question is how to ensure policymakers actively participate in the foresight process and its outcomes, and are committed to both. Better links must therefore be built with the public policymaking sector, and more of them, acknowledging its approach to reasoning and its time frames, which are often linked to the near term and urgent needs, which does not preclude potential consideration of the long term.

B. Territorial foresight and building future scenarios in the territory

ECLAC and ILPES understand the territory as a social construct, within which there is social and power interplay that has been shaped over time and is in a constant state of flux. This concept envisages the territory as a dynamic object that extends beyond the geographical, physical or biological and combines these aspects with social, political and cultural processes.

Territorial foresight refers to the process of formulating a long-term vision for sustainability that combines objectives and actions to be implemented jointly by different stakeholders, focusing on a specific territory at various spatial levels. Territorial foresight prepares a territory for the future and is present at different levels of the State, such as the national, regional and municipal levels (Beenakker and others, 2022).

Another concept that is key for the issues examined over the course of this document is that territorial foresight is a discipline that allows us to imagine the potential future of a territory, taking into account, thoroughly and logically, the essence of the territory as a space in which society, through day-to-day activity, creates and transforms objects, interacts, expresses interests and enters into power struggles to achieve individual aims (Salas, 2014).

The concept put forward by Van der Heijden (1996) contributes to the systematic nature of studies of plausible, possible and desired futures, using methods and techniques that help to identify trends, patterns of change and possible disruptive events that could have an impact, positive or negative, on territories. This involves collecting high-quality strategic data and information for informed decision-making (Flores, 2013), which entails identifying, analysing and prioritizing trends, patterns and systematic structures to build future scenarios in a participatory manner (Van der Heijden, 1996).

In these respects, foresight is an indispensable discipline for territorial planning and management in contexts of high uncertainty and complexity (Fernández, 2011). This discipline of the social sciences enables understanding of futures and assessment of how current decisions and patterns may affect territories’ medium- and long-term development and sustainability (Gabiña, 1998).

From a pragmatic viewpoint, territorial foresight is an excellent tool for mitigating the effects of short-term actions, which tend to be reactive, improvised and aimed at addressing critical urgent situations, in order to focus on addressing the structural problems of territorial development in a context of high uncertainty.

The methods used in territories are similar (see chapter IV). However, in terms of ILPES observation of, research into and technical assistance to the territories, the drivers of this change of culture are different (see annex II.A1, which summarizes cases of foresight in federal and unitary States in the region).

In general, there are at least three common reasons for employing foresight: (i) to reach agreement on an assessment of the pressing structural problems of a territory and the opportunities for its development; (ii) to explore the future collectively and create a road map for a territory’s development through plans, policies and strategies, taking advantage of a territory’s opportunities, propensities and capacities in a global situation of great uncertainty; and (iii) to build capacities for dialogue, contemplative participation and negotiation among stakeholders in a territory, enabling them to reach a consensus on a public development agenda for the future.

In addition to enabling design of the future, foresight contributes to planning and decision-making, because it identifies the threats and opportunities of certain future situations and offers alternative choices and courses of action. Foresight also provides far-reaching information and fosters establishment of agreements to build the future together through daily action (Espinoza, 2006).

Box II.1 describes the territorial planning and foresight process for the Mexican state of Guanajuato.

In the foresight toolkit, scenario-building and Delphi surveys are the most commonly used tools. Scenario-building entails designing possible coherent representations of alternative futures (Leney and others, 2004). Scenarios are built by combining different variables and patterns that could influence the development and sustainability of territories, such as social, technological, environmental, economic, political and cultural changes (Vitale and others, 2016).

Scenarios are tools for reflection and analysis, to understand the implications of different decisions, policies and strategies in territories (see chapter IV, which discusses the methodological pathways for developing and applying territorial foresight).

In this respect, territorial foresight —by collectively building future scenarios— planning and management must go hand in hand to achieve the following:

•Social construction of futures: foresight, among other aims, enables identification of possible future trends and changes (uncertainties), which helps public servants and planners to build the desired future in a participatory manner and apply strategy to bring it about (Medina, 2020). This is especially important in an ever-changing world with numerous territorial challenges, such as the impact of climate change, growing urbanization, land use change, pressure on natural resources, food security and technological advances.

•Informed decision-making: scenarios provide a framework for assessing implications of different decisions, policies and strategies for a territory. By exploring various options and their possible outcomes, decision-makers can make more informed and strategic choices (Patiño, Lavis and Moat, 2013).

•Identification of social risks: foresight and scenario-building contribute to identification of potential risks and vulnerabilities in territories. Preventive measures and mitigation strategies can thus be structured and applied to reduce risk exposure and increase territorial resilience (Galindo, 2015).

•Promotion of participation and political-social dialogue: this linkage fosters participation by various actors and stakeholders in the territorial planning and management process. If scenarios are built collaboratively, different perspectives, knowledge and expertise can be taken into account, which encourages dialogue and collective agreements (Ropers, 2017; Santos, 2018).

•Long-term planning: foresight and scenario-building allow for more robust long-term planning that is adaptable to changes in an environment. By considering divergent futures, flexible strategies and action plans can be established that take into account uncertainty and future changes.

Box II.1

Territorial foresight: the experience of the Mexican state of Guanajuato

Of Mexico’s 32 states, only 7 (Guanajuato, Baja California, Aguascalientes, Nuevo León, Jalisco, Zacatecas and Quintana Roo) currently include foresight planning in a regulatory instrument, each with different time frames, forms and preparation processes, names, governing bodies, implementation instruments and realities. The states of Aguascalientes and Quintana Roo are the most recent states to include foresight in a long-term planning instrument.

In the case of the state of Guanajuato, its State Development Plan (PED) is the executive branch’s guiding instrument for long-term planning, setting out the direction of its future through objectives, strategies, general lines of action and development projects. The first long-term planning exercise in the state of Guanajuato began in 1993 and resulted in an instrument called Guanajuato Siglo XXI, whose emphasis was on economic growth and public investment projects. It included three issue-based pillars (the social, economic and political sectors), in addition to designing future scenarios, focusing on the global, national and local levels.

The Guanajuato Siglo XXI plan was updated in the early 2000s (resulting in the 2025 State Development Plan), in 2005 (resulting in the 2030 State Development Plan), in 2012 (resulting in the 2035 State Development Plan) and in 2018 (leading to the Guanajuato 2040 State Development Plan (PED 2040)). The last three updates were carried out by the Institute of Planning, Statistics and Geography of the State of Guanajuato (IPLANEG), created by an executive order in 2007 and recognized as the coordinating entity of the State System of Democratic Planning for the Development of the State of Guanajuato in the second update of the Planning Law for the State of Guanajuato, in 2011. The process of social participation to build these long-term visions began to be expanded in these processes led by IPLANEG, and for the first time a monitoring and evaluation section was included, implemented by designing a system of indicators and evaluations of development. In addition, to verify the outcomes or achievements resulting from implementation of the 2040 State Development Plan, IPLANEG designed a mechanism to provide society as a whole with insight into progress on the plan, called the Guanajuato Indicators Observatory.

The state of Guanajuato is now preparing its 2050 State Development Plan, and has received assistance from ILPES to expand citizen participation, so that the shared construction of the state’s long-term vision can draw on the voices of municipalities and people and groups that have routinely been excluded from decision-making, such as youth, persons with disabilities, women, migrants, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community and older persons. The aim of building this vision for 2050 is to fulfil the mandate of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development to ensure that no one is left behind.

Source: Congress of the State of Guanajuato, “Reglamento de la Ley de Planeación para el Estado de Guanajuato”, Periódico Oficial del Gobierno del Estado de Guanajuato, No. 132, Yerbabuena, 2012; “Ley de Planeación para el Estado de Guanajuato”, Periódico Oficial del Gobierno del Estado de Guanajuato, No. 206, Yerbabuena, 2011; “Constitución Política para el Estado de Guanajuato”, Periódico Oficial del Gobierno del Estado de Guanajuato, No. 32, Yerbabuena, 1917; Institute of Planning, Statistics and Geography of the State of Guanajuato (IPLANEG), “Construyendo el PED” [online] https://iplaneg.guanajuato.gob.mx/ped2040/?page_id=10490; “Antecedentes” [online] https://iplaneg.guanajuato.gob.mx/ped2040/?page_id=9420; Congress of the State of Quintana Roo, “Ley de Planeación para el Desarrollo del Estado de Quintana Roo”, Periódico Oficial del Estado de Quintana Roo, No. 15, Chetumal, 2022; Congress of the State of Baja California, “Ley de Planeación para el Estado de Baja California”, Periódico Oficial del Estado de Baja California, No. 29, Mexicali, 2008; Congress of the State of Aguascalientes, “Ley de Planeación para el Desarrollo del Estado de Aguascalientes”, Periódico Oficial del Estado de Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes, 28 December 2020; Congress of the State of Nuevo León, “Ley de Planeación Estratégica del Estado de Nuevo León”, Periódico Oficial del Estado de Nuevo León, No. 8, Monterrey, 2014; Congress of the State of Jalisco, “Ley de Planeación Participativa para el Estado de Jalisco y Sus Municipios”, Periódico Oficial del Estado de Jalisco, Guadalajara, 20 December 2018; Congress of the State of Zacatecas, “Ley de Planeación del Estado de Zacatecas y Sus Municipios”, Periódico Oficial del Estado de Zacatecas, Zacatecas, 10 August 2017.

1. Transformative scenario-based planning

Scenario-building can help to revive the interest, commitment and energy required to learn about foresight planning and its long-term relevance and implications for national and subnational development. Creation of a foresight laboratory[2] for scenario-based planning can provide long-term opportunities for dialogue between various strategic actors in order to build trust, coordinate and work collaboratively (see chapter III, in particular sections B and E on trust as a central pillar of cohesion-building among stakeholders and on new citizenries and public leadership at the territory level).

This proposal is based on two premises. First, the complexities of sustainable development and of coordinating its three pillars (economic, social and environmental) comprise no fewer than three dimensions: (i) dynamic complexity, because the causes and effects of certain structural problems that need to be solved are spatially and temporally distant; (ii) social complexity, because different stakeholders and sectors with varying interests and perspectives are involved; and (iii) generative complexity, because the future, which cannot be foreseen, is uncertain and undetermined. This is why, to connect all parties, a systematic approach is required; it must be participatory and collaborative, in order to involve stakeholders themselves, and experimental, to spur learning by doing.

The second premise is that in order to meet the challenges of sustainable development in all its complexity, collective and collaborative action is needed; proposing a transformation based solely on individuals, sectors or institutions in isolation is impossible.

The process of transformative scenario-based planning (see diagram II.3) begins by calling together a diverse group of stakeholders from across the entirety of a system. The next step is to observe the circumstances of a given territory or institution and build narratives (stories or scenarios) on what could occur, based on the identified purpose of the foresight exercise. At this point, the group understands and is able to make deep discoveries about what can and should be done. Once these four phases are complete, the group is ready to work together and take action to transform the system.

Diagram II.3

Five steps of transformative scenario-based planning

Source: A. Kahane, Transformative Scenario Planning: Working Together to Change the Future, San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler Publishers, 2012.

A foresight laboratory provides the operational and working framework for this cooperation. The laboratory creates and manages the space or spaces for cooperation that the group decides to carry forward on the basis of the scenarios built.

As in scenario-building, a social laboratory implies ongoing multisectoral dialogue between many sectors and stakeholders to implement a set vision or scenarios through concrete projects and actions. A laboratory works using a systemic, participatory and creative approach.

The proposed methodology, based on the U theory (as shown in figure II.3), comprises five steps aimed at building scenarios and agreeing upon specific proposals and actions based on lessons learned, knowledge acquired and ideas generated throughout the multisectoral dialogue process. The steps are described below.

(a) Step 1: bring together sectoral stakeholders and leaders

The first step in a scenario-based transformative planning project is to bring together a group of people representing all parts of a system, who wish to —and, working together, can— influence the future of the system. The system could be a community, a sector or a country; it is any group, defined by a set of social, political and economic characteristics, that is too complex to be defined or changed for any one of its parts.

The stakeholders and leaders brought together must therefore be influential, insightful and representative, with decision-making authority; prepared to engage in discussion; and knowledgeable about the system, in whole or in part. In addition to the central government, participants should include, for example, governments and local authorities, Indigenous organizations, academics (including those conducting research, analysis and studies), the science and technology sectors, and civil society and private sector organizations.

(b) Step 2: examine the circumstances of the system and its parts

The system refers to the whole; the parts of the system are the various problem areas that affect it, such as poverty and inequality levels in several geographical areas of a country, institutions and their effectiveness, community responses, the effects of climate change and migration flows, existing capacities and available budgetary resources.

The examination can take various forms, including organizing multi-stakeholder dialogues and knowledge and information exchanges, or educational activities, such as tours, for participants to learn first-hand about the experiences of various stakeholders or institutions, gain an understanding of what is occurring in the system, and then reflect together on the manner in which challenges have been addressed.

(c) Step 3: scenario-building

Scenarios are not predictions, nor are they proposals. They are stories that trace out possible future paths to help participants discuss and contemplate reality in greater depth. Scenario-building exercises are intended to catalyse thinking and strategic dialogue between various sectors and stakeholders on possible futures and the opportunities, risks and choices associated with each. They are also meant to prompt identification of individual and collective strategic action to influence those possible futures.

(d) Step 4: identifying what can and must be done

The dialogue enables participants to collectively gain an in-depth understanding of what is happening and of the variety and magnitude of the challenges to be faced. To achieve greater understanding, in particular shared understanding, assumptions or preconceptions must be set aside. This allows participants to learn not only what is happening in the current situation but what can be done to change it.

(e) Step 5: taking action to transform the system

Participants must be open to new ideas and proposals that are not necessarily their own but rather the result of the group discussion and exchange of experiences. The group converts the scenarios (built in steps 2–4) into specific courses of action and transformative proposals.

Here, the work of the “foresight laboratory” begins, in which initiatives are developed (each with its own methodology and designated working group) with a view to either encouraging or preventing a given scenario. Some initiatives, such as agreeing a new public policy or law, will likely require the involvement of all sectors. Other initiatives will involve only certain sectors, on the basis of their areas of interest and knowledge.

The laboratory provides a shared collaborative space for learning, designing and monitoring proposals, and putting together a portfolio of projects with the potential to transform the system. It also offers the opportunity to build individual and group capacities to collaborate in an experimental setting and in a systematic way.

(f) Possible outcomes

The types of possible outcomes that could form a basis for effective and sustainable joint action are:

•New shared language and new ideas, perspectives and viewpoints, which improve the understanding of challenges at the system level and improve methods of collaboration and courses of action.

•A set of future scenarios (new narratives) to guide national development processes and actions.

•The establishment or strengthening of ties, networks and partnerships among stakeholders and interest groups, which facilitate new thinking, collective action and cross-sectoral collaboration.

•New initiatives (proposals) and lessons learned from the dialogue and interaction among stakeholders.

•Dynamic examples of cross-sectoral collaboration.

2. Challenges of incorporating a future-oriented perspective into territorial development through foresight

Studying possible futures facilitates the incorporation of time frames as a key variable in the process of territorial planning and management. In particular, foresight as a social process of building future scenarios goes hand in hand with consideration, discussion and design of territorial development, in a systemic and sustainable manner.

Nevertheless, there are some epistemological challenges that are important to consider. To begin with, the future is inherently uncertain, and foresight does not make it possible to predict future events and outcomes, given the numerous variables and dynamics at play with regard to territorial development and sustainability. Uncertainty is a fundamental and overarching trait of our time (Ramos and García, 2020), and the ability to make predictions is not among the epistemological values of that foresight offers (Funtowicz and Hidalgo, 2008; Funtowicz and Ravetz, 1993).

In addition, a territory is a complex system characterized by multiplicity; it is a multidimensional, multi-stakeholder and multilevel construct spanning multiple time frames and interwoven with multiple interdependent relationships (Elverdín and others, 2014). Foresight must address that complexity and take into consideration the interrelationships and interactions between various trends, such as changes in the population, the economy or technology, the environment and society (Medina, 2023; García, 2011).

At the same time, change is a constant. Incorporating foresight in territorial planning and management requires the consideration of significant changes in the future. However, sometimes, concerned parties or other stakeholders can be resistant to change, especially when it affects current decisions, policies and strategies.

Lastly, there are two central considerations when implementing foresight in territorial development. First, it is important to keep institutional sustainability front of mind, considering that changing political and institutional winds, in particular in political administrations and priorities, can affect territorial planning and management processes (De Souza, Cheaz and Calderón, 2001). This complicates the continuity of long-term planning instruments (plans, programmes and projects) developed through foresight planning. It is thus essential to establish institutional models, systems and processes that ensure the continuity of and follow-up to planned actions over time (Medina, Patrouilleau and Vitale, 2021).

Second, the data and information needed to build scenarios are currently very limited. In order to have informed strategic discussions, there must be quality data and information to support foresight analysis. However, the availability and quality of data are sometimes limited, which can affect the quality of the scenarios built. In certain cases, data on certain critical territorial dynamics can sometimes be insufficient, which makes it difficult to build scenarios.

3. Coordination of territorial planning instruments for improved forward-looking territorial governance

The coordination of territorial planning instruments is essential for encouraging forward-looking territorial governance. This entails integrating and coordinating various planning instruments, such as plans, programmes and projects. The first consideration is the coherence and strategic orientation of objectives. The various planning instruments must be aligned and their respective objectives must be coherent. In other words, the strategies and objectives established in each instrument must be in harmony and collectively serve to achieve the desired long-term territorial development.

The second consideration is that each planning instrument has a specific focus and scope. Coordination leverages the strengths of each instrument and enables a comprehensive approach to the various dimensions of territorial development. For example, urban planning can be integrated with rural planning for a more sustainable comprehensive development (Méndez and Pascale, 2014).

The coordination of planning instruments requires the participation and collaboration of key stakeholders, including the public sector (government), the private sector (businesses), scientific and technological organizations and civil society organizations. This fosters participatory governance, whereby many voices and perspectives are reflected in public policymaking (Sandoval, Sanhueza and Williner, 2015). Participation and collaboration enable stakeholders to consider distinct future scenarios, identify challenges and opportunities and foster greater legitimacy and acceptance of the policies and plans developed.

Effective coordination among institutions involved in design and implementation requires a suitable regulatory and legislative framework delineating the functions and responsibilities of the entities involved. It is also fundamentally important to have inter-agency cooperation mechanisms in place that foster communication, collaboration and information exchange.

Lastly, the coordination of planning instruments is not a static process; rather, it must be dynamic and adaptable to changes and challenges at the territorial level. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms must be established to review and modify planning instruments in the light of progress made and evolving scenarios. Such mechanisms ensure that the forward-looking approach remains up to date and that any changes necessary to adapt to territorial trends are made.

In that regard, territorial observatories function as mechanisms for public and private participation to support consideration, debate and the building of territories with a focus on sustainability, based on the generation of information and knowledge about critical, relevant territorial processes with a view to making public policy decisions with the lowest associated risk and which reflect an understanding of changes in the environment (Vitale and others, 2017).

4. Systematization and analysis of national and subnational case studies

Annex II.A1 contains a systematization of national and subnational territorial foresight case studies from four countries of the region.

Territorial foresight case studies were prioritized on the basis of their significance in the region and the availability of data and empirical information to allow for deeper analysis, as well as their potential to offer lessons that would be useful to other countries in the region.

The selected case studies are representative of the region, having been developed and implemented by foresight systems and having experienced progress and setbacks – vicissitudes typical of the region (Medina, Patrouilleau and Vitale, 2021).

Results are systematized by case study or experience, as the systematization and analysis of case studies are important for understanding and learning from regional experiences, both past and present.

To ensure that the case studies are understood in context, a brief description of each country is provided, including size, population and territorial organization, given that each case study is grounded in a sociopolitical and cultural context which, in turn, lends varying degrees of complexity to the corresponding planning process.

The vertical division of power in unitary States (with degrees of decentralization or autonomy) and federal States presents other challenges. Although none of the selected case studies pertain to a federal government, the division of authority and powers among jurisdictions, as in the cases of Argentina, Brazil and Mexico, requires institutional mechanisms for coordination among subnational entities.

(a) Selected national case studies[3]

Uruguay is a unitary country. Its territory spans 176,215 km^2, divided into 19 departments and 125 municipalities. According to 2011 national population census data, Uruguay has a population of 3,286,314.

Between 2015 and 2022, Uruguay conducted a series of foresight studies to contribute to the National Development Strategy Uruguay 2050. As part of the work of the Office of Planning and the Budget, the Planning Directorate was established to design and lead the entire process, in which nearly all State institutions participated. The foresight studies were based on two central pillars —sociodemographic and productive— and three cross-cutting thematic areas, which enriched the focus of every study: gender, culture and territory.

The results of five years of studies and participation were synthesized in the National Development Strategy Uruguay 2050, presented in 2019, which is built around three strategic pillars with strong interlinkages: sustainable transformation of production, social transformation and transformation of gender relations (Mariano, Papagno and Vitale, 2022).

Guatemala has a total surface area of 109,000 km^2 and a population of 18,607,184 (according to the 2022 census). It is a unitary State with two levels of government: national and municipal. For purposes of administration, the country is divided into 22 departments, which are in turn divided into 332 municipalities. Twenty-five languages are spoken in Guatemala.

According to information from the Regional Observatory on Planning for Development in Latin America and the Caribbean,[4] the K’atun National Development Plan: Our Guatemala 2032 constitutes the national long-term development policy, coordinating Guatemala’s policies, plans, programmes, projects and investments.

The Plan was drafted by the National Council for Urban and Rural Development (CONADUR), which, in accordance with its constitutional mandate, carries out the function of organizing and coordinating public administration by preparing development policies and budgetary plans and programmes, and by stimulating inter-agency and public-private coordination.

To that end, CONADUR created the drafting and monitoring committee of the K’atun National Development Plan, and designated the Secretariat for Planning and Programming of the Office of the President (SEGEPLAN) to provide advisory and technical support services throughout the process.

Suriname has a surface area of 163,820 km^2. In 2020, its population stood at approximately 588,000, according to data from Worldometer, making it the least populated independent country in South America. It is the only sovereign State in Latin America and the Caribbean with Dutch as the official language.

According to the Regional Observatory on Planning for Development in Latin America and the Caribbean,[5] the Multi-Annual Development Plan 2022–2026 of the Republic Suriname is based on its recovery plan for the period 2020–2022 and implements the Planning Act of 1973, aimed at ensuring the socially just and balanced development of society. The Plan does not attempt to solve all of the country’s problems or be representative of all interests, but rather to establish a strategy (vision, direction, priorities and implementation). These elements were selected and drafted with a view to ensuring their practicability, in terms of implementation capacity and financial capacity, and enabling the country to respond successfully to foreseeable opportunities and challenges, such as globalization and climate change.

(b) Selected subnational case studies

The systematized case studies presented below are all drawn from the subnational level, and fall into two categories: two of the subnational case studies are from federal States (Argentina and Mexico), while the other three are from unitary States (Colombia and Uruguay).

As discussed in previous sections, these development plans, strategic plans and visions correspond to distinct policy instruments. In Mendoza, Argentina, land-use legislation is used as a planning tool for the future of the province. In Medellín, Colombia, a regional strategic plan covering several municipalities takes a metropolitan approach with inter-agency coordination. In Cali, Colombia, the planning process is focused on inclusive urban development for improved social cohesion. In Canelones, Uruguay, the planning process incorporates land use, governance and multi-stakeholder perspectives and takes a comprehensive approach to multi-temporal instruments. Lastly, in Guadalajara, Mexico, the plan proposes participatory governance for the city, based on its history and its role in the country’s development.

The cases share a number of commonalities: a long-term time frame, a focus on involving multiple stakeholders and on comprehensive and systemic territorial development, and the use of multiple methodological foresight instruments in combination with land-use policies and action-orientedstrategic plans.

The province of Mendoza, Argentina, promulgated Law No. 8051/2009 on spatial planning and land use, establishing spatial planning as a political and administrative function of the State in all territories of the province. The Law represents the public policy of the provincial and municipal governments. Its focus is on prevention and short-, medium- and long-term foresight, and it uses planning as a basic tool for reconciling the economic, social and environmental development process with equitable and efficient land use. Its purpose is to establish principles and guidelines for planning, development and sustainable land use in the province.

In the case of Medellín, Colombia, “Medellín BIO 2030” resulted from a collective consensus-building strategy involving interest groups from the public, private and academic sectors, interacting at the various stages of the process, with the aim of reaching agreement on responses to the following questions: How are we doing? Where do we want to go? What do we need to do to get there? A strategic, action-oriented foresight document was drafted, which will guide territorial development in Valle de Aburrá towards a shared goal: a sustainable, socially equitable valley that is competitive in the global economy.

In the case of Cali, Colombia, an exercise was carried out at the city level. Thought, analysis and study went into defining a future development that could optimize physical, natural and infrastructure resources and consolidate their economic uses with a view to attracting new types of real estate development. Visión Cali 2036 was the product of a long territorial planning process aimed at fostering social cohesion. It is based on a conception of territorial foresight and strategy as a continuous cycle of building future scenarios.

The case of Canelones, Uruguay, is particularly interesting, as it initially consisted of a strategic planning exercise (2007), with foresight methodologies applied in successive exercises conducted subsequently (2010, 2014 and 2019) during the plan’s implementation phase. The case is underpinned by a land-use planning and administration model. In the fourth version (2019) of the Canario Strategic Plan, entitled Futures for Canelones: Canelones 2040, four narratives for desired scenarios —sociocultural, economic/production, territorial/environmental and political/institutional— integrate land-use planning processes.

Lastly, in the case of Guadalajara, Mexico, the Municipal Development and Governance Plan, 2021–2024, establishes a new vision for the city’s future, with an eye towards the 500-year anniversary of its founding, in 2042. Drafting began with a rigorous assessment of the preceding plan, covering the period 2018–2021, and a participatory analysis of conditions in the city. The 2042 vision focused on the theme “The city we want”, included in the 2021–2024 plan, describes a dynamic, hospitable and cosmopolitan state capital of Jalisco that, as such, influences the political, economic and social life of the western part of Mexico, which has played a key role throughout the country’s history and which serves as a growth and development model. In that regard, the change to which the vision aspires represents a continuation of the 2015–2018 and 2018–2021 plans.

C. Incorporating foresight in national public institutions in the region

The cascading crises that have struck the region —the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects, as well as a plethora of economic, social and environmental crises— reaffirmed the utility and necessity of incorporating foresight in national public institutions in order to anticipate disruptive events, respond in an effective and timely manner and make informed decisions, as well as to design and administer public policies that address the challenges facing present and future generations.

The document Resilient institutions for a transformative post-pandemic recovery in Latin America and the Caribbean: Inputs for discussion (ECLAC, 2021) contains a number of recommendations on strengthening institutional foresight capacities to enable States to anticipate and respond to disruptive events in highly uncertain climates, including the following:

•Retaining employees trained in foresight methodologies in government institutions in order to accumulate and expand solid, sustainable and sufficient knowledge in the face of global structural change.

•Strengthening the coordination and vision-setting role of foresight in strategic projects that are key to countries’ development.

•Identifying the role of this discipline and its applications in the regional and subregional integration of Latin America and the Caribbean.

•Identifying a regional point of reference with the legitimacy and multilateral influence to imagine the future of the region.

•Incorporating short-, medium- and long-term intertemporal sequences, and acquiring a comprehensive vision of development in which all territorial scales —local, subnational, national and international— are engaged.

•Fostering networks and coordinating networks of networks to encourage the exchange of experiences and good practices of this discipline in public administration.

•Continuing to galvanize the political will of States in this regard through the academic sector, civil society, the private sector and other key stakeholders.

1. Challenges when incorporating foresight in public institutions: perspectives of public officials from the region

To gain a deeper understanding of the aforementioned considerations and identify the characteristics of applied foresight within government, ILPES conducted an online survey of public officials from 19 Latin American countries.

The survey had a total of 412 respondents and shed light on a series of topics related to the incorporation of foresight in public institutions, namely: knowledge of the use of foresight in the design and implementation of public policies in the institutions of respondents; areas of interest concerning the use of foresight in government; challenges when using foresight in public institutions; contributions of foresight to planning and the public policy cycle; and the role of leadership in driving foresight.

The survey results showed that 50% of respondents served in public institutions in which foresight was or had been used in public policymaking.

When respondents were asked whether, in their opinion, their country used or had used foresight in public policymaking in the past 20 years, 53% answered in the affirmative; 36% answered in the negative; and 11% did not know.

These results show that foresight is making inroads in the public administration of Latin America. As shown in figure II.1, the majority of respondents were aware of foresight having been incorporated, in particular in ministries or government offices (35%), universities (20%) and subnational governments (15%).

Figure II.1

Knowledge of application of foresight in countries surveyed.Responses to the question, “To your knowledge, what kind(s) of entity in your country have applied foresight planning in the past 20 years?”

(Percentages)

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Note: The data are drawn from an online survey of public officials from 19 Latin American countries (Haiti not included) conducted by the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES). The survey was conducted in August 2022 and had 412 respondents.

The above is consistent with the perception among 57% of respondents that governmental institutions are interested, to varying degrees, in incorporating foresight in the design of public policies for the three pillars of sustainable development (economic, social and environmental), mainly through a sectoral approach.

Respondents indicated that their countries showed interest in the use of foresight in designing mainly economic development policy (seven countries), social policy (seven countries), environment and natural resources (two countries) and land-use planning and territorial development, safety and risk management issues (three countries) (see table II.1).

Among countries in which at least 50% of respondents reported government interest in the use of foresight in a particular area, the area indicated was economic development policy in Paraguay (100%), the Plurinational State of Bolivia (67%) and Nicaragua (50%). In Ecuador, 60% of respondents indicated safety and risk management as their government’s area of interest, while in Cuba, 50% indicated health as the area of interest.

Nicaragua and Brazil were the countries with the highest percentages of respondents indicating social policy as the government’s area of interest, at 50% and 40%, respectively.

Notably, certain areas of public policy were not mentioned by respondents. For example, the area of international relations was not mentioned as one in which governments could be interested in applying foresight.

Table II.1

Areas in which governments are interested in the use of foresight

Country

Main areas of interest of governments, according to respondents

Argentina

Environment, energy and natural resources (22%)

Bolivia (Plurinational State of)

Economic development policy (67%)

Brazil

Social policy (40%), economic development policy (40%)

Chile

Development and land management (28%)

Colombia

Development and land management (31%)

Costa Rica

Social policy (26%)

Cuba

Health (50%)

Dominican Republic

Social policy (33%)

Ecuador

Safety and risk management (60%)

Guatemala

Economic development policy (18%), development and land management (18%)

Honduras

Social policy (30%), gender (30%)

Mexico

Education and culture (15%)

Nicaragua

Social policy (50%), economic development policy (50%)

Paraguay

Economic development policy (100%)

Peru

Economic development policy (25%)

Uruguay

Environment, energy and natural resources (33%)

Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)

Economic development policy (25%)

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Note: The data are drawn from an online survey of public officials from 19 Latin American countries (Haiti not included) conducted by the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES). The survey was conducted in August 2022 and had 412 respondents. No responses to this question were received from public officials from Panama or El Salvador.

(a) Challenges when applying foresight analysis in government

The same survey sought to deepen the understanding of challenges when applying foresight in public institutions. It is worth noting that the results not only confirm and support what has already been identified in the literature in this field but also reveal some additional challenges.

There are three main factors that hinder incorporation of foresight in government, according to respondents. Foremost among them are political factors (28%), which included a lack of political support and the short-term perspective linked to electoral cycles and changes of administration in which institutional knowledge is lost (see figure II.2).

Specifically, the political cycle and short-term perspectives linked to changes of administration were mentioned as the most significant reasons. One respondent said that political timelines did not align with the timelines needed for developing and conducting foresight analysis, adding that institutions had to contend with political concerns which often lacked a long-term perspective and undermined efforts to solve problems on a day-to-day basis.

Technical factors (21%) came in second, including the shortage of institutional knowledge regarding the practical application of foresight, and limited technical capacities to apply foresight in the design of plans and policies. Regulatory factors (19%) came in third, in particular the lack of regulations establishing the use of foresight within the public policy cycle. There are other areas of focus and principles that are established by regulations, such as results-based management and the monitoring and evaluation of policies.

One respondent said that without an explicit norm, public officials did not see the need to change current or traditional planning processes, and that, as a result, they saw no reason to invest time, resources, skills or management efforts in creating spaces and networks to encourage the use of foresight in planning exercises.

Figure II.2

Factors that hinder incorporation of foresight in government. Responses to the question, “What factor(s) would you say hinder incorporation of foresight in government?”

(Percentages)

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Note: The data are drawn from an online survey of public officials from 19 Latin American countries (Haiti not included) conducted by the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES). The survey was conducted in August 2022 and had 412 respondents.

The difficulties inherent to the organizational structure of government (17%) were also mentioned as hindering factors; its traditional linear model and the existence of silos hinder a comprehensive perspective and construction of alternative future scenarios with a view to designing development plans and public policy.

Lastly, financial factors (11%) were identified as hindering implementation of these processes, including aspects related to public consultations and citizen involvement, the hiring of external experts and longer timelines.

Only 1% of respondents identified no difficulties in incorporating foresight in government at the national level.

(b) Contributions of foresight to planning and public policy

The online survey also revealed public officials’ views on the contributions of foresight to planning and to the design and implementation of public policies. From among the multiple choices given, respondents highlighted that foresight engenders alternative ideas, provides new information and helps to predict the impacts of public policy and to encourage the political system to broaden the scope of its focus to include both short-term and long-term priorities (see table II.2).

Table II.2

Contributions of foresight to public policymaking

Statements that best describe the contribution of foresight to public policy

Percentages

Engenders alternative ideas, provides new information

17.6

Facilitates policymaking

9.5

The link created between social stakeholders and government organizations facilitates implementation

9.5

Lends legitimacy to public policy, as it involves the participation of the public

9.4

Helps the political system to broaden and coordinate its short-term and long-term priorities

14.4

Applies a rational and coherent approach to public policy, benefiting both policymakers and society

11.7

Helps to predict the impact of public policy

14.8

Helps to formulate clearly defined objectives

12.8

None of the above

0.3

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Note: The data are drawn from an online survey of public officials from 19 Latin American countries (Haiti not included) conducted by the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES). The survey was conducted in August 2022 and had 412 respondents.

These responses reaffirm theoretical aspects of research conducted by Da Costa and others (2008) and Aceituno (2020). However, they also highlighted additional contributions of foresight, which lend clarity to what Da Costa and others (2008) originally proposed, including that it creates a link between social stakeholders and government organizations that facilitates implementation; brings rationality and coherence to bear on public policy, benefiting both policymakers and society; and facilitates the formulation of clearly defined objectives.

The data presented in the table should not be interpreted as just another result confirming the greater or lesser contributions of foresight to public policy; they also aid in the conception of foresight planning for development as a process of continuous reflection and co-creation of the development conditions of the future in a given country, sector or territory, which enables the forecasting of events that might affect that future.

According to the survey results, respondents recognize the various responses above as representative statements about the contribution of foresight to public policy. In that regard, the statements about the link between government and social stakeholders and the lending of legitimacy to public policy owing to the public participation that foresight entails are of particular note. Approximately 90% of respondents agreed with the statement that foresight helps civil society to incorporate a long-term perspective in its consideration of public policies.

(c) Leadership as a factor in the design and implementation of foresight analysis policy

The public officials surveyed were also asked how they would describe the political leadership that they had observed in the design and implementation phases of foresight-based public policies. Among the responses pertaining to the design phase, three general views emerged. The most frequently expressed view was that leadership is distant and weak at best, inexistent at worst. In that regard, one respondent said that, unfortunately, leadership was one of the aspects most lacking nationally, owing to a public sector with little technical training on the development of public policies.

Another respondent mentioned lack of knowledge as the reason behind weak leadership, saying that political leadership in the implementation phase of foresight-based public policies was very weak and inefficient, given limited knowledge of the subject.

Far fewer respondents said that leadership was nascent, fragile, recent or even sporadic. They noted that foresight as a discipline was barely starting to make inroads in government. For example, one respondent said that foresight was still being introduced and promoted, and that mention of foresight among politicians, parliamentarians and ministers was quite rare.

Lastly, in a few outlier cases, respondents praised political leadership in the design of foresight-based public policies in their countries, with the caveat that more technical training was needed. One respondent described leadership as having made a good start, but noted that more human capital and knowledge of guiding principles were needed.

Overall, respondents did not have a positive view of political leadership in the design of foresight-based policies. At least two clear reasons for this general outlook emerged. The first and most often mentioned was the short-term perspective linked directly to political cycles, or changes in administration. For example, one respondent said that, locally, very few policies were designed using foresight planning; the majority took a reactive and short-term approach, sadly.

Some respondents said that the limited participation of civil society in policymaking consolidated the political power concentrated among high-level authorities, further centralizing the decision-making process. For example, according to one respondent, participation among civil society and even subnational government is very low, which leads to excessive concentration of political leadership in the hands of central government officials.

This observation is significant. Again, when civil society is insufficiently incorporated in policymaking, power is further centralized, as policy design and decision-making become concentrated. The concentration of power tends to increase the pressure imposed by the political cycle and hamper the foresight planning process.

2. Proposal for incorporating foresight in public institutions and achieving anticipatory governance: a foresight for development ecosystem

Governments are the driving force behind foresight for development and must take on the task of stewarding systemic foresight, especially where sustainable development is concerned (Tully, 2015).

Authors L. Fuerth and E. Faber, drawing upon the experience of the United States, proposed the concept of networked governance: “networked organizational structures can facilitate rapid flow of information and thus serve as the basis for a smarter and more prescient bureaucracy. Networks can help to engage the full resources of government in the form of adjustable groupings, and in arrangements that encourage a high degree of initiative, although responsive to overall strategic guidance” in pursuit of a specified mission. This would in turn guide policymaking and budgets (Fuerth and Faber, 2012).

According to the School of International Futures (SOIF, 2021), “there is no silver bullet for creating effective sustainable foresight in government”. Foresight should be considered as an ecosystem immersed in its sociocultural and political context. This approach is crucial to ensuring foresight’s permanent integration into policymaking.

Case studies have served as a basis to refine and further develop this ecosystem model. The layers of the model are defined as follows:

•Sociocultural context. Refers to cultural aspects (such as history, cultures and idiosyncrasies of the various territories) that governments must take into account to ensure the relevance of foresight ecosystems.

•Government context. Includes the characteristics and functions of the State and government, as well as policies and their evolution. The entities that comprise that State may possess their own foresight capabilities.

•Foresight ecosystem itself. The School of International Futures (SOIF, 2021) emphasizes that the ecosystem operates within the framework of government and is shaped by the sociocultural and government contexts.

The foresight ecosystem must carry out three functions in order to be useful for the work of government:

•To be self-sufficient it must engage in continuous analysis of the environment, help to connect the layers of the system and engage in the exchange of information and international experiences, creating a feedback loop that builds resilience.

•Provide timely, relevant and quality information to decision makers.

•Create demand for access to foresight analysis and information at all levels and in all sectors of government.

Diagram II.4 represents an adaptation of the ecosystem as proposed by SOIF to incorporate foresight capacities, namely: a long-term approach is adopted by the whole of society and all government institutions; organizations have the skills and tools needed to carry out foresight analysis; and public officials are adequately trained on foresight methodology.

The adaptation of the foresight ecosystem proposed by the School of International Futures, as applied in the case of Costa Rica, is described in box II.2

Diagram II.4

Foresight ecosystem

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), on the basis of School of International Futures (SOIF), Features of Effective Systemic Foresight in Governments Around the World, London, 2021.

Box II.2

Foresight ecosystem adapted and applied to Costa Rica

In 2013, Costa Rica drafted its long-term vision Costa Rica 2030: National Development Goals.

Sociocultural context

Throughout its history, Costa Rica has striven to achieve a long-term perspective and build a development agenda that is characterized by continuity and that remain a benchmark through successive changes of administration.

That pursuit is evident in a series of milestone national planning laws. In 1963, Planning Act No. 3087 established a department for long- and medium-term planning and mandated the drafting of a 10-year general long-term plan and a general medium-term plan. In 1974, efforts were furthered by Planning Act No. 5525, which established that the President of the Republic would set the overarching trajectory of the national development plan, which would be submitted by the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy in the form of short-, medium- and long-term plans, for the President’s consideration and approval. Lastly, the Institutional Strategic Plan, 2011–2015, integrates the long-term development vision with sectoral, regional, institutional and national planning processes.

Government context: institutions, policies and governance

In May 2010, the Foresight Analysis and Public Policy Unit within the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy committed to draft a long-term vision for Costa Rica through 2030. It also took on the tasks of establishing coordination mechanisms and instruments and of systematizing and prioritizing thematic areas in policies, plans, programmes and projects.

The long-term vision is cross-cutting and must be reflected in national development plans which, in turn, create a framework for national sectoral and institutional plans, as well as regional and local plans.

Processes

In 2011, a public consultation was held with a view to ascertaining the public’s views on the country’s major opportunities, strengths, challenges and weaknesses. A range of stakeholders participated from across society, including stakeholders from areas of high and low levels of social and human development in all regions of the country. The consultation was hosted on the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy website and was also conducted in person through regional visits.

In late 2011 and early 2012, regional and thematic workshops were held to obtain experience-based feedback from participants on long-term development proposals, on the basis of the results of the consultation. Around the same time (January–April 2012), scenario-building was carried out. The first step was to identify subjects and variables for the scenarios. The scenarios were then drafted, and documents produced during the workshops were incorporated into the scenario drafts.

The scenarios consisted of a multi-variable analysis aimed at envisioning the possible long-term interaction of five select variables.

Capacities

In early 2011, an agreement was signed with the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) to provide foresight methodology training to Ministry of National Planning and Economic Policy officials.

Source: ECLAC, based on official information.

3. Characteristics of foresight ecosystem capabilities

The countries that have built forward-looking, resilient and adaptable foresight ecosystems have done so in stages (as in the cases of Costa Rica, Finland and Lesotho) and have certain characteristics in common across four categories: culture and performance, processes, structures and capacities (SOIF, 2021).

Culture and performance. Effective foresight ecosystems are based on a commitment to a development approach with a foresight planning focus on various changes, linking policymakers with foresight planning.

Processes. Foresight ecosystem processes add new items to the agenda of public discourse; stimulate and require long-term thinking; engage various disciplines and methods, helping to diversify participation; and invest in research and development on participatory mechanisms, which open processes up to the public.

Structure. Foresight ecosystems often include a central foresight planning body, with capacities distributed throughout government departments (for instance defence, and science and technology). There tend to be fewer legislative bodies dedicated to foresight. In some cases, the judiciary appears to have more involvement in foresight studies.

Capacities. The most effective foresight ecosystems strive to maintain the necessary capacities, in particular in terms of trained personnel. Some ecosystems invest in foresight training for personnel involved in designing policies. It tends to be an incentive for recognized leaders to join foresight analysis efforts.

The Strategic Foresight Unit of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2021) also offers illustrative examples of the successful incorporation of anticipatory governance in public institutions, for example in Australia, Canada, Estonia, Finland, Germany, the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Singapore, as well as in the European Parliament, which include the following key aspects:

•Creation of national foresight ecosystems tailored to each context. Successful experiences cannot therefore merely be replicated.

•Acceptance of foresight planning among the highest-level decision makers.

•Foresight processes are afforded a high degree of independence and trust by authorities.

•Incorporation of an inclusive perspective in foresight analysis processes. Teams must be interdisciplinary and diverse with regard to ethnicity, religion, gender and other characteristics. This helps to reduce bias.

•Broad public participation.

•Allocation of sufficient human and financial resources.

•Capacity-building on foresight for public officials, in partnership with universities and expert networks.

D. Innovation in public administration as a key element of developing foresight

Although there are several definitions of innovation that can be applied to public sector innovation,[6] all of them refer to changes or creation of new solutions to public problems that take the form of a good, a service, a process or even a method and whose focus is on meeting the needs and expectations of citizens and generating a public benefit. Public benefit is understood as the value that citizens place on the goods and services received from the State if they satisfy a felt need with quality and timeliness.

In this respect, improved public sector productivity through innovation can, in the short term, bring about specific transformations of public services provided to citizens, in turn leading to greater social well-being in the medium term, and lastly in the long term consolidating creation of public value that inspires trust in public institutions (a virtuous circle). Therefore, innovation is not only a key tool for creating public value —with people and for them— but also a tool for progress towards sustainable development goals and targets.

This is why it is argued that innovation does not refer solely to technology use, despite this being an important tool. Innovating entails revamping structures, changing paradigms, radically redesigning internal processes and developing new public sector value propositions.

The trio of foresight, innovation and public administration is key to reflecting on development and application of foresight in public institutions, to address shared issues. Innovation in public administration is a central element for development of foresight, since it enables accumulation of anticipatory knowledge of future changes and challenges, and effective solutions to address them.

Combining foresight with innovation in public administration creates a framework for identifying and understanding future visions and scenarios, and developing appropriate strategies to address them. Ways in which innovation can strengthen foresight in public administration include:

(i)Data collection and analysis: innovation in public administration enables use of technologies to collect and analyse key data. This provides a solid basis for identifying trends, patterns and changes in the environment, which facilitates scenario-building.

(ii)Social and citizen participation: innovation in public administration can encourage citizen participation in scenario-building. Use of participatory technologies, such as online platforms and mobile applications, can enable citizens to engage in identifying problems, creating ideas and evaluating public policies (OECD, 2020).

(iii)Collaboration and working as a network: innovation in public administration also facilitates different stakeholders’ collaboration and work through networks, within the public sector and with the private sector, the academic sector and civil society. This enables collective intelligence and specialized skills to be harnessed to address future challenges (Castells, 2002).

(iv)Organizational learning: innovation in public administration fosters continuous learning. Implementing pilot projects and adopting forward-looking approaches enable new visions and scenarios to be formulated in a dynamic and complex environment. This allows lessons to be learned from reflection and implementation, adjusting strategies and improving decision-making.

1. The challenges of governance at the national and regional level and the different innovation models in the State

In recognition of the importance of taking a different approach to public administration that enables a suitable response to the needs and expectations of citizens and to new challenges in a context of uncertainty and multiple crises, the countries of the region and of the world have begun to adopt different means of incorporating innovation into their public institutions. However, they still face some challenges in the process of institutionalizing innovation and addressing it as a State policy, establishing autonomous, multi-stakeholder organizational structures with their own budget.

Governance formats currently in place to foster public innovation include interministerial commissions or presidential councils, state agencies (with varying degrees of autonomy from the incumbent government) and innovation labs. Innovation labs are the means of incorporating innovation into the public sector that is most commonly found in the institutional frameworks of Latin America and the Caribbean.

Taking as a basis experiences in public sector innovation (Yussif, 2023) and one of the first studies by the British innovation agency, Nesta, which in 2014 developed a typology of “i-teams” (Puttick, Baeck and Colligan, 2014), the following current forms of public innovation can be identified:

•Knowledge management model: format aimed at promoting a new public policy strategy based on innovation, whereby the body in charge of public innovation plays a key role in producing and disseminating knowledge, new skills and lessons on use of innovation tools to bring about systemic changes. These bodies function as think tanks within the State. An example of this model is the Policy Lab in the United Kingdom.[7]

•Coaches model: format aimed at developing innovation capacities and promoting a new innovative culture in public services. An example of this model is the Public Innovation Laboratory of the Office of the Mayor of Bogotá (iBO).[8]

•Designers model: format aimed at designing and managing experimentation processes to generate lessons and evaluate potential solutions. An example of this model is the Government and Digital Transformation Laboratory of the Secretary of Digital Government and Digital Transformation in the Office of the President of the Council of Ministers of Peru.[9]

•Citizen model: structures housed in civil society organizations or the academic sector whose distinguishing feature is creation of spaces for citizen innovation with a focus on rethinking how policy interacts with citizens. An example of this model is the non-governmental organization Asuntos del Sur in Argentina and its Public Innovation Academy.[10]

•Incubator model: governance approach in line with the proposal of economist Mariana Mazzucato of designing mission-oriented innovation policy. Under this approach, the State is an overarching coordinator of new growth drivers and resolution of challenges, with a framework of public-private collaboration, and participation by citizens and the academic sector. Initiatives that promote start-ups to solve public administration problems are examples, such as the GovTech LATAM platform of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), which focuses on municipalities.

•Implementers model: joint design and implementation of holistic solutions to priority and complex problems that are the responsibility of the State and have a significant impact on citizens. Also known as delivery labs. These are innovation entities that have one or more of the characteristics of the aforementioned models, which aim to successfully move solutions from the prototype to the pilot phase and later scale them up and apply them more widely. One example is the Chilean Government Laboratory, which currently reports to the Ministry of Finance.[11]

Regardless of the approach, designing and implementing a governance structure for public innovation with a long-term outlook entails considering at least the following issues:

(i)The representativeness of governance and its connection to its aims, so that it has both power and impact. This refers to the representativeness of the governing body and the legal and political structure through which the public innovation agency answers to that body, as well as the degree to which it is linked to the aims of that structure, to ensure alignment of its mission and its political-technical capacity to fulfil it.

(ii)The flexibility and capacity of the underlying structure for governance, to ensure it can evolve over time. This refers the degree to which the institutional framework that supports the innovation lab or space is either rigid or modifiable, and how agile it is in resolving administrative problems.

(iii)The receptiveness of leadership and decision-making as a mechanism for ongoing listening, which is key to innovation. The central issue here is how accessible governance is for stakeholders in the ecosystem outside the institutional framework for public innovation, especially in terms of large-scale strategic decisions or projects pursued.

Just as one of the aims of public innovation is to design corrective actions to achieve desired results, for governing bodies for public innovation to be sound, evaluation must be ongoing, to make required adjustments so that the design effectively meets a country’s challenges.

Bibliography

Abal, J. (2012), “El Estado”, Manual de la nueva administración pública argentina, J. Abal and H. Cao (comps.), Buenos Aires, Ariel.

Aceituno, P. (2020), “Foresight studies and their assessment in the public policy of two Chilean regional development strategies”, Cuadernos de Administración, vol. 36, No. 68, Cali, University of Valle.

____(2018), “Toma de decisiones y prospectiva: hacia una vinculación”, La planificación y la prospectiva, hoy: innovaciones para el fortalecimiento de la capacidad de gobernar y para la toma de decisiones, La Paz, Municipal Autonomous Government of La Paz.

Acuña, C. (comp.) (2011), Lecturas sobre el Estado y las políticas públicas: retomando el debate de ayer para fortalecer el actual, Buenos Aires, Office of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Nation.

Aon, L. (coord.) (2012), Estudio sobre el estado actual de la planificación en Argentina, Buenos Aires, Undersecretariat of Public Investment Territorial Planning/Development Bank of Latin America (CAF).

Arriagada, R. (2002), Diseño de un sistema de medición de desempeño para evaluar la gestión municipal: una propuesta metodológica, Manuals series, No. 20 (LC/L.1753-P), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Arroyo, M., E. Jiménez and T. Miklos (2008), Prospectiva, gobernabilidad y riesgo político: instrumentos para la acción, Mexico City, Limusa.

Baena, G. (2005), Construcción del pensamiento prospectivo: técnicas para su desarrollo, Mexico City, Editorial Trillas.

Beenakker, I. and others (2022), “The implementation of a territorial foresight outcome through aligning goal frames: a pilot case of the gas disconnection in the Netherlands”, Futures, vol. 135, Amsterdam, Elsevier.

Berger, G. (1964), Phénomenologie du temps et prospective, Paris, Presses Universitaires de France.

Brugué, Q., I. Blanco and J. Boada (2014), “Entornos y motores para la innovación en las políticas públicas”, Revista del CLAD Reforma y Democracia, No. 59, Caracas, Latin American Centre for Development Administration (CLAD).

Castells, M. (2002), “La dimensión cultural de Internet”, Barcelona, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) [online] https://www.uoc.edu/culturaxxi/esp/articles/castells0502/castells0502.html.

CEPLAN (National Center for Strategic Planning) (2022), Plan Estratégico de Desarrollo Nacional al 2050. Aprobado mediante Decreto Supremo N° 095-2022-PCM. 27 de julio, 2022, Lima.

CONADUR/SEGEPLAN (National Council for Urban and Rural Development/Planning and Programming Secretariat of the Office of the President) (2014), Plan Nacional de Desarrollo K’atun: Nuestra Guatemala 2032, Guatemala City.

Cunill, N. (1997), Repensando lo público a través de la sociedad: nuevas formas de gestión pública y representación social, Caracas, Nueva Sociedad.

Da Costa, O. and others (2008), “The impact of foresight on policy-making: insights from the FORLEARN mutual learning process”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol. 20, No. 3, Milton Park, Taylor & Francis.

Dávalos, P. (2019), “El posneoliberalismo: apuntes para una discusión”, Encuentros Latinoamericanos (segunda época), vol. 8, No. 2, Montevideo, University of the Republic.

De Souza, J., J. Cheaz and J. Calderón (2001), La cuestión institucional: de la vulnerabilidad a la sostenibilidad institucional en el contexto de cambio de época, San José, International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR).

Dente, B. and J. Subirats (2014), Decisiones públicas: análisis y estudio de los procesos de decisión en políticas públicas, Barcelona, Ariel.

ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2021), Resilient institutions for a transformative post-pandemic recovery in Latin America and the Caribbean: inputs for discussion (LC/CRP.18/3), Santiago.

ECLAC/AECID (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean/Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation) (2022), “Prospectiva y resiliencia”, Apuntes, No. 2, Santiago.

____(2021), “Prospectiva y la pandemia del COVID-19”, Apuntes, No. 1, Santiago.

Elverdín, J. and others (2014), Programa Nacional para el Desarrollo y la Sustentabilidad de los Territorios: documento base y estructura organizativa, Buenos Aires, National Institute for Agricultural Technology (INTA).

Espinoza, J. (2006), “La prospectiva territorial: un camino para la construcción social de territorios de futuro”, Región, espacio y territorio en Colombia, G. Vargas and others (eds.), Bogotá, National University of Colombia.

European Commission (2013), Guide to Social Innovation, Brussels.

Fernández, J. (2011), “Recuperación de los estudios del futuro a través de la prospectiva territorial”, Ciudad y Territorio: Estudios Territoriales, vol. 43, No. 167, Madrid, Ministry of Development.

Flores, P. (2013), “El enfoque de la política basado en la evidencia”, Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, vol. 18, No. 56, Mexico City, Mexican Council of Educational Research (COMIE).

Fuerth, L. and E. Faber (2012), Anticipatory Governance Practical Upgrades: Equipping the Executive Branch to Cope with Increasing Speed and Complexity of Major Challenges, Washington, D.C., George Washington University.

Funtowicz, S. and C. Hidalgo (2008), “Ciencia y política con la gente en tiempos de incertidumbre, conflicto de intereses e indeterminación”, Apropiación social de la ciencia, J. López and F. Gómez (coords.), Madrid, Biblioteca Nueva/Organization of Ibero-American States for Education, Science and Culture (OEI).

Funtowicz, S. and J. Ravetz (1993), “Science for the post-normal age”, Futures, vol. 25, No. 7, Amsterdam, Elsevier.

Gabiña, J. (1998), Prospectiva y ordenación del territorio: hacia un proyecto de futuro, Barcelona, Marcombo.

Galindo, J. (2015), “El concepto de riesgo en las teorías de Ulrich Beck y Niklas Luhmann”, Acta Sociológica, vol. 67, Mexico City, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM).

García, D. and M. Ruiz del Ferrier (2013), “El nuevo paradigma: algunas reflexiones sobre el cambio epocal”, Revista Estado y Políticas Públicas, vol. 11, No. 1, Santiago, Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO).

García, R. (2011), “Interdisciplinariedad y sistemas complejos”, Revista Latinoamericana de Metodología de las Ciencias Sociales, vol. 1, No. 1, La Plata, National University of La Plata (UNLP).

González, H. (2020), “Ordenamiento territorial en América Latina: situación actual y perspectivas”, Serie Aprendizajes en Cohesión Social: Colección Eurosocial, No. 17, Madrid, EUROsociAL Programme.

Guardamagna, M. and W. Cueto (2013), “Políticas de estado en democracia: la relación estado/sociedad como ámbito de construcción de la política”, Si Somos Americanos: Revista de Estudios Transfronterizos, vol. 13, No. 2, Santiago, Arturo Prat University.

Innerarity, D. (2020), Una teoría de la democracia compleja: gobernar en el siglo XXI, Barcelona, Galaxia Gutemberg.

J.W. McConnell Family Foundation/Innoweave Knowledge Sharing Platform (2013), The Reos Change Lab: Addressing Complex Challenges with Social Innovation [online] https://social-labs.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/20130213_McConnell-Formatted-Final-Draft.pdf.

Kahane, A. (2012), Transformative Scenario Planning: Working Together to Change the Future, San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Leney, T. and others (2004), “Scenarios Toolkit”, CEDEFOP Dossier series, No. 8, Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Mariano, R., S. Papagno and J. Vitale (2022), Prospectiva en el sector agrícola y alimentario: guía técnico-metodológica, Santa Rosa, Editorial de la Universidad Nacional de La Pampa.

Martín, J. (2005), “Funciones básicas de la planificación económica y social”, Public Administration series, No. 51 (LC/L.2363-P), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Máttar, J. and L. Cuervo (eds.) (2017), Planificación para el desarrollo en América Latina y el Caribe: enfoques, experiencias y perspectivas, ECLAC Books, No. 148 (LC/PUB.2017/16-P), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Máttar, J. and D. Perrotti (eds.) (2014), Planificación, prospectiva y gestión pública: reflexiones para la agenda de desarrollo, ECLAC Books, No. 126 (LC/G.2611-P), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Matus, C. (1987), Política, planificación y gobierno, Caracas, Fundación Altadir.

Medina, J. (2023), Prospectiva para un mundo interdependiente, Bogotá, Colombian Academy of Economic Sciences (ACCE).

____(2020), Abriendo caminos en la prospectiva de América Latina y el Caribe, Cali, University of Valle.

____(2003), Visión compartida de futuro, Cali, University of Valle.

____(2000), “Función de pensamiento de largo plazo: acción y redimensionamiento institucional”, Public Administration series, No. 5 (LC/L.1385-P), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Medina, J., P. Castaño and S. Becerra (2014), Prospectiva y política pública para el cambio estructural en América Latina y el Caribe, ECLAC Books, No. 129 (LC/G.2622-P), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Medina, J. and E. Ortegón (2006), Manual de prospectiva y decisión estratégica: bases teóricas e instrumentos para América Latina y el Caribe, Manuals series, No. 51 (LC/L.2503-P), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Medina, J., R. Patrouilleau and J. Vitale (2021), “Avances y retrocesos en la construcción de capacidades prospectivas en América Latina”, Documento Técnico, Cali, University of Valle.

Méndez, H. and C. Pascale (2014), Ordenamiento territorial en el municipio: una guía metodológica, Buenos Aires, Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries/National Institute for Agricultural Technology/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (INTA/FAO).

Mulgan, G. (2014), Innovation in the Public Sector: How Can Public Organisations Better Create, Improve and Adapt?, London, Nesta.

Mulgan, G. and D. Albury (2003), “Innovation in the public sector”, London, Cabinet Office [online] http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/mathieson/mis524/resources/readings/innovation/innovation_in_the_public_sector.pdf.

Naisbitt, J. (2006), Mind Set!: Reset Your Thinking and See the Future, HarperCollins.

National Planning Department (2022), Visión Colombia 2050: discusión sobre el país del futuro, Bogotá.

____(2019), Sistema de Estadísticas Territoriales (TerriData) [online database] https://terridata.dnp.gov.co/#/.

Nercesian, I. (2017), “Debates en torno a los gobiernos posneoliberales: un estado de la cuestión”, Revista Pilquen - Sección Ciencias Sociales, vol. 20, No. 3, Neuquén, National University of Comahue.

Nussbaum, M. (2011), Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, Harvard University Press.

OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) (2021), Foresight and Anticipatory Governance in practice: Lessons in Effective Foresight Institutionalisation [online] https://www.oecd.org/strategic-foresight/ourwork/Foresight_and_Anticipatory_Governance.pdf.

____(2020), Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave, Paris.

____(2014), “Building organisational capacity for public sector innovation”, document prepared for the conference “Innovating the Public Sector: from Ideas to Impact”, Paris, 12–13 November.

OPP (Office of Planning and the Budget) (2019), Aportes para una Estrategia de Desarrollo 2050, Montevideo.

Papagno, S. and J. Vitale (2019), “La dimensión de futuro en el desarrollo territorial rural frente a los desafíos de la Agenda 2030”, Planificación multiescalar: ordenamiento, prospectiva territorial y liderazgos públicos. Volumen III, Seminars and Conferences series, No. 93 (LC/TS.2019/61), L. Cuervo and M. Délano (eds.), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Patiño, D., J. Lavis and K. Moat (2013), “Rol de la evidencia científica en las decisiones políticas relacionadas con los sistemas de salud”, Revista de Salud Pública, vol. 15, No. 5, Bogotá, National University of Colombia.

Pérez, E. and J. Vitale (2023), “Foresight evaluation as a learning opportunity”, paper presented at the 23rd International Futures Conference “Empowering futures – long-term governance, democracy and futures research”, Turku, Finland Futures Research Centre/Finland Futures Academy, 14–16 June.

Puttick, R., P. Baeck and P. Colligan (2014), i-teams: the teams and funds making innovation happen in governments around the world, Nesta, 27 June.

Planning Office of Suriname (2021), Multi-Annual Development Plan 2022-2026 of the Republic Suriname, Paramaribo.

Ramos, R. and F. García (eds.) (2020), Incertidumbres en las sociedades contemporáneas, Madrid, Centre for Sociological Research (CIS).

Ropers, N. (2017), Basics of Dialogue Facilitation, Berlin, Berghof Foundation.

Salas, M. (2014), “Prospectiva territorial: acercamiento a los territorios posibles”, Prospectiva territorial y urbana: retos y desafíos para la construcción social de territorios de futuro, C. Mera (ed.), Bogotá, National Open and Distance University (UNAD).

Sandoval, C., A. Sanhueza and A. Williner (2015), La planificación participativa para lograr un cambio estructural con igualdad: las estrategias de participación ciudadana en los procesos de planificación multiescalar, ECLAC Manuals, No. 1 (LC/L.4069/Rev.1), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Santos, E. (coord.) (2018), Metodologías participativas y democracias transformadoras, Madrid, International Observatory for Citizenship and Sustainable Environment (CIMAS).

Scharmer, C. O. (2009), Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges, San Francisco, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Senge, P. M. (1990), The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization, New York, Doubleday.

SOIF (School of International Futures) (2021), Features of Effective Systemic Foresight in Governments Around the World, London.

Sotelo, A. (2013), “Planificación, desarrollo y capacidad política: desafíos de América Latina en el siglo XXI”, Revista Estado y Políticas Públicas, vol. 1, No. 1, Buenos Aires, Latin American Faculty of Social Sciences (FLACSO).

Tully, C. (2015), Stewardship of the Future: Using Strategic Foresight in 21st Century Governance, Singapore, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Van der Heijden, K. (1996), Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation, Wiley.

Vitale, J. and others (2017), Observatorios territoriales para el desarrollo y la sustentabilidad de los territorios: marco conceptual y metodológico, Buenos Aires, National Institute for Agricultural Technology (INTA).

____(2016), Guía de prospectiva para el ordenamiento territorial rural de la Argentina a nivel municipal, Buenos Aires, National Institute for Agricultural Technology (INTA).

Yussif, R. (2023), “Papel de la innovación en las instituciones públicas para acelerar la implementación total de los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible de la Agenda 2030”, document presented during the twenty-ninth meeting of the Presiding Officers of the Regional Council for Planning of the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES), January.

Welch, G. and Z. Nuru (eds.) (2006), Governance for the Future: Democracy and Development in the Least Developed Countries, New York, Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States/United Nations Development Programme (UN-OHRLLS/UNDP).

Annex II.A1

Table II.A1.1

Systematized cases of territorial foresight at the national level

Country

Experience

Promoter

Participation

Territorial scope

Time horizon

Duration of the study

Critical dimensions

Focuses of transformation

Outcomes achieved

Uruguay

National Development Strategy Uruguay 2050

The study was led by the Office of Planning and the Budget, with advice from specialist consultants

…

National

2050

5 years

(i) Sustainable productive transformation

(ii) Social transformation

(iii) Transformation

of gender relations

Integrated vision

Strategic production complexes

Innovation for transformations

Social transformation

Transformations in gender relations

22 studies were conducted on aspects considered strategic, which provided information for the document Aportes para una Estrategia de Desarrollo 2050

Guatemala

K’atun National Development Plan:

Our Guatemala 2032

National Council for Urban and Rural Development (CONADUR)

Secretariat for Planning and Programming of the Office of the President (SEGEPLAN)

Cooperatives

Workers

Garifuna people

Campesinos

Women

Xinka people

Maya people

Micro-, small and

medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs)

Youth

Childhood and adolescence

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)

Total number of participants in the dialogues: 13,039 persons

National

2032

…

Urban and rural Guatemala

Well-being for people

Wealth for all

Natural resources today and for the future

The State as duty bearer with respect to human rights

16 variables:

Capacity for resilience and adaptation to climate change

Food and nutritional security

Living conditions in rural areas

Competitiveness

Productive investment

Land access, ownership and productivity

Economic and social infrastructure

Education (educational coverage at all levels and quality of learning)

Urban and rural human settlements with disorderly growth and development patterns

Integrated sustainable land management with a watershed approach

Access to health services (coverage and quality)

Security and justice

Democracy and governance

Market access

Institutional adaptation

Fiscal modernization

K’atun National Development Plan: Our Guatemala 2032

and short- and medium-term multi-year plans

Suriname

Multi-Annual Development Plan 2022–2026

More than 140 companies, experts, associations, interest groups, political parties and organizations concerned with people with disabilities, the hinterland, youth, women, nature and conservation

National

2026–2050

…

Economy

Sociocultural dimension

Spatial planning and environment

Governance

Offshore oil and gas

Business climate

Land policy

Schools as training and education centres

Surveillance against illegality and crime

Public administration

Nature and environment

Information and communication technology

Tourism

Forestry

Agricultural production

Onshore oil

Trade

Transport

Roads and drainage

Electricity supply

Drinking water supply

Financial transactions

Social protection

Security

Public health

Education

Monetary policy

Spatial planning

Population policy

Financing

Monitoring and evaluation

Communication

The road to the development plan

…

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Annex II.A2

Table II.A2.1

Latin America and the Caribbean (9 countries): long-term planning at the subnational level

Country

Level

Planning instrument

Time horizon

Argentina

Province

Mendoza 2030 Strategic Development Plan

2030

Province

Salta 2030 Strategic Development Plan

2030

Province

Santa Fe Provincial Strategic Plan: Visión 2030

2030

Brazil

State

Amazonia 2024–2027 Regional Development Plan

2027

State

São Paulo State 2022–2040 Economic Development Plan

2040

State

Long-Term Strategic Development Plan - Pernambuco 2035

2035

Chile

Region

2023–2037 Regional Development Strategy (Los Ríos Region)

2037

Region

2015–2030 Regional Development Strategy (Biobío Region)

2030

Region

Regional Development Strategy: Ñuble 2020–2028 (Ñuble Region)

2028

Colombia

Region

Visión 2032 for Valle del Cauca

2032

Department

Tunja: Visión 2039 - City of Knowledge

2039

Region

E. D. Chalapud Narváez, “Prospectiva territorial para el desarrollo regional sostenible de la zona de frontera colombo-ecuatoriana”, Eutopía, No. 23, June 2023

2040

Dominican Republic

Municipality/local

Plan for Local Economic Development: Dajabón

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development: Gran Santo Domingo

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Duarte

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Municipality

2030 Strategic Plan for Santiago

2030

Includes scenarios

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Puerto Plata

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of La Vega

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Hato Mayor

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Samaná

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of San Juan

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of San Pedro de Macorís

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of La Romana

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of María Trinidad Sánchez

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of San Cristóbal

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of La Altagracia

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Barahona

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Monseñor Nouel

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Azua

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Peravia

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for Valverde

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Hermanas Mirabal

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Bahoruco

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Dominican Republic

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Montecristi

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of El Seibo

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Sánchez Ramírez

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Santiago Rodríguez

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of San José de Ocoa

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Pedernales

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Independencia

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Elías Piña

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Province

Plan for Local Economic Development for the Province of Espaillat

2030

Proposes a vision for 2030 (prepared in 2017)

Ecuador

Region

2017–2030 Coastal Maritime Area Management Plan

2030

Guatemala

Municipality/local

2020–2032 Municipal Development and Land Management Plan

(Municipality of Chinautla)

2032

Includes future scenarios

Municipality/local

2020–2032 Municipal Development and Land Management Plan for Amatitlán

2032

Municipality/local

Municipal Development and Land Management Plan, San Miguel Petapa, Guatemala 2020–2032

2032

Municipality/local

Municipal Development and Land Management Plan:

Santa Catarina Pinula, Guatemala

2032

Municipality/local

Municipal Development and Land Management Plan, Fraijanes, Guatemala: 2020–2032

2032

Municipality/local

Municipal Development and Land Management Plan for Santiago Sacatepéquez, Department of Sacatepéquez

2032

Municipality/local

Municipal Development and Land Management Plan: Municipality

of San Juan Alotenango, Department of Sacatepéquez

2032

Municipality/local

Municipal Development and Land Management Plan: Municipality

of San Miguel Dueñas, Department of Sacatepéquez

2032

Municipality/local

Municipal Development and Land Management Plan: Municipality of El Tejar

2032

Municipality/local

Municipal Development and Land Management Plan, Municipality of Patzicia, Chimaltenango: 2020–2032

2032

Municipality/local

Municipal Development and Land Management Plan 2019–2032: Municipality of Tecpán Guatemala, Chimaltenango

2032

Municipality/local

Municipal Development and Land Management Plan: Municipality

of San Andrés Itzapa, Chimaltenango. 2021-2032

2032

Municipality/local

2020–2032 Municipal Development and Land Management Plan

for Jutiaca 2020–2032

2032

Mexico

State

2040 Guanajuato State Development Plan

2040

State

2022–2027 Baja California State Development Plan

2027

State

2022–2027 State Development Plan (Aguascalientes)

2027

State

2015–2030 Strategic Plan for the State of Nuevo León

2030

State

City Vision: San Nicolás de los Garza 2030

2030

State

State Plan for Governance and Development of the State of Jalisco: Visión 2030

2030

State

General Foresight Programme for the State of Zacatecas

2030

Uruguay

Department

Strategic Plan for Canelones. Futures for Canelones: Canelones 2040

2040

Municipality

2020–2025 Municipal Development Plan (Montevideo)

2025

Department

Visión 2050: Tacuarembó in the Northern Region

2050

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), on the basis of information from the countries.

Note: Information available in August 2023.

1. [1] See Máttar and Perrotti (2014), Medina, Castaño and Becerra (2014) and Máttar and Cuervo (2017), among others.

2. [2] The foresight laboratory derives from the concept of the Change Labs created by Reos Partners. It is a creative approach to transformation, change and innovation in complex social systems. The foresight laboratory is not based on a single methodology but rather seeks to overcome complex challenges by relying on multiple combined methodologies and approaches, including: systems thinking, which facilitates the identification of patterns, relationships and leverage points of the system as a whole (Senge, 1990); the U theory, used to design social processes (U processes) ranging from dialogue exercises to systemic interventions (Scharmer, 2009); transformative scenario-based planning (Kahane, 2012), which devises new narratives (scenarios) about the possible future of a given system on the basis of the collective understanding of multiple stakeholders, which opens up opportunities for joint action; and the deep democracy method developed by Myrna Lewis, which emphasizes the need for information and inputs from all parts of the system.

3. [3] Annex II.A.1 provides additional details of each of the case studies mentioned in this section.

4. [4] See Regional Observatory on Planning for Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, “Plan Nacional de Desarrollo: K’atun Nuestra Guatemala 2032” [online] https://observatorioplanificacion.cepal.org/es/planes/plan-nacional-de-desarrollo-katun-nuestra-guatemala-2032.

5. [5] See Regional Observatory on Planning for Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, “Multi-Annual Development Plan 2022–2026 of the Republic Suriname” [online] https://observatorioplanificacion.cepal.org/en/plans/multi-annual-development-plan-2022-2026-republic-suriname.

6. [6] See, for example, the following definitions of innovation: “creation and implementation of new processes, products, services and methods of delivery which result in significant improvements in outcomes efficiency, effectiveness or quality” (Mulgan and Albury, 2003, p. 3); process of creating a new idea and transforming it into value for society (European Commission, 2013); the capacity to formulate new responses to complex and perplexing problems that public policies must address (Brugué, Blanco and Boada, 2014); “public sector innovation involves creating, developing and implementing practical ideas that achieve a public Benefit” (Mulgan, 2014, p. 5); “public sector innovation is about new ideas that work at creating public value” (OECD, 2014, p. 4).

7. [7] See [online] https://openpolicy.blog.gov.uk/about/.

8. [8] See [online] https://tic.bogota.gov.co/node/2373.

9. [9] See [online] https://www.gob.pe/laboratoriodigital.

10. [10] See [online] https://academiainnovacionpolitica.org/.

11. [11] See [online] https://www.lab.gob.cl/.

Chapter III

The social construction of futures: the linkages between foresight, participation, deliberation and citizen ownership

A. The tensions between foresight, participation and power

B. Trust as a driver of cohesion among social actors

C. Citizen participation and deliberation in polarized contexts

D. Foresight and the tensions of participation

E. New forms of citizenship and public leadership in territories

Bibliography

A. The tensions between foresight, participation and power

The social construction of futures is a core concept in the effort to develop and implement humanly and socially desirable futures. According to Eleonora Barbieri Masini (1993), what is meant by the social construction of futures is that the future is not predetermined but is constructed by the actions and decisions of individuals and societies. This entails an acknowledgement that the future is constructed by social, technological, environmental, economic, political and cultural dynamics in a given territorial area, and that collective visions and actions influence whatever results are achieved.

The construction of futures and territorial foresight, as discussed in chapter II, is a discipline whose purpose is to imagine the future of a territory by comprehensively and coherently considering its essence as an area in which society interrelates, projects interests and has the capacity to transform its situation. Territorial foresight incorporates the need for social participation and the prioritization of development objectives through strategic planning, and essentially aims at the joint construction of alternative futures (scenarios) that can be appropriated by society as a whole, while identifying their conditions of viability, so that it contributes to governance at both the national and subnational levels.

The links between foresight, participation, deliberation and citizen ownership mean that the social construction of futures entails a cycle of processes. Foresight needs all three dimensions (participation, deliberation and ownership) to move from reflection on a potential future to action to make it possible. It seeks not only to anticipate, but also to construct strategic options for society. This is a recurrent cycle of work based on an ongoing social dialogue. This process provides a way of creating visions that are shared by all actors and represent a common image of the future (see diagram III.1).

Diagram III.1

The social construction of futures

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

The participation dimension involves actively including people and communities through dialogue in decisions that affect their lives and futures. It is an inclusive process that seeks to ensure all citizens’ voices are heard and considered in the planning and design of future plans, programmes and projects (Salazar and others, 2001).

Deliberation means the pursuit of agreements arrived at by understanding, constructing and jointly negotiating effective solutions (Ropers, 2017). Thus, deliberation is only possible after a thorough review of possible solutions in which the options generated through dialogue are carefully weighed up by reasoned argument.

Lastly, according to Godet and Durance (2011), ownership means the ability of individuals and communities to take an active and responsible role in the implementation and development of decisions and actions relating to the future. It involves social actors and groups feeling empowered and being given the opportunity to participate in the implementation of changes and benefit from future outcomes.

The linkage between these concepts means that the social construction of futures is carried out via a comprehensive approach grounded in foresight as the basis for a process of reflection-action, in participation and dialogue as mechanisms for securing inclusion and a diversity of voices, in deliberation as a method of informed decision-making based on the discussion of options (possible future scenarios) and in ownership as the ability of individuals and communities to influence futures (see box III.1).

Box III.1

Future scenarios: the experience of Tenemos Que Hablar de Chile

Tenemos Que Hablar de Chile (We Need to Talk about Chile), a collaborative platform for citizen participation and dialogue whose aim is to promote cohesion and construct a road map for the country, arose as part of the constitutional process that followed on from the social upheaval of October 2019 in Chile. Created by the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile and the University of Chile, the platform seeks to use different participatory mechanisms and methodologies to project a future for the country in a context of uncertainty and provide inputs for decision-making by the authorities.

The first major step was the organization of participatory forums to discuss people’s desires and expectations for change. There were four of these: We Need to Talk about the State, We Need to Talk about Politics, We Need to Talk about Territory and the City, and We Need to Talk about the Economy and Development. These produced reports containing principles and outline public policy proposals that were taken as a basis for constructing scenarios.

The 2030 scenario-building process was launched in the second half of 2021. More than 40 people took part in four virtual workshops aimed at creating relevant, challenging, plausible, clear and, most importantly, useful scenarios for discussion in Chilean society. These workshops produced projections for 2030 that were tested by 255 leaders of social organizations, academics, politicians, business people, social communicators and members of non-governmental organizations and foundations. On the basis of this collective reflection, seven groups were formed to address issues that were a cause for concern going forward: the climate crisis; the economy and development; democracy, politics and the Constitutional Convention; education; technology and information; gender; and migration. These reflections crystallized into four scenarios that were presented in May 2022.

The scenarios provide a common framework and language, allowing social groups to look ahead by carefully considering multiple possible futures and determining what actions they can take, while giving them a way to overcome obstacles and move ahead.

Source: “Chile al 2030: Escenarios de Futuro”, Tenemos que Hablar de Chile, May 2022 [online] https://www.tenemosquehablardechile.cl/proyectos/chile-al-2030.

B. Trust as a driver of cohesion among social actors

In an era of manifold change and growing uncertainty, foresight can be seen as an option for pursuing collective construction of the future by fostering open participation and agreements between different social actors about what might occur. If conducted in the right way, these participatory spaces have the potential to identify and respond to key challenges in a more comprehensive and legitimate manner. This, in turn, feeds directly into the creation of greater citizen trust in these spaces.

The volatility of today’s world and the emergence of complex public problems make it imperative to think about new solutions. According to Pruitt and Thomas (2008), such solutions require change on two levels: (i) in people’s attitudes and relationships and (ii) in the broader patterns of behaviour and institutional structures that perpetuate the problems.

For these changes to be achievable and enduring, there needs to be commitment from the different sectors and groups in society, something that will only be possible if participation in futures studies is encouraged. The way to make progress with this is to open up spaces that allow the greatest possible number of perspectives and opinions to be heard in order to obtain an enhanced overview of reality that can serve as a basis for the construction of futures.

Citizen participation cannot be absent from the development of public policies today. While this is essential to strengthen democracy, something else that is indispensable is for policies designed in this way to incorporate a long-term perspective (Aceituno, 2014).

Foresight provides tools and techniques to meet both requirements together, organizing collective action so that the process of building futures can be approached in a participatory manner (Vitale, 2022b) and supporting and working together with subjects to create these visions, values and projects for the future (Medina, 2022). This effort to include all types of actors and organizations, as well as citizens in general, not only improves governance but means that the image of the future can be validated and the results appropriated by the community, and it is what motivates people to strive for what has been agreed (Aceituno, 2014).

The invitation, then, is to pursue participation in all futures construction processes, as this will provide greater legitimacy and create diverse participatory spaces where a complete image of the future can be described and generate consensus among those who create it. This will result in an ownership effect among the participating actors (Gándara and Osorio, 2014; CEPLAN, 2014; Mojica, 2005, cited in Cuervo and Délano, 2019).

It is important to structure these spaces properly and clearly identify the roles and competences of actors to avoid misunderstandings (Kotov, 2010), drawing on reflection and the generation of ideas about an issue. As Pruitt and Thomas (2008) argue, it is not enough to bring people together and generate fresh processes of dialogue: the processes need to be better and allow further-reaching and more sustainable changes to be made, and all actors need to be able to contribute to them, not only future “experts” or “visionaries” (Kouzes and Posner, 2009, cited in Cuervo and Délano, 2019). The ultimate goal is to identify, generate and regenerate criteria that support proposals for the best way of dealing with the issues in the future, with the potential to contribute to public policy (Kotov, 2010).

To move towards the participatory construction of futures, foresight and its reflections must be genuinely integrated into the decision-making and public management cycle (ECLAC, 2021). The idea is to incorporate foresight into public policy as a State policy aimed at institutionalizing the long-term dimension in the discussion on development, and likewise the democratic and participatory spaces that this entails.

Specifically, the intention is that these spaces should use different tools, such as informed public debates and round tables, to develop the capacity for citizens to take ownership of foresight exercises and their products so that they can actively participate in the public agenda and in monitoring of the present and of future-bearing events, discovering new possibilities and opportunities for the future. Ultimately, it is through participatory processes that, faced though they are with concrete short-term problems, people come to understand the need to think about constructing long-term futures to provide inputs for the content and implementation of public policies that benefit them.

For outcomes to be successful and sustainable and for participatory spaces to arise, there must be trust. Trust plays a vital role as a unifier of social actors and groups in different contexts and is an essential component in human relationships and in the construction of societies that are cohesive, especially in social capital (Putnam, 1992).

Thus, trust can be seen as a measure of the quality of relationships and is the necessary starting point for collective action (Kotov, 2010). When present, trust makes social actors and groups willing to cooperate and collaborate with each other. When people trust each other, they are willing to share data, information, knowledge and resources, which facilitates collaboration and shared efforts to achieve common goals. Trust builds strong and lasting relationships based on reciprocity, solidarity and mutual support, while helping to strengthen the social fabric by creating a sense of community and belonging.

It is important to stress that trust is built over time through positive interactions, transparency, honesty and the honouring of commitments. If it is achieved in participatory processes, there can be some assurance of success in their outcomes and a degree of regularity and predictability in the actions of people participating in future-building spaces, which helps to simplify perceptions of how reality works and speed up the decision-making process (Kotov, 2010).

If this is achieved, trust can scale up to the institutional level, becoming a factor that drives efforts to implement government programmes and structural reforms.

At the present time, when there are high levels of distrust in institutions and the political class in the countries of the region, investing in the generation of social trust becomes an imperative if progress is to be made towards inclusive, democratic and participatory societies (ECLAC, 2021).

As mentioned, complex problems can be addressed through participatory processes in spaces of dialogue that invite people to reach agreement in pursuit of a common goal. These spaces of dialogue need to be properly structured so that they lay the groundwork for systemic analysis, facilitate questioning of the status quo, challenge prevailing assumptions and envision a future with meaningful change (Pruitt and Thomas, 2008).

Trust drives this process by engendering mutual understanding and shared purpose, while developing a sense of common responsibility for the consequences of the decisions taken. Foresight takes this sense of shared understanding, purpose and responsibility and projects it into the long term to help ensure that the shared vision of the future transcends cycles of government through ongoing social dialogue. The aim, as mentioned, is to institutionalize foresight as a State policy, including participatory spaces, so that it permeates all levels of government (multiscale) and sectors (intersectoral), and makes possible the collective construction of futures.

C. Citizen participation and deliberation in polarized contexts

Citizen participation needs to be present in territories, whether at the local, subnational or national level. The expression “making territory” means building a sense of ownership and belonging, which is fostered by participatory spaces where the expectations and needs of those who live in the territories can be harmonized (ECLAC, 2019). This is particularly important if it is considered that the origin of participation lies in popular sovereignty and that the powers of the State are vested in the people.

Participation is therefore a right that enables other rights to be exercised in turn. With participation, power is distributed among more actors, and citizens are given new and greater opportunities to be part of decision-making (Naser, Williner and Sandoval, 2021).

The forms of participation can range from direct participation, of which elections are the main example, to mechanisms of citizen deliberation, such as public consultations or round tables for discussion and dialogue. Thus, the level of citizen participation also changes, since it may be for the purpose of information-gathering, consultation, decision-making or co-management and empowerment.[1] Whichever level is selected, the key is to be clear about the methods of participation and the degree of influence that the process will have, in order to manage the expectations of those participating.

At the territorial level, because the focus is on generating ownership and identities, social dialogue is the recommended form of participation, rather than negotiation or debate. In these spaces, participation should be diversified by convening a multi-stakeholder dialogue. According to the International Labour Organization (ILO) Manual confianza en espacios bi/tripartitos de diálogo social, the term “multi-stakeholder” refers to a set of actors from different sectors of society with different perceptions, opinions, ideas, experiences and knowledge (Kotov, 2010). Diversity, therefore, lies in inviting the participation not only of different actors in society (governmental, private, citizen), but also of different sectors with different histories representing as many positions and points of view as possible, with the aim of generating synergies and facilitating the construction of common futures.

There is a clear difference between dialogue and other approaches that could be considered participatory, such as negotiation and debate. Dialogue is when two or more parties exchange ideas, participate and understand each other as equals, being as open and transparent as possible with information, listening to each other and jointly developing proposals. In negotiation, on the other hand, only enough information is shared for the parties to reach an agreement, and the subject-matter is goods or rights that can be divided, shared or defined in a tangible way (OAS/UNDP, 2013). In debate, again, positions on a subject are more thoroughly argued and upheld. In the latter two forms of participation, trust is not built because the participants are not working towards consensus or agreement, and positions are fixed, which limits the space rather than expanding it.

However, the establishment of spaces for social dialogue is not enough for a participatory future-building process to be successful. It is important to create conditions for this dialogue such that trust and respect are built between the parties.

Who to invite, how to convene them and where to hold the activity are some of the questions that the specialist teams organizing a dialogue process should consider, and they need to clearly determine its purpose and the process to be followed, as well as managing expectations. The advice here is to aim for inclusiveness, to convene participants from different sectors and not only experts on each topic, and to develop the agenda jointly.

Another key element is how the dialogue is structured. One possibility is to use the “U” process (Scharmer, 2007; OAS/UNDP, 2013), mentioned in chapter II, which starts with a group of participants being convened from right across the system, following the logic that those who are part of the problem should be part of the solution. These participants then observe and fully understand what is happening, construct and define possible solutions to the problem, and act together to transform the system.

According to Scharmer (2007), moving along the U requires what is called “presencing”, a heightened state of attention that shifts the inner space from which each person or group operates into a future space of possibilities. Through presencing, people build confidence not only in themselves, but also in the other participants. Dialogue structured in this way fosters a shared exploration of issues, deepens understanding of them, enhances mutual respect and understanding (Pruitt and Thomas, 2008) and enables participants to contribute to and influence the resolution of complex problems.

These processes of collective construction become even more important at the territorial level, most particularly because territories are both the places where the multiple crises of development manifest themselves and the potential sources of solutions that are relevant to each situation, considering its specific problems and needs, which is conducive to territorial governance.

A territory is intrinsically participatory because it is a unique and specific space of social interrelations. Territorial development requires an inclusive vision of all territorial actors, materializing in a common development strategy that is, first and foremost, a process of social construction (Morales and others, 2021).

For these democratization processes to be possible, different authors[2] have pointed to the need to generate social capital, defined as “the set of norms, institutions and organizations that promote trust, reciprocity and cooperation between individuals and communities” (ECLAC, 2021, p. 72).

Social capital is never individual, but comprises trust between people, reciprocity (which is the basis of all social sharing relationships) and cooperation oriented towards a common endeavour (ECLAC, 2021, p. 72). In a territory with high social capital, there is a dense network of social interrelationships characterized by trust, reciprocity and collaboration. This is observed, for example, in situations where there is teamwork, where those exercising leadership functions enjoy legitimacy, and where social control is exercised on the basis of established norms shared by the group.

In territories, therefore, building trust is key to making collaboration possible and creating social capital. However, collaboration does not happen spontaneously, but must be generated and promoted through rules, policies and practices. Collaboration is a human activity that occurs mainly when risks and threats have to be faced, as this is when the concept of “we” emerges (Morales and others, 2021).

The complexity of public problems and the environment of multiple crises facing countries make collaborative approaches more necessary than ever. This means that government, the private sector and community organizations must work together so that complex public problems can be solved by sharing common goals.

This ability to act as a collective in pursuit of jointly identified common benefits and goals is what the authors call the “associative culture in the territory” (Morales and others, 2021). The attainment of these levels of association is not immediate and should be understood more as a gradually occurring process than as an outcome (Dini, 2010, cited in Morales and others, 2021). For the process of association to be successful, there must be existing relationships in the territory that make it possible to establish relationships of trust, establish a common language and achieve conditions of transparency and clarity in the expectations of those participating in the process.

Participation has to be exercised, and it thus requires practice and spaces where experiences can be shared and where positive, gratifying interactions build trust and create a basis for joint action (Morales and others, 2021). The effect is to create a social fabric in the territory that has the capacity to extend up to the institutional level, establishing democratic governance with the participation of the different actors in the territory, as the way to achieve development.

For such participation to be meaningful, it is necessary to create an open civic space, i.e., an environment where different voices can participate in debate and there are safe channels of communication that allow disagreements to be voiced peacefully (United Nations, 2020). The civic space is thus the place where individuals and groups can participate meaningfully in all spheres of life and where citizens are involved in decision-making, making it more legitimate and effective. “To strategically address territorial development, it is essential to achieve a common collective vision” (Morales and others, 2021, p. 25), because only in this way will those who make up the territory be able to participate actively in its transformation, which will reflect their own special characteristics (see box III.2).

Box III.2

Protecting and promoting the civic space as an enabler of political dialogue and scenario-building

The changes needed to address the current crises of inequality, environmental destruction and governance with State policies that transcend political cycles require expanded spaces for public participation alongside greater transparency and accountability in decision-making at all levels.

The civic space is a central pillar in the functioning of democracies, since participation and access to information and knowledge for all are essential to the development and application of effective policies and to the active collaboration of everyone in their implementation. Thus, protecting and promoting the civic space is an enabler for faster attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set in the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

The countries have made progress in establishing legal and institutional frameworks to strengthen their civic space. The right of access to public information now has constitutional status in most countries of the region, and 24 of them have specific laws on the subject. As regards public participation, the right of individuals to participate in the public life of the nation has constitutional status in several countries of the region, and at least eight have passed public participation laws that recognize and guarantee the right of citizens to participate in public affairs and provide for mechanisms to this end. The countries have also made progress in creating multi-stakeholder forums to deal with specific issues and provide mechanisms for semi-direct or direct democracy, such as popular legislative initiative and participatory budgets.

Latin America and the Caribbean has also continued to implement the open government paradigm. Currently, 15 countries in the region participate in the Open Government Partnership, and over the last decade they have facilitated the joint creation of a total of 68 action plans involving the State and citizens.

Despite the progress, challenges remain, even in mature democracies with a strong commitment to civic participation and a positive appreciation of the importance of protecting and further expanding civic space.

Source: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), The Protection and Promotion of Civic Space: Strengthening Alignment with International Standards and Guidance, Paris, 2022; Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean (LC/PUB.2018/8/Rev.1), Santiago, 2022; Observatory on Principle 10 in Latin America and the Caribbean [online] https://observatoriop10.cepal.org/en; “Estado abierto en América Latina y el Caribe” [online] https://biblioguias.cepal.org/EstadoAbierto.

As mentioned, the effort of participation is both individual and collective, as it requires actors to move from “I” to “we” along a path of recognition, knowledge, collaboration, cooperation and partnership (Rovere, 2006, cited in Morales and others, 2021).

The State has an active role to play as guarantor of this process and needs to provide spaces for free interaction between citizens so that collective intentions can emerge. This must involve creating institutions based on a common, participatory and collective vision so that the territory can become a socially constructed space. Commonality then becomes a political principle that determines what is fair, how decisions are made and what kind of actions should be collectively undertaken (Morales and others, 2021). It then becomes possible to consolidate processes of dialogue and a culture of territorial development based on a social structure that promotes agreement and enables collective problems to be sustainably resolved.

D. Foresight and the tensions of participation

Participation involves certain challenges when it comes to fostering dialogue and initiating discussion, so that a considerable effort is required from the authorities, both logistically and in terms of resources, to convene a wide range of actors representing the different groups of citizens. Some of these challenges are described below.

1. The role of elites

In Latin America and the Caribbean, elites have a great deal of influence over the goals and development style pursued in each country, as well as over the design of public policies. The make-up of the region’s societies means that elites usually possess structural power manifested primarily in the place they occupy within the production matrix, but also in their political power, since they have the capacity to influence both models directly and can affect and influence specific public policies. On top of this, elites tend to be more highly educated because of the correlation between educational variables and the marked inequality that characterizes the region.

This configuration of society must be taken into account before any participatory foresight process is planned. The question of “who to convene” is not a minor one, as there is a risk of defaulting to the elite and concentrating power in a predominant group when it comes to reflecting on, debating and socially constructing the future (Vitale, 2022c).[3]

This situation would cause at least two immediate problems. The first is a conflict of interest due to the strong influence that elites exert over the State, public policy and the economy. When it comes to modelling the future, their involvement in participatory processes may be half-hearted or they may treat it as a game in which any kind of future can be accepted, seeing it as a pipe-dream rather than a situation that might actually occur (Villasante, 2022). There will be nothing to force them to follow through and no genuine interest in building a future that involves the pursuit of change; this will happen only when it is to their own benefit.

The second problem is the possible disconnection between elites and citizens. Examples of this have been seen in the region in recent years, with social upheavals such as those in Chile (2019), Colombia (2020) and Panama (2022), among others. If the elites alone are invited to join participatory processes, this can lead to a biased reading of reality and to practices in which the dominant elite does not listen to or disagrees with the opinions society is expressing.

2. Power plays

Participation means giving social actors and groups the power to influence decisions about the future. However, power relations are always asymmetrical and subordinate. Thus, there may be asymmetries in the distribution of power between different actors. Some groups may have more capital and resources, access to information and capacity for influence, which could limit the equality of power and impair the effective participation of the other groups (Vitale, 2022a).

The question of who to invite to participatory processes arises again, as it is important not to invite only experts on the different topics, but to open the space up to people who will be affected by or participate in the changes in one way or another.

In the context of foresight, experts tasked with guiding the construction of futures may have specific power and knowledge that can influence the decision-making process. The aim of social participation is to include diverse voices and promote equality of power, which can generate tensions between expert knowledge and the knowledge and experience of participants (Barbier and others, 2013).

The distinction made by VeneKlasen and Miller (2002) between “power within”, “power to” and “power with” becomes important in this context. According to the authors, “power within” has to do with a person’s self-esteem and self-knowledge, while “power to” is related to the social environment and concerns the person’s potential to build their own life and world and even to have a capacity for empowerment, i.e., use their own power to help empower others. However, of all the powers, the most collaborative is “power with”, as it encourages people to find common ground between different interests and build collective strength (VeneKlasen and Miller, 2002, cited in Retolaza, 2010).

Identifying and understanding the different types of power is vital, while considering power asymmetries and possible power plays is crucial to ensure the quality of interactions and the democratic nature of the social space where futures are constructed (Retolaza, 2010). The quality of interaction changes because powers, their dimensions and exercises also change, determining how collaborative, confrontational, inclusive and effective the process of social change will be (Retolaza, 2010).

3. Polarization and conflict

Polarization is a common factor worldwide and an unmistakable sign of our times. As a result, today more than ever, capacities and skills are needed to manage the growing strains associated with social and political polarization (Díez Pinto, 2022).

A point that relates directly to the tension referred to is that if participatory processes become exclusionary, only involving a particular group, and the future is built on that vision and that identity, conflict may arise and increase in the process.

Consequently, in addition to convening a heterogeneous and diverse group, it is necessary to understand and articulate the positions of its members, which are not fixed but situational, being dependent on the objective of the proposed intervention. In his Teoría del juego social, Matus (2007) argues that positions may be cooperative, but conflict is more usual, and what is helpful is to identify the type of conflict and where its logic lies, so that it can be addressed strategically.

The same author posits the existence of different types of conflict. First, there is conflict of a cognitive type, meaning different ways of interpreting reality, to which a solution will be sought through consensus and agreement following a logic of argumentation that involves concertation to bring out the positions, needs and interests of each of these actors. The emotional type of conflict, which is often linked to cognitive conflict and is driven by sympathies or antipathies between groups because of their positions and proposals, also requires concertation and emotional restraint.

However, the conflicts associated with State decision-making are essentially conflicts of interest and are caused by the unequal distribution of the benefits of any intended policy or intervention. This is where a solution involving negotiation with the actors concerned becomes necessary.

This is particularly important in the current context, where polarization has been coming to dominate the political arena. What are being seen now are fractured societies where the middle ground becomes unappealing and is lost to sight, and where some forms of participation, such as dialogue, are becoming less attractive.

In a situation of polarization, irreconcilable positions emerge and result in political crises, violence or paralysis in society (Díez Pinto, 2022). If there is polarization in participatory spaces, stereotypes and biases are reinforced, which fractures the social fabric and makes it impossible to build trust (Aín and Logioco, 2020). The resulting future constructs that emerge in these contexts usually suffer from thematic simplifications, reducing the understanding of prospective systems.

The authors propose 10 measures[4] for dealing with polarized contexts, especially in participatory spaces. These recommendations are both internal, applying to those who participate in participatory processes, and external, applying to the organizer or facilitator of the dialogue.

Internally, two exercises in particular may be undertaken. The first is to resist the pressure to express opinions and take a position in an environment where mutually exclusive positions predominate. The second exercise is linked to the Theory U mentioned above. Being part of a participatory process means committing to a minimal change, i.e. being open to the possibility that something might change or be transformed on a personal level during the exchange. This commitment makes a crucial contribution to the potential relevance of spaces of dialogue.

Externally or organizationally, the recommendations relate to management of the conversation and subject matter. First, if the context is one of polarization and fake news, the most prudent strategy is to start with conversations and exchanges of views on less controversial topics and then escalate the complexity, if the context allows. Second, dialogue should not revolve solely around arguments based on technical or scientific data, as this can deepen polarization (Aín and Logioco, 2020). The recommendation is to instead make an effort to understand what lies behind the reasoning of those who are participating in the dialogue and what their concerns, fears and interests are, so that they can then connect, share and build futures.

Lastly, any planning instrument that sets out to be democratic needs to deal with the complexity entailed by social conflict, so temporality is a possible scenario for addressing disagreements and antagonism between different social groups (Arboleda, 2021).

In polarized contexts, it is essential to create open, democratic environments where participants feel comfortable expressing their opinions, views and perspectives. This means establishing patterns of communication and mutual respect and ensuring that all participants can make themselves heard without fear of negative judgements (Villasante, 2012). Active listening and empathy are therefore essential for constructive dialogue in polarized contexts. Fostering participants’ ability to listen carefully to others’ opinions, try to understand their points of view and recognize their emotions can help generate greater understanding and reduce hostility.

4. Temporality: the short term versus the long term

Very strong tensions arise between long-term visions and immediate interests. Foresight focuses on the study of long-term futures and informed decision-making based on these scenarios. However, social participation can be influenced by immediate interests and by participants’ urgent needs and demands.

As Villasante (2022) argues, there is a tension between a transformative proposal involving real change, which needs time and will happen in the medium or long term, and the day-to-day, the here and now, which is where political events unfold. Thinking for the long term and over transformational time horizons is therefore difficult in the context of immediate situations that are challenging and urgent, such as those the countries of the region are usually going through.

Another consideration is the impact these future constructs may have on the actual course of events. Although participation is promoted as a means of empowering social actors and groups and giving them a voice in decision-making, there can be ambiguity about the extent to which participation actually influences final decisions. Participation mechanisms may be consultative or merely symbolic, as when they are used in response to political conflicts, without there being any real intent to incorporate the feelings and proposals of the actors into decision-making.

If this happens, there will be fewer and fewer incentives for participation. Similarly, there will be no particular reason for public administrations to implement what is proposed in foresight processes and translate it into long-term actions (Cuervo and Délano, 2019). There thus need to be analyses that include a dynamic view and a historical and situational perspective, as well as rules that institutionalize the foresight results and include them in the work of administration in the short, medium and long term.

This section has presented some tensions that futures construction processes need to take into account. In particular, it is important to reiterate that, in the field of development, foresight should not be a purely academic process, but rather a transformative, multi-stakeholder one whose repercussions affect action and translate into public policies. Such a transformation will only be possible with the broad participation of actors who are part of the problem and must be part of the solution.

E. New forms of citizenship and public leadership in territories

The concept of new forms of citizenship and public leadership in territories refers to the evolution of traditional types of citizenship and leadership in the context of current social, political and cultural changes. The new forms of citizenship are characterized by active and engaged participation in public affairs. Citizens are no longer content to be mere onlookers, but seek direct participation in decision-making and problem-solving in their territories.

There is growing recognition of the power and capacity of citizens to influence decision-making processes and the shaping of public policy. Citizens are becoming empowered to advocate for their rights, voice their concerns and demands and collaborate with other actors in the search for comprehensive solutions that are responsive to the context they are living in.

This process has been taking place alongside the crisis in traditional and institutionalized forms of representation, involving a shift towards broader, horizontal movements with global concerns, such as care for the environment or gender issues. If decision-makers provide participatory spaces for these new forms of expression, this will undoubtedly strengthen territories, their citizens and their future.

Citizens of this new type acknowledge and value the cultural, ethnic and social diversity of territories. They advocate inclusion and equal opportunities for all citizens, regardless of their origin or identity, and seek to build new societies. Public leadership in territories is evolving towards more collaborative and collective approaches. There is a move towards shared and distributed leadership, where multiple actors work together to address challenges and seize opportunities in their communities. The ability to generate agreements, build partnerships and promote the common good is valued (see box III.3).

Box III.3

Collaborative public leadership: the cases of Chile, Ecuador and Costa Rica

Chile

Two case studies on collaborative public leadership processes that address the context of the public problem of housing and the housing deficit in Chile are presented: that of the Maestranza San Eugenio housing complex and that of the Manuel Bustos settlement. Both cases represent emblematic contexts of State housing provision in the country, where work was also done in relation to the housing policy implemented through housing subsidy programmes and Supreme Decree no. 49.

In the case of the Maestranza San Eugenio housing project, three stronger leadership types can be observed, namely collective, technical-political and public leadership. By coordinating all three, it was possible to act synergistically to achieve the goals and objectives set. The role of women as social leaders should be highlighted, as their management capabilities demonstrated the extent of their representation and empowerment, something that is crucial for the sustainability of collaborative public leadership. In the case of the Manuel Bustos settlement, male and female leaders have shown a remarkable capacity for collaboration at different levels, contributing ideas and actions and influencing decision-making on institutionalized public policies across different governments and periods.

The two case studies have a key element in common: the historical context in which housing problems arise is treated as an issue directly engaging the responsibility and work of the State. This is reflected in identifiable variables that reinforce the initial conditions for collaboration, such as legitimacy and existing relationships. Here, a long history means that robust socially and institutionally legitimized sectoral systems and structures do exist. Collaborative processes are considered at different levels and over different time periods for the consolidation of collaborative processes that benefit and drive the production of housing policies in the country and territories.

Ecuador

The Ecuadorian cases relate to emergency situations in the canton of Cayambe and in Portoviejo. The first case study focuses on how the difficulties encountered in dealing with the crisis caused by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic were addressed and solved, while the second centres on the measures taken after the largest earthquake of recent decades, which occurred in 2016. In both situations, the studies show how solutions and changes were implemented to solve the emerging problems, while demonstrating how collaborative public leadership was crucial in overcoming these momentous public problems.

The case of the canton of Cayambe shows the vital importance of the role played by local governments and their ability to coordinate solutions and responses that take account of the context and the need to adopt solutions from a local perspective. It also shows how combining multiple spheres and dynamics of collaboration provides an innovative way of unlocking intercultural approaches that turn on the importance of horizontal participation in responding quickly to crises. In the case of Portoviejo, emerging collaboration and institutional ambidextrousness (the ability to combine change with stability, hierarchy with horizontal relationships and formal with informal networks) were crucial to the reconstruction of the territory after the earthquake. The ability to drive long-term collaborative processes through institutional management played a crucial role here by creating forms of leadership that could act as channels for international cooperation and management capacity.

Lastly, different key points can be observed in these cases. The windows of opportunity opened up by the emergencies made it possible to develop ideas, actions and innovations through leadership that implemented legitimate, formal and emerging collaborative processes. Likewise, by identifying the possibility that institutionalized public policies might be altered, leaders were able to move forward collaboratively thanks to the trust and legitimacy that existed right across their networks.

Costa Rica

Two cases of leadership in two territories, Talamanca and the Gulf of Nicoya, are analysed. The two studies look at the actions and histories of Guillermo Rodríguez and José Miguel Carvajal, respectively, and find there to be an asymmetry between the context of the territories and the implementation of State policies and programmes. The instances of leadership analysed were found to play a crucial role in implementing strategies for change informed by local realities and the knowledge gained from the perspective of the leaders and the people who knew and experienced the problems at first hand.

In the first case, the problem centred on State public education and health services established in territories with large indigenous populations without regard for consistency with the cultures of these indigenous communities. In this case, the contribution of Guillermo Rodríguez’s leadership consisted in the establishment of strategic partnerships with vital politically legitimate actors to work with the institutions that were planning the development of the territory in the areas of education and health. In the case of the Gulf of Nicoya, what was at issue were public marine policies dealing with the regularization, conservation and economics of fishing and involving the participation of State institutions that took different positions on the implementation of public policies. The special feature identified by José Miguel Carvajal in this context was the lack of institutional coordination in the face of pressures on multiple fronts and a failure to recognize and evaluate the context of the work from the perspective of the situation and the traditional and scientific knowledge of the fishing community.

What these cases have in common is the way opportunities to consider innovative ideas and actions for solving problems through collaborative leadership were opened up by confronting existing power imbalances, multiple institutional logics and tensions at different levels. The power of both protagonists lay in their ability to generate legitimate links, trust, commitment and planning in the face of emerging problems, demonstrating that, despite the existence of rigid social and economic structures, the necessary changes could be made in a sustainable manner, especially when cultural structures predating the implementation of public policies in the territories were acknowledged.

Source: J. Bryson and others, “Leading social transformations: creating public value and advancing the common good”, Journal of Change Management, vol. 21, No. 2, Milton Park, Taylor & Francis, 2021; United Nations, Industry 4.0 for inclusive development: report of the Secretary-General (E/CN.16/2022/2), Geneva, 2022; C. Morales and others, “Desarrollo territorial sostenible y nuevas ciudadanías: consideraciones sobre políticas públicas para un mundo en transformación”, Project Documents (LC/TS.2020/180), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 2021; A. Naser and Á. Ramírez Alujas, Plan de gobierno abierto: una hoja de ruta para los gobiernos de la región, Manuals series (LC/L.3802/Rev.1), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 2017; D. Tarragó and Q. Brugué, “La administración deliberativa: de la eficacia y la eficiencia a la inteligencia, y de la burocracia a la innovación”, Texts for Discussion - ECLAC/IPEA, No. 58 (LC/BRS/R.296), Brasilia, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean/Institute of Applied Economic Research (ECLAC/IPEA), 2015; D. Tatián and G. Pereira, “Filosofía, democracia y liderazgos públicos”, Territorial Development series, No. 21 (LC/TS.2022/140), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 2022.

These new forms of leadership also have an impact on the generation of spaces for citizen participation that are effective and not used to further particular interests. Participation is learned by exercising it and making use of this right (Nercesian, 2022). It is therefore necessary to move towards grassroots prospective processes that emerge from people themselves, transcend everyday life and encompass an idea of the future that is also anchored in practical short- and medium-term results (Villasante, 2022).

Foresight has to do with a new awareness, with changes in mental models and collective behaviours rooted in the way society is being transformed, so that increasing or strengthening the capacity for influence and empowering social actors to build the future means progressively transforming plans, programmes and projects with a view to their being based on collective learning (Medina, 2022).

The scale and scope of the transformations required cannot be implemented without working on public leadership and building the capacity of governmental and non-governmental actors with a view to deepening democracy (ECLAC, 2021) (see chapter II).

The first step in achieving this is to differentiate between the concepts of “leadership” and “leaders”: while the former term refers to interactive processes or dynamics, the latter refers to those who act in ways that affect these dynamics. Leadership is thus “[the capacity to] inspire and mobilize others to undertake collective action in pursuit of the common good” (Crosby and Bryson, 2005, pp. 355–356, cited in Morales and others, 2021, p. 42). When leadership is public, collaboration is sought in pursuit of common goals and purposes, and leadership has a critical role to play in inspiring trust and dealing with any conflicts and tensions that may arise.

The quality of leadership is therefore crucial to the success of foresight processes. These spaces need people who can guide the discussions towards the search for the best scenarios or options for the future and who are action-oriented, embodying the results in public policies and institutions.

Afonso (2019) argues for the importance of developing resilient leadership in which the leader enables others to adapt to or recover from any situation and be better prepared for the possible future scenarios. Among the characteristics that leaders should have, she highlights three: providing affection, creating and conveying high expectations and offering new opportunities.

The first characteristic is crucial, as it is difficult to overcome adversity if people in need of affection are not given it. This is a matter of understanding and of the ability of leaders to provide support to those around them. The second characteristic has to do with leaders’ ability to convey expectations that are achievable and realistic but at the same time can motivate change and transformation, with a proactive, visionary outlook. Lastly, new leaders must also provide new opportunities, offering those involved in foresight processes the opportunity to take on new responsibilities, roles or positions and resolving any conflicts that arise.

Foresight leadership should be not only resilient, but transformational. This means that the leader must offer a purpose that transcends short-term goals and focus on the satisfaction of intrinsic needs of a higher order (Judge and Piccolo, 2004, cited in Cuervo and Délano, 2019). Burns (1978, cited in Cuervo and Délano, 2019) argues that when transformational leadership is exercised, people are able to transcend their own interests and have an impact on the world around them.

This exercise is made possible by practising the U process described above, whereby both individuals and groups succeed in shifting the inner place from which they operate to move towards a future place by engaging in dialogue and sharing. New leaders must therefore be capable of facilitating this shift by shaping and changing the way people attend and respond to a situation.

This exercise is what authors such as Adam Kahane have called “transformative facilitation”. In his words, it is a creative and structured approach that aims to remove the obstacles in the way of those who wish to collaborate and seek to connect in order to achieve common purposes and overcome conflict (Kahane, 2021). This is an increasingly necessary process given the emergence of irreconcilable political positions and high levels of polarization, resulting in episodes of crisis and violence. Transformative facilitation therefore involves working together and collaborating by integrating three forces: (i) the drive of power, represented by participants’ need for self-fulfilment and achievement; (ii) the drive of love for unity, understood as participants’ need to collaborate and live together connectedly; and (iii) the drive of justice, manifested in equity (Kahane, 2021).

By overcoming these obstacles, new public leaders can help a group transcend its differences and work together to create change, enabling people to give their all to make a difference. Facilitation means making these participatory and collective construction processes easier by seeking to ensure that participants can express their needs and achieve their purposes (drive of power), that they can come together and feel part of a whole (drive of love), and that even those who are usually marginalized or ignored can participate (drive of justice) (Kahane, 2021).

To this end, leaders must act and encourage active listening which generates responses centred on the systemic root of problems and which inwardly transforms the people participating in the dialogues so that they are not the same afterwards as when these began (Scharmer, 2007). It is this characteristic, namely the quality of attention and the intention of the leadership, that will make the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful participatory process (Scharmer, 2007).

New foresight leaders must bring the future into the present for analysis (Afonso, 2019) while at the same time nurturing a process involving the creation of capacities that strengthen trust in others. To this end, leadership must be exercised from the emotions, utilizing the intelligence of the heart (Scharmer, 2007).

Affect is strongly present in all human activity and is particularly intense at times of deep crisis. Change becomes most possible at such times, because it is then that people are able to unlearn and free themselves from mental models that hinder the prospect of new realities crystallizing (Retolaza, 2010). Leaders must think flexibly and fluidly so that they can handle the complexity associated with both their own and others’ feelings. This is a profound observation that Scharmer (2007) calls “presencing”, an effort that at a collective level allows new opportunities to emerge so that ultimately a better future is built. Feelings and affect are, therefore, what drive and motivate cooperation processes and provide space for the achievement of common goals.

Bibliography

Aceituno, P. (2014), “La prospectiva en la construcción local de políticas públicas”, Revista de Estudios Políticos y Estratégicos, vol. 2, No. 1, Santiago, Metropolitan Technological University (UTEM).

Afonso, M. (2019), “Liderazgo resiliente ante escenarios prospectivos”, Revista de Investigación SIGMA, vol. 6, No. 1, Sangolquí, Armed Forces University (ESPE).

Aín, G. and B. Logioco (2020), “Decálogo anti-polarización”, Revista Turbulencias, Hermosillo, Mexican Mediation Institute.

Arboleda, M. (2021), Gobernar la utopía: sobre la planificación y el poder popular, Buenos Aires, Caja Negra.

Barbier, M. and others (2013), “Hacia un enfoque pragmático, ecológico y político de la experticia”, Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances, vol. 7, No. 1, Marne-la-Vallée, Gustave Eiffel University.

Bourdieu, P. (1986), “The forms of capital”, Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, J. Richardson (ed.), Westport, Greenwood.

Burns, J. (1978), Leadership, New York, Harper & Row.

CEPLAN (National Centre for Strategic Planning) (2014), Guía metodológica del proceso de actualización del Plan Estratégico de Desarrollo Nacional Perú hacia el 2021, Lima.

Coleman, J. (1988), “Social capital in the creation of human capital”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 94, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Crosby, B. and J. Bryson (2005), Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-Power World, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Cuervo, L. and M. Délano (eds.) (2019), “Planificación multiescalar: ordenamiento, prospectiva territorial y liderazgos públicos. Volumen III”, Seminars and Conferences series, No. 93 (LC/TS.2019/61), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Díez Pinto, E. (2022), “Prólogo a la edición en español”, Facilitar avances conjuntos, A. Kahane, Barcelona, Ediciones Urano.

Dini, M. (2010), “Competitividad, redes de empresas y cooperación empresarial”, Public Administration series, No. 72 (LC/L.3264-P), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

ECLAC (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean) (2021), Resilient institutions for a transformative post-pandemic recovery in Latin America and the Caribbean: inputs for discussion (LC/CRP.18/3), Santiago.

____(2019), Planning for sustainable territorial development in Latin America and the Caribbean (LC/CRP.17/3), Santiago.

Gándara, G. and F. Osorio (coords.) (2014), Métodos prospectivos: manual para el estudio y la construcción del futuro, Mexico City, Paidós.

Godet, M. and P. Durance (2011), La prospectiva estratégica para las empresas y los territorios, Paris, Dunod/United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).

Guardamagna, M. and M. Reyes (2019), “El desafío de la implementación de políticas públicas participativas para el desarrollo del territorio”, Economía, Sociedad y Territorio, vol. 19, No. 59, Toluca, El Colegio Mexiquense.

Judge, T. and R. Piccolo (2004), “Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-analytic test of their relative validity”, Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 89, No. 5, Worcester, American Psychological Association (APA).

Kahane, A. (2021), Facilitating Breakthrough: How to Remove Obstacles, Bridge Differences, and Move Forward Together, Oakland, Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Kotov, R. (2010), Manual confianza en espacios bi/tripartitos de diálogo social: orientaciones metodológicas para la construcción de confianza, Bogotá, International Labour Organization (ILO).

Kouzes, J. and B. Posner (2009), “To lead, create a shared vision”, Harvard Business Review, Boston, Harvard Business School.

Masini, E. (1993), Why Futures Studies?, London, Grey Seal Books.

Matus, C. (2007), Teoría del juego social, Buenos Aires, National University of Lanús.

Medina, J. (2022), Contribution to the webinar “Prospectiva, participación y poder - tensiones y ambigüedad en la planificación y gestión territorial frente a los ODS”, Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 18 October [online] https://www.youtube.com/embed/YOshi8EbjwI.

Mojica, F. (2005), La construcción del futuro: concepto y modelo de prospectiva estratégica, territorial y tecnológica, Bogotá, Externado University of Colombia.

Morales, C. and others (2021), “Desarrollo territorial sostenible y nuevas ciudadanías: consideraciones sobre políticas públicas para un mundo en transformación”, Project Documents (LC/TS.2020/180), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Naser, A., A. Williner and C. Sandoval (2021), “Participación ciudadana en los asuntos públicos: un elemento estratégico para la Agenda 2030 y el gobierno abierto”, Project Documents (LC/TS.2020/184), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Nercesian, I. (2022), Contribution to the webinar “Prospectiva, participación y poder - tensiones y ambigüedad en la planificación y gestión territorial frente a los ODS”, Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 18 October [online] https://www.youtube.com/embed/YOshi8EbjwI.

OAS/UNDP (Organization of American States/United Nations Development Programme) (2013), Practical Guide on Democratic Dialogue, Panama City.

UNDP (2008), Democratic Dialogue: A Handbook for Practitioners, Washington, D.C., Organization of American States/International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance/United Nations Development Programme (OAS/IDEA International/UNDP).

Putnam, R. (1992), Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press.

Retolaza, I. (2010), Teoría de cambio: un enfoque de pensamiento-acción para navegar en la complejidad de los procesos de cambio social, Guatemala City, Hivos/United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

Ropers, N. (2017), Basics of Dialogue Facilitation, Berlin, Berghof Foundation.

Rovere, M. (2006), Redes en salud; los grupos, las instituciones, la comunidad, Córdoba, El Agora.

Salazar, L. and others (2001), “La dimensión de ‘participación’ en la construcción de la sostenibilidad institucional”, Innovación para la Sostenibilidad Institucional series, San José, ISNAR “Nuevo Paradigma” project.

Scharmer, O. (2007), Theory U: Leading from the Future as It Emerges, Cambridge, Society for Organizational Learning.

United Nations (2020), United Nations Guidance Note: Protection and Promotion of Civic Space, New York.

Vargas, F. and F. Osorio (2019), “¿Qué características deben tener los líderes subnacionales en la búsqueda del desarrollo territorial de largo plazo en Latinoamérica? Un acercamiento desde el management, el liderazgo y la prospectiva”, Planificación multiescalar: ordenamiento, prospectiva territorial y liderazgos públicos. Volumen III, Seminars and Conferences series, No. 93 (LC/TS.2019/61), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

VeneKlasen, L. and V. Miller (2002), A New Weave of Power, People & Politics: The Action Guide for Advocacy and Citizen Participation, Oklahoma City, World Neighbors.

Villasante, T. (2022), Contribution to the webinar “Prospectiva, participación y poder - tensiones y ambigüedad en la planificación y gestión territorial frente a los ODS”, Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 18 October [online] https://www.youtube.com/embed/YOshi8EbjwI.

____(2012), “Nuevas metodologías participativas en acción”, Construyendo democracias y metodologías participativas desde el Sur, T. Villasante and others, Santiago, LOM Ediciones.

Vitale, J. (2022a), “Poder y participación en la construcción social de futuros”, Complejidad y ciencias sociales: diálogos controversiales, L. Rodríguez (coord.), Buenos Aires, Comunidad Editora Latinoamericana.

____(2022b), Contribution to the webinar “Prospectiva y medio ambiente: desafíos para la gestión pública subnacional”, Santiago, University of Chile, 23 August [online] https://gobierno.uchile.cl/noticias/189622/conversatorio-aborda-los-desafios-de-la-prospectiva-y-medio-ambiente.

____(2022c), Contribution to the webinar “Prospectiva, participación y poder - tensiones y ambigüedad en la planificación y gestión territorial frente a los ODS”, Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 18 October [online] https://www.youtube.com/embed/YOshi8EbjwI.

1. [1] See Naser, Williner and Sandoval (2021) for more information on these levels of participation.

2. [2] Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988) and Putnam (1992).

3. [3] A discussion on “Foresight, participation and power - tensions and ambiguity in territorial planning and management vis-à-vis the SDGs” was held from October to November 2022 under the auspices of the Latin American and Caribbean Development Planning Network of the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES) of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). A discussion forum was then held involving experts with a recognized track record in the region, including Inés Nercesian (Argentina) of the National Council for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICET), the University of Buenos Aires and the Electoral Observatory of Latin America (OBLAT); Tomás Villasante (Spain) of the Creasvi Foundation and the Sentipensante Network of CLACSO; and Javier Medina Vásquez (Colombia) of the University of Valle and the Open Network of Foresight and Innovation for Latin America and the Caribbean of the Ibero-American Programme of Science and Technology for Development (CYTED).

4. [4] The anti-polarization decalogue is as follows: (i) Resist pressure to speak out and take a position on issues that are being addressed and treated dichotomously, with mutually exclusive positions predominating; (ii) Replace social media platforms with direct contact for conversations that matter to you; (iii) Commit to a minimal change; (iv) Preserve the relational dimension; (v) Start with less challenging issues; (vi) Highlight positions and expressions that arouse less resistance in the audiences of each of the extremes; (vii) Avoid simplifications; (viii) Avoid resorting to technical arguments, quotations and scientific studies as the only tool for overcoming polarization; (ix) Choose your moment; and (x) Accept historical responsibility.

Chapter IV

Methodological pathways to deploy foresight for development in public institutions: a proposal

A. Fundamentals of the methodological proposal

B. Methodological pathways and areas of application

C. Institutional typology and methodological pathways

D. Description of the methodological pathways

Bibliography

Annex IV.A1

Annex IV.A2

A. Fundamentals of the methodological proposal

Chapter I defined foresight for development as a permanent and systematic process of participatory reflection on the different future options, in which the State takes the lead in stimulating the production of anticipatory knowledge and in forging consensus-based visions of the future. These are then turned into national and territorial public policies to achieve sustainable development.

This definition considers the following characteristics of foresight for development: a focus on systemic societal interactions; recognition of the future as a space of multiple possibilities and alternatives; the promotion of collective construction of the future, recognizing that agreements and pacts are essential; anticipation as a form of action; the long term as a space for continuous and permanent action; and the State as the leader and promoter of the process of reflection and construction of futures. These characteristics are also what make foresight for development useful for addressing complex situations at different levels of the State (national, subnational and sectoral) that require sustained efforts over time to obtain results, and in which multiple alternative futures exist.

A review of the different approaches and schools of foresight[1] reveals the wide variety and multiplicity of methodological pathways that can be pursued when incorporating this discipline into planning, public administration and government management. This chapter will present a set of proposals, referred to as “methodological pathways”, for responding flexibly to the challenge of institutionalizing foresight, based on the experience of government planning agencies and those with sectoral responsibilities.

The purpose of the methodological pathways is to provide institutions with alternatives for integrating foresight and incorporating the future dimension into public activities, in a way that responds to the circumstances and characteristics of each country of Latin America and the Caribbean. An additional aim is to contribute to a reflection that generates synergies with planning systems, thus preventing foresight from becoming an additional task that puts the current functioning of these systems under stress.

The methodological approach being proposed envisages incorporating foresight for development into the routine activity of public institutions in the region’s countries, in accordance with the progress that each has made in this area, without proposing a single approach or a specific sequence of steps, stages or minimum techniques to be deployed (see diagram IV.1).

Diagram IV.1

Traditional sequential logic of applying the phases of foresight

Source:Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

In addition to the constraints mentioned in chapter II, which were identified through the online survey of public officials, the experience accumulated by the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES) in the region shows that the process of institutionalizing foresight has been subject to various other limitations. These include the type of methodology used, the design and flexibility of the processes in question, the technical capacities that exist, and the ease with which foresight is harmonized with other planning processes and the institutional regulations currently in force (see box IV.1).

Box IV.1

Constraints on institutionalizing foresight in the countries of the region

•Application of the traditional linear methodologies imposes rigid stages or phases, which are hard to adapt to the multi-causal and dynamic nature of the problems and challenges to be addressed by foresight for development.

•Linear design and application means that a failure to complete a given stage hinders progress in the ensuing stages; this reduces the possibility of developing actions simultaneously or of initiating and completing phases that are further down the line of succession.

•Foresight tends to be applied in an ad hoc manner and at a given moment (at the time of the design of the plan, policy or programme), and not on a regular and continuous basis throughout the design, formulation and implementation process.

•There is scant complementarity with other techniques or tools that are commonly used by organizations interested in applying foresight, or with other phases that they normally undertake.

•Applying linear methodologies makes it harder to harmonize foresight processes with those of planning and their institutional framework.

Source:Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

The methodological pathways described in this chapter exemplify how these constraints can be overcome, using a flexible combination of different techniques and tools. These are adapted both for use in the initial stages of the design and formulation of policies, plans and programmes, and for implementation in the monitoring and evaluation stages, in specific national, territorial or sectoral contexts and in response to emerging challenges.

B. Methodological pathways and areas of application

Methodological pathways will be understood as a set of techniques, instruments or tools, which are organized flexibly to address the different institutional challenges that need to be overcome. As many of the tools used in foresight belong to other disciplines, they are not entirely unknown, which makes them easier to institutionalize.

The way in which the methodological pathways are designed and presented is based on the classification of the phases and techniques proposed originally by Popper (2009). This envisaged a diamond whose four vertices represented the orientations of foresight detected in his research —creativity, expertise, interaction and evidence. In this original version, the techniques and methodologies were organized according to their proximity to each of these vertices.

In this proposal, however, four approaches have been chosen that respond to the characteristics of the concept of foresight for development, as outlined in chapter I, and to the experience of providing technical assistance services to the countries of the region. These are: the systemic approach, the multiple futures approach, the collective construction of futures approach and the anticipation approach.

Each of these approaches is associated with a set of techniques and tools that can be used non-sequentially and simultaneously to address the various realities, institutional capacities and needs of planning institutions, with a flexible methodological approach (see diagram IV.2).

The systemic approach encompasses the relationships that exist between the different pillars of sustainable development. The collective construction of futures approach refers to stakeholder participation and the forging of consensuses on a desired society. The anticipation approach represents the capacity to take actions to prepare for the different futures that may arise. Lastly, the multiple futures approach responds to the need to view the future as a space of various alternatives or options, which can be expressed in the form of scenarios.

Diagram IV.2

Flexible logic of the proposed methodological pathways for incorporating foresight

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Diagram IV.3 presents a map of development foresight tools and techniques, organized according to their application approach. The approaches are shown as interconnected, reflecting the fact that this is a permanent process of interaction in the long-term time-frame of foresight. For example, the role-playing technique is a tool that is targeted mainly towards the collective construction of futures approach. Similarly, the statistical projections technique is a tool suited to the anticipation approach. The different techniques and tools, such as brainstorming or data mining, are positioned in the map according to their proximity to each of the foresight-for-development approaches.

Diagram IV.3

Approaches, tools and techniques of foresight for development

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), based on R. Popper, “Foresight methodology”, The Handbook of Technology Foresight: Concepts and Practice, L. Georghiou and others (eds.), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009.

The role of the State as the driver of foresight for development is reflected in the definition of methodological pathways that respond to challenges that are specific to the public sector, whose institutional framework has the skills and tools to implement them.

C. Institutional typology and methodological pathways

The methodological pathways proposal responds to the need to construct a foresight ecosystem, as discussed in chapter II. The pathways make it possible to fulfil the functions expected of this ecosystem, by enabling feedback, the delivery of timely information for decision making, and the generation of a demand for the analyses performed. This is achieved mainly by seeking mechanisms of complementarity between planning and foresight.

To illustrate the flexibility of using the tools and techniques of the four approaches to foresight for development, a typology was developed of public institutions associated with seven methodological pathways (see table IV.1). This typology is defined by the level of the State at which the institutions operate (national, subnational, territorial or sectoral), the objective they seek to achieve, or the challenge they are facing.

Table IV.1

Institutional typology and associated methodological pathways

Institutional typology

Associated methodological pathway

National institutions with development planning functions, seeking to implement foresight in their regular operations.

Pathway 1

National institutions that need to update existing plans, policies or programmes

Pathway 2

National institutions with planning functions, seeking to spread or expand the use of foresight in other public institutions.

Pathway 3

Subnational sectoral or territorial institutions facing conflicts between actors in relation to a development project

Pathway 4

Subnational governments facing projects or investments that would have a significant effect on their current development conditions.

Pathway 5

Subnational governments that need to agree with other actors on a common development vision that guides the design of public policies or local projects.

Pathway 6

Sectoral or subnational territorial institutions that need to develop long-term land-use planning processes and anticipate disaster risks.

Pathway 7

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

These different methodological pathways are flexible means of preparing foresight for development processes; they can be adjusted to the reality of each context and institutional situation, or to the problem that needs to be addressed; and they also enable new tools, instruments or techniques to be added to the set of pathways proposed.

The pathways can thus serve as a reference for agents responsible for designing work or institutional plans in the foresight domain. In most cases, the pathways can start from two or more approaches simultaneously, which makes it easier to move the processes forward and take steps to apply foresight on a continuous basis.

In short, these methodological pathways offer a useful and adaptable guide and orientation for applying foresight in various territorial and sectoral areas, and in different problems, situations and contexts (see table IV.2).

Table IV.2

Methodological pathways, areas of application and prioritized foresight-for-development approach

Methodological pathway

Institutional typology

State level

Main objective

Previous experience and capabilities

Prioritized approach

Pathway 1

Government planning agencies

National

Incorporating foresight into its operations

Planning experience

Systemic approach

Anticipation approach

Collective construction of futures approach

Anticipation approach

Multiple futures approach

Pathway 2

Government planning agencies

National

Updating planning instruments

Planning experience

Anticipation approach

Multiple futures approach

Anticipation approach

Pathway 3

Government planning agencies

National

Extending or spreading the use of foresight to other public institutions

High level of experience in foresight

Collective construction of futures approach

Anticipation approach

Multiple futures approach

Pathway 4

Sectoral or territorial institutions

National or territorial

Identifying and anticipating conflicts

Medium experience in

stakeholder-related issues

Collective construction of futures approach

Multiple futures approach

Pathway 5

Subnational governments

Territorial

Preparing for structural changes in the trend of their development patterns

Limited technical and administrative capacity to assess or identify potential impacts resulting from the changes

Collective construction of futures approach

Multiple futures approach

Pathway 6

Subnational governments

Territorial

Reaching consensus on a future development vision

Medium planning experience

and foresight capacities

Collective construction of futures approach

Pathway 7

Subnational land-use planning and risk management agencies

Sectorial or territorial

Identifying future land-use scenarios and anticipating disaster risks

Experience in land-use planning and some experience and skills in foresight

Systemic approach

Collective construction of futures approach

Anticipation approach

Multiple futures approach

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

D. Description of the methodological pathways

This section describes the methodological pathways, along with the institutional characteristics in which they are applied and the main challenges they have to face. Each pathway is presented as a set of lines that interconnect the proposed techniques according to the nature of the challenges that need to be addressed. A detailed description of each of the techniques and tools is provided in Annex IV.A1.

1. Methodological pathway 1 - National institutions starting to implement foresight analysis

Key characteristics of the institutions for which this pathway is suitable

•Institutions with planning experience that support other national or territorial entities in their development planning processes.

•They generally do not have staff with foresight experience.

•They are the lead agencies of national planning systems.

•This approach proposes making balanced use of the tools that respond to the four foresight-for-developmentapproaches.

Main challenges:

•Defining the role of foresight within the national planning system.

•Linking foresight with public policy design.

This methodological pathway is based on the institutional authorities’ political will to promote the implementation of foresight studies. Leaders play a crucial role in introducing foresight in public administration. However, these efforts should not be confined to the highest levels, but should permeate to other (particularly middle-ranking) public officials, in order to forge a shared sense of purpose and achieve a collaborative endeavour (see diagram IV.4).

Diagram IV.4

Methodological pathway 1

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

This pathway involves the systemic use of tools, such as consultative workshops, brainstorming or interviews, that encourage participation and the forging of agreements.

This information will serve as a basis for examining the system through an analysis of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT), or the importance and governance (IGO) matrix, which will make it possible to distinguish internal and external elements of the system and prioritize actions in accordance with institutional capabilities. At the same time, quantitative studies of statistical projections and trend analysis can be performed to enhance understanding of the system with an anticipatory approach. All of this can be materialized by developing future scenarios through Schwartz axes (scenario axes). This pathway also incorporates quantitative and qualitative tools that support a construction with the multiple futures and collective construction of futures approaches.

This pathway is exemplified by the process launched in the State of Quintana Roo (Mexico), where the new Development Planning Law of the State of Quintana Roo tasks the Government Secretariat of that state with preparing a strategic sustainable development plan that has a planning horizon of at least 25 years.

2. Methodological pathway 2 - National institutions that need to update and extend the validity of development plans

Key characteristics of the institutions for which this pathway is suitable:

•Institutions with experience in development planning processes.

•They face highly dynamic and volatile environments and conditions.

Main challenges:

•Analysing relationships between variables, and processing large volumes of both structured and unstructured data.

•In many cases, there is no information on relevant factors that explain the dynamics of the changes to be monitored.

•Persuading other public institutions to use the results generated from foresight.

In this configuration of tools, the aim is to prioritize incorporation of the anticipation approach into planning processes, as a characteristic of foresight (see diagram IV.5). One of the challenges is to work with a large volume of information on rapidly changing variables. Tools such as data mining and machine learning are useful for processing this information and subsequently making statistical projections and analysing trends. Scenarios can thus be proposed with the MORPHOL hypothesis and variable analysis tool, based on hypothetical futures. Schwartz axes can also be used to design scenarios based on this information, especially when there are fewer variables (multiple futures approach). Lastly, the Delphi tool is recommended if it is desired to encourage the participation of experts to analyse the system and the behaviour of the variables, along with the dynamics of their changes.

Diagram IV.5

Methodological pathway 2

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

This methodological pathway can be exemplified by the process of updating the Guanajuato 2040 State Development Plan in Mexico, which incorporates foresight as a mechanism for keeping the plan current and incorporating the changes that occur in its initial conditions and assumptions.

3. Methodological pathway 3 - National planning institutions with responsibilities and initial experience in foresight that need to expand or spread its application to other public entities

Key characteristics of the institutions for which this pathway is suitable:

•Institutions and professionals with experience in foresight studies.

•These are institutions that seek to extend the application of foresight to other public entities.

Main challenges:

•Defining criteria for selecting other entities for inclusion in the foresight process.

•Defining the capacities needed to promote foresight processes.

•Generating spaces for inter-agency collaboration.

•Liaising with academic or specialized foresight entities.

With the collective construction of futures approach, this third pathway involves participation by different actors in forging agreements. The proposal aims to draw on as many tools as possible to gather information on the different actors that will be invited to participate in the process (see diagram IV.6). Consultative workshops, focus groups, interviews and surveys are useful for gathering the opinions and perceptions of other public and private actors. Along these lines, it is also advisable to apply the systemic approach by conducting a stakeholder interplay exercise, or MACTOR (matrix of alliances and conflicts: tactics, objectives and recommendations), to analyse the set of actors and identify the power relationships that exist between them.

Diagram IV.6

Methodological pathway 3

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

At the same time, the information obtained through the participatory tools is useful for delineating the system and defining the multiple futures. Constant feedback between the two approaches is particularly important in this pathway, to ensure participation not only in the system design and definition stages, but also in the construction of futures, which enhances the legitimacy of the process. It is also important to take the actors involved into account when defining strategies, since it is they who will give viability to the strategic proposals that are defined.

The process of formulation and implementation of the Guatemalan National Development Plan “K’atun: Nuestra Guatemala 2032” illustrates this methodological pathway. It arose originally as an initiative of the Planning and Programming Secretariat of the Office of the President (SEGEPLAN), and has since been extended to the other State institutions, which are required to report progress on implementing the plan.

4. Methodological pathway 4 - Subnational sectoral or territorial institutions facing conflicts between actors over a development project

Key characteristics of the institutions for which this pathway is suitable:

•Sectoral or territorial institutions that have to manage the conflicting interests of various actors.

•They have a medium level of experience in issues related to stakeholder participation and collaboration in joint work.

Main challenges:

•Dealing with disputes that cannot be anticipated and are not explicit.

•Developing stakeholder mapping to analyse the interests of different actors and manage their expectations with respect to the process; and incorporating actors who dispersed but favourably disposed to the project.

•Generating strategies for engagement, training, communication, or dissemination of initiatives concerning the objectives over which disputes can be expected to arise.

•Establishing regular mechanisms to institutionalize community participation in activities as a way to anticipate the conflicts that could arise.

This methodological pathway applies the collective construction of futures and multiple futures approaches to participatory conflict management (see diagram IV.7). These are situations in which it is impossible to reach agreements that benefit the interests of all of the different actors. This pathway also incorporates the need to institutionalize mechanisms for participation by the community in decisions affecting its

future development.

A case that exemplifies this pathway is the Regional Agenda of Catatumbo, Ocaña Province and Sur del Cesar in Colombia (Ramírez and Ovalles, 2014). In this process, a set of future scenarios were formulated on a participatory basis, arising out of the demobilization process, which served to define a

long-term vision.

Diagram IV.7

Methodological pathway 4

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

5. Methodological pathway 5 - Subnational governments facing projects or investments that would significantly affect their future development conditions

Key characteristics of the institutions for which this pathway is suitable:

•Institutions facing potential changes in their development trends or breakthrough events.

•The causes or drivers of change are mainly external to the territory.

•These are generally territorial institutions that have limited technical and administrative capacities to evaluate or identify the potential impacts resulting from the changes.

•The institutions have some planning capacity.

•The nature of the projects requires interactions to be established with national entities.

Main challenges:

•Reconciling interests among the different local actors.

•Taking advantage of the emerging opportunities that will be created as a result of the changes.

•Developing technical capabilities to deal with change and adapt to it.

This methodological pathway seeks to incorporate the multiple futures approach into territorial planning, along with the need to define actions to anticipate these possible futures (scenarios). The main challenge is to establish foresight in the territories, building consensuses among actors in order to anticipate potential changes and complement territorial planning exercises (see diagram IV.8).

Diagram IV.8

Methodological pathway 5

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Participatory techniques, such as consultative workshops, interviews, brainstorming and surveys, contribute to defining a vision of the future that reflects the shared aspirations of the different stakeholders and is consistent with them (collective construction of futures approach).

The information gathered through these instruments is also useful for identifying the multiple futures that make it possible to turn local aspirations into strategies for generating capacities and undertaking actions in the present to transition towards the future defined in the vision.

As this pathway has a territorial unit of analysis, tools such as SWOT analysis are highly recommended to define the foresight analysis system. SWOT analysis makes it possible to distinguish what is internal to the system from what is external, while at the same time reflecting on the opportunities and threats that could be generated by the changes that are emerging in the territories.

As an example, annex IV.A2 presents the case of the Multi-year Development Plan 2022–2026 of the Republic of Suriname, which includes the nascent oil exploration industry as one of the main challenges in its medium-term development model.

6. Methodological pathway 6 - Subnational governments that need to agree with other social actors on a common development vision to guide the design of public policies or local projects

Key characteristics of the institutions for which this pathway is suitable:

•Subnational governments that develop processes at the territorial level to agree upon a common development vision.

•They have medium planning experience and foresight process capacities.

Main challenges:

•Developing a planning instrument with a long-term horizon that enjoys general consensus among local stakeholders. This instrument could take the form of a development vision or a long-term plan.

•Striking a balanced representation of the actors involved in the processes.

•Developing processes time- and resource-efficient.

•Constructing shared scenarios as to what is possible and desirable, based on the present conditions and reality.

•Incorporating the scenarios and vision constructed in the long-term development plans to drive decision-making in the present and achieve community ownership.

This methodological pathway seeks to provide guidance to the authorities of the territories that need to construct a territorial development vision, in the form of a collective image that harmonizes the national development guidelines with the future aspirations of the people who are part of the territory.

This vision can be formulated using participatory tools, such as focus groups, surveys or brainstorming, with a collective construction of futures approach (see diagram IV.9). For these activities to be successful, it is important to specify in advance who will be invited to participate in the process (to ensure representativeness), to ascertain their expectations and to inform them clearly of what their level of participation will be (whether minimal and related merely to consultation, or else advanced to a level of co-creation).

Diagram IV.9

Methodological pathway 6

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Lastly, it is advisable to create and implement observatories, since the aim is not only to produce a document that reflects a consensual image of the future, but to ensure that the vision is recognized widely by the community. Observatories have the capacity to capture and organize the information produced in the participatory mechanisms, while at the same time disseminating the consensuses achieved, thereby democratizing the process further and contributing to a collective construction of the future.

This methodological pathway is exemplified by the case of Cali Vision 2036 developed in Cali (Colombia), which involved participation by public and private sector actors in that territory (see annex IV.A2).

7. Methodological pathway 7 - Subnational governments that need to develop actions for land-use planning and risk management

Key characteristics of the institutions for which this pathway is suitable:

•Subnational governments that face complex planning processes owing to the number of factors affecting territorial development, which requires a systemic approach in the analysis.

•They have limited capacities to observe the trends and time series of the different variables that need to be monitored, given the potential long-term impacts of land-use planning actions.

•They have limited capacity to explore possible futures by constructing scenarios in the dynamic of land use.

Main challenges:

•Reconciling the interests of stakeholders in the territory with respect to land-use disputes that may arise.

•Harmonizing the internal elements of the territory, which can be managed, with the external factors, which are beyond the scope of local management.

•Defining ways to materialize the results of the processes carried out, considering that most of the results of the foresight analysis processes do not have formal tools of implementation, or else only have indicative mechanisms to guide management.

This methodological pathway responds to the need of territories that seek to implement land-use planning initiatives. The concept of land-use planning is understood as the planning modality that aims to adapt the territory for efficient and sustainable use through participatory and democratic processes (Márquez and Veloso, 2020). This methodological pathway also includes risk management, land-use and urban planning initiatives.

The territory is recognized as a system in which the various components or parts (population, natural resources, built environment) are linked. The four foresight-for-development approaches are used to define future scenarios and collectively anticipate development strategies (see diagram IV.10).

An example of this methodological pathway is provided by the province of Mendoza (Argentina), which developed an integrating vision, incorporating foresight in the formulation phase by designing a set of trend and alternative scenarios (see annex IV.A2).

Diagram IV.10

Methodological pathway 7

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Bibliography

Al-Samarraie, H. and S. Hurmuzan (2018), “A review of brainstorming techniques in higher education”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 27, Amsterdam, Elsevier.

Linstone, H. and M. Turoff (eds.) (1975), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, London, Addison-Wesley.

Márquez, M. and E. Veloso (2020), “El ordenamiento territorial en Chile: estado del arte”, Revista Estado, Gobierno y Gestión Pública, vol. 18, No. 35, Santiago, University of Chile.

Medina, J. and E. Ortegón (2006), Manual de prospectiva y decisión estratégica: bases teóricas e instrumentos para América Latina y el Caribe, Manuals series, No. 51 (LC/L.2503-P), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Paulus, P. and B. Nijstad (eds.) (2003), Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Popper, R. (2009), “Foresight methodology”, The Handbook of Technology Foresight: Concepts and Practice, L. Georghiou and others (eds.), Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ramírez, J. and C. Ovalles (2014), “La planeación prospectiva estratégica en zonas de conflicto. Caso: Agenda Regional Catatumbo - Colombia”, paper presented at Seminario Global de Formación Prospectiva 2014, Mendoza, Champagnat University, 30 May [online] https://cepcuyo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/LA-PLANEACION-PROSPECTIVA-ESTRATEGICA-EN-ZONAS-CONFLICTO.-COLOMBIA-OSPINA-ESTUPI%C3%91AN-2014.pdf.

Annex IV.A1

Table IV.A1.1

Description of the main techniques used in foresight processes

Technique

Description

Brainstorming

The brainstorming technique, initially developed by Alex Osborn (Al-Samarraie and Hurmuzan, 2018), aims to foster group creativity to share ideas and thoughts spontaneously in the search for solutions to practical problems. It is based on the principle that, in principle, no idea is beyond the bounds of possibility, and each person’s opinion is equally important. According to the recommendations compiled by Paulus and Nijstad (2003), a brainstorming process undertaken in a virtual environment needs to take the following factors into consideration:

•The sessions should be relatively short.

•The basic rules will be published and applied, and anyone can point out a breach of them.

•Quantity, not quality, is the objective of the session.

•Individual contributions will be neither criticized nor praised.

•Unusual and different ideas are welcome.

•It is not important to worry about duplicates initially, as these will be organized later to reflect the concentration of opinions on a topic.

•Long stories will be avoided (they reduce time for the ideas).

•A brief clarification may be requested if an idea, abbreviation or term is not understood.

•Concentration needs to be maintained during the session. Participants will be asked to keep cameras and audio on.

•Only one person speaks at a time during the exchange of opinions.

When the groups convened are large, more than 20 participants are considered for this purpose. Virtual tools offer the possibility of creating discussion rooms (also called breakout rooms) for small groups (preferably no more than six people).

Trend analysis

Trend analysis seeks to identify patterns of behaviour in certain variables that are of special interest in explaining the dynamics of a sector

or a subject. A time series analysis is usually performed to visualize the behaviour of the variables of interest. However, data referring

to a single period can also be analysed, in which case the procedure is called cross-sectional analysis; similarly, a combination of time series and cross-sectional data produces panel data.

Regardless of the precision of the analysis to be performed and the specific approach adopted (probabilistic, series, factorial or other), the following guidelines are proposed for performing a basic trend analysis of key variables:

(i) Identify and plot the indicator that best describes the recent-years behaviour of the topic specified in the foresight analysis.

(ii) Identify the shape of the selected trend: rising, cyclical, tangential, exponential, convergent or other.

(iii) Is the time period presented sufficient for understanding the long-term behaviour of the trend?

(iv) Estimate the direction of the trend at a given date.

(v) Identify which drivers of change are relevant for understanding the behaviour of the trend?

MICMAC

The method of matrix-based multiplication applied to a classification (MICMAC) is one of the best known ways of performing a structural analysis. Its main objective is to analyse a system by recognizing and characterizing its constituent variables. The method expands on an idea proposed originally by Frederick Vester, who defined a process for simulating systems by classifying the relations between variables. Vester called his method the “paper computer”, since it enabled simulations to be performed manually, without the need to use complex systems.

Structural analysis is a method that uses and exploits the properties of matrices to record the relations that exist between the constituent variables of the system under study, to gain an understanding of the specific role they play within the system.

This method uses and draws on expert knowledge and open discussion to classify the relations between variables. It can also be used to combine expert and practical knowledge; for example, by putting veterinarians, zootechnicians and agronomists in contact with farmers and campesinos. The aim of this method is to analyse and classify the relations of dependency and influence between variables, based on discussion between experts on a specific subject.

To apply the method, it is advisable to bring together specialists from various disciplines and backgrounds who can offer a wide variety of perspectives on the same subject. In this way, capacities for communication and dialogue between very different specialized languages are put to the test. This combination of diverse pairs is the key to obtaining the broadest and most systemic analysis possible. Its success depends not only on the knowledge that each specialist has of the topics in question, but also on the open-minded attitude of listening and communication that is deployed throughout the exercise.

Given the composition of the groups and the discussion process involved, this method requires a very considerable amount of time. For example, starting from a set of 10 variables, the procedure requires filling in 90 cells; if there are 20 variables, 380 cells have to be completed. As each relationship between variables is expected to be classified by consensus, time is a critical factor: it needs to be sufficient, with regulated

pauses to prevent the classifications resulting from fatigue rather than conviction. There may be a temptation to obtain classifications through voting or surveys; but this negates the impact in terms of collective learning and the consolidation of capacities for collective knowledge generation that should be achieved with the MICMAC method.

MACTOR Method

The stakeholder analysis method (Matrix of Alliances and Conflicts: Tactics, Objectives and Recommendations – MACTOR) seeks to ascertain the map of actors, along with their influences and power within a set of objectives. A stakeholder is an individual, a group of individuals,

an institution, or a unit within an institution, which has a set of characteristics and a position relative to the objectives of a plan that distinguish it from other individuals. Stakeholders seek to defend their interests both explicitly and covertly.

In general, it is possible to identify a typology of actors who are involved in foresight analysis processes. This set of actors is presented

as an initial proposal that provides an overview of the complexity of the approach to the subject.

The strategic analysis of the interplay of actors is one of the crucial stages of foresight and one of its major challenges: resolving conflicts between groups with different projects, which affect the evolution of the system in which they unfold. The MACTOR stakeholder analysis method aims to estimate the correlation of forces existing between actors, and to study how they converge and diverge in relation

to certain challenges and associated objectives. Based on this analysis, use of the MACTOR method aims to provide a given actor

with the decision-making tools needed to implement its alliance and conflict policy vis-à-vis the other actors.

Stakeholders are human groups that come together, either consciously or unconsciously, to act in defence of their interests, using the degree of power available to each one. Stakeholder analysis is based on recognizing that the actors comprising the system under study have a decisive influence on its future evolution.

Identification of actors:

Preparing a stakeholder selection chart involves the following:

(i) Identifying and listing the potential actors that are most closely related to the identified topic.

(ii) Identifying their main interests (visible or invisible) relative to the problems addressed by the initiative and its objectives. It should be kept in mind that each stakeholder may have several interests.

(iii) Briefly assessing the potential impacts of the initiatives on each of these interests (positive, negative or unknown).

Calculation of relative stakeholder power :

Stakeholder power will be calculated on a case-by-case basis, with a technique that is operationally similar to the MICMAC cross-variable method. Key actors are those who can significantly influence the success of the project, or are important to it. Influence refers to how powerful an actor is. Importance refers to stakeholders whose problems, needs and interests are prioritized by the intervention: if these important actors are not assisted effectively, then the project cannot be considered a success. By combining influence and importance, stakeholders can be classified in different groups, which will help identify the assumptions and risks that need to be addressed through the project design. Stakeholder analysis can contribute to deciding how key actors can be included in the project.

Stakeholders with high levels of influence and importance for project success may be able to form the basis for a project’s “coalition of support”, and are potential planning and implementation partners. On the other hand, stakeholders that are highly influential but of relatively minor importance for the success of the project can be taken into account, consulted or informed.

Schwartz axes

Schwartz axes make it possible to construct objective scenarios by identifying a focus, key forces and environmental trends, and hence develop scenarios that are useful for defining possible and contingency decision modalities. The technique is another way of selecting the potential future scenario. It is based on the strategic variables determined in the structural analysis. This method defines what the environment could be like in the medium and long terms, by applying the scenarios constructed in the analysis. It should be noted that stating that something is “possible” is not the same as saying that it is “probable”. The meanings of the two terms are defined below:

(i) Possible is a situation that may or may not occur, or something that may or may not be executed; and whether it will occur or not is unknown.

(ii) Probable is a situation that may occur, or is likely to occur, based on supporting evidence or reasons.

(iii) Something is possible if it could occur, even if unlikely.

Diagram 1 illustrates an example of how scenarios are presented using this technique.

Diagram 1

Example of presentation using Schwartz Axes

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

MORPHOL tool

One way to extend the analysis of possible futures is to perform morphological analysis, which, as its name suggests, entails ascertaining the shape of possible futures. This method is very useful for incorporating additional variables into scenario building, especially if the interactions between them need to be known.

The process of defining scenarios starts from the basic definition of the key variables of the MICMAC method. If more than four variables were generated in the process, their use needs to be prioritized, for example by identifying the degree of closeness to the subject under analysis.

The method entails identifying hypotheses representing the future expression of the variable under analysis. To this end, it is important to define a time horizon that is relevant to the analysis, to serve as a guide or as a means of focusing efforts on a point of special interest.

For each key variable, a set of future hypotheses is identified, which can be organized using criteria such as the following:

•Polar structure: optimistic, pessimistic and neutral hypothesis.

•Structure of the system’s behavioural dynamics: trend, probable and desired hypothesis.

•Structure of the general behaviour of the system: economic boom, crisis or neutral hypothesis.

The decision on how to express the hypotheses will depend on the nature of the study; and a variable number of typologies (not just three) can be defined. The difference between the trend and probable hypotheses is that the first assumes that the trend of past behaviour persists in the future; whereas the second case assumes that a change must occur between the present and the future that will alter the trend path; for example, the entry into force of a law or the expiration of a concession for the use of a public good.

Table 1 makes it possible to clearly identify the scenarios that are defined by each of the columns. In this case, there is a baseline scenario formed by hypotheses H1, H4 and H7. The probable scenario is constructed with hypotheses H2, H5 and H8, and the desired scenario with hypotheses H3, H6 and H9. The next phase in the process is to describe the configuration of the hypotheses in writing, to enable those

not directly involved in the process to understand each of the scenarios.

Table 1

Example of morphological analysis to 2030

Trend scenario

Probable scenario

Desired scenario

City expansion

Hypothesis 1: Increasing pressures

to expand the urban boundary

Hypothesis 2: The urban boundary

is expanded to incorporate land for new industries

Hypothesis 3: The urban boundary is maintained

Location of jobs

Hypothesis 4: Increasing concentration of job location

in the city centre

Hypothesis 5: The startup of a new industry generates new sources of employment in outlying areas.

Hypothesis 6: Balanced distribution of jobs across the territory

Congestion level

Hypothesis 7: Increasing level

of congestion

Hypothesis 8: Congestion remains

at very high levels

Hypothesis 9: Reduction in traffic congestion

Source:Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

The process of describing the scenarios in writing gives a sense of interconnectedness to the variables and often makes it possible to identify relations of causality or interdependence between hypotheses.

This would result in three scenarios, described as follows:

(i) Trend scenario: a larger city involving numerous daily journeys from the periphery to the centre, and high levels of congestion.

(ii) Probable scenario: a larger city with new zones of employment sources located in outlying areas and high levels of congestion. Large city with dispersed employment and congestion.

(iii) Desired scenario: a more compact city with sources of employment distributed homogeneously throughout the territory and lower levels of congestion.

Technique

Description

IGO matrix

The importance and governance (IGO) matrix is a way of structuring the judgments of experts and participants in foresight processes that makes it possible to classify analysis variables rapidly according to criteria of importance and governance. The IGO matrix is used to identify key variables in a system, in situations where it is impossible to use tools such as the MICMAC method.

To evaluate the criteria, different scales are defined for importance and governance. In the first case, a six-level scale is normally used

(see table 2).

Table 2

Evaluation scale for the importance criterion

Valuation

Interpretation

5

Very high degree of importance

4

High degree of importance

3

Medium importance

2

Little importance

1

Very little importance

0

Zero importance

Source:Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Governance in this context is understood as the capacity to control or influence the variable; in other words, it is understood that there is some degree of influence both by actors internal to the system or object of analysis, and by those who are external to it. A six-level scale is used to evaluate the governance criterion (see table 3).

Table 3

Evaluation scale for the governance criterion

Valuation

Interpretation

5

Very strong

4

Strong

3

Medium

2

Weak

1

Very weak

0

Null

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

The methodology consists in collaboratively assessing the importance and governance criteria for each variable of the system under analysis.

Territorial visions of future development

A development vision is a future image of the territory with the potential to steer the definition of objectives and strategies. This image

of the future must be constructed in a collective and participatory manner, pursuing the common good. For a future image to become a vision, it must be clearly plausible (Medina and Ortegón, 2006).

The vision seeks to harmonize two reflections that arise in a society. The first originates in the distinctive features of the territory, derived from its potentials, strengths or territorial specialisms; the second relates to the community’s aspirations. When constructing visions of future development, the aim is to shape transformations that generate significant changes in the systems or communities. Accordingly, they generally translate into long-term approaches.

The construction of a territorial development vision has major advantages. One of the most important is the role it plays in unifying the discourse, by generating a common language on key factors for community development, such as values or minimum social principles. It is also useful for identifying and structuring territorial specialisms; in other words, the elements that distinguish the territory from others and form the basis for forging a territorial identity. It is also useful in terms of its capacity to motivate the different social actors, since it is a mechanism for strengthening territorial identity, in which the aspirations of all stakeholders are reflected. Consequently, a territorial specialism is also a way of coordinating different endeavours, both public and private, in pursuit of common future objectives.

There are various methodologies for constructing a future development vision. In organizations, the vision is usually defined by answering questions such as: what is the desired image of our institution, what will we be like in the future, and what will we be doing in the future? At the territorial level, this approach to constructing a vision does not respond adequately to the complexity of the future challenges; nor does it recognize the relevance of the stakeholders to validate the vision as an instrument that is representative of all those involved. In such cases it is necessary to consider other factors and stages, which make it more complex to produce.

Conditional strategies

Conditional strategies seek to link foresight analysis with the elements that arise from strategic planning. Considering the scenarios constructed, the aim is to identify each scenario’s implications for achieving the objectives defined in the plans.

A matrix of anticipatory actions is constructed to formulate the strategies (see table 4). This is defined by asking a question such as:

if scenario X occurs between now and 2050, what needs to be done to ensure that objective Z is met?

It is proposed to perform the analysis in two stages:

(i) First, identify the impact caused if the envisaged scenario actually materializes.

(ii) Second, identify what needs to be done to ensure the objective is achieved, taking the scenario into consideration.

Table 4

Example of an anticipatory action matrix

Objective 1

Objective 2

Objective 3

Scenario 1: Trend

Scenario 2: Desired

Scenario 3: Undesired

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC).

Delphi method

Linstone and Turoff (1975) define the Delphi method for structuring a group communication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group of individuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem.

A Delphi study has the following phases:

Phase 1: Definition of the research problem.

Phase 2: Formation of the group of informants (recommended to comprise between six and 40 people that have broad knowledge

of the research topic).

Phase 3: Rounds of open-ended questions.

Phase 4: Round of closed questions.

Phase 5: Consensus building.

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), on the basis of H. Al-Samarraie and S. Hurmuzan, “A review of brainstorming techniques in higher education”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, vol. 27, Amsterdam, Elsevier, 2018; P. Paulus and B. Nijstad (eds.), Group Creativity: Innovation Through Collaboration, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003; J. Medina and E. Ortegón, Manual de prospectiva y decisión estratégica: bases teóricas e instrumentos para América Latina y el Caribe, Manuals series, No. 51 (LC/L.2503-P), Santiago, Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 2006; H. Linstone and M. Turoff (eds.), The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications, London, Addison-Wesley, 1975.

Annex IV.A2

Case studies of subnational territorial foresight

Table IV.A2.1

Provincial Land Management Plan of Mendoza (Argentina)

Instrument: Provincial Land Management Plan (Law No. 8999/2017).

Promoting agency: Environment and Land Management Secretariat of the Government of the Province of Mendoza (Argentina), which is the government agency responsible for territorial planning in the province).

Objective: Law No. 8051/2009 on Territorial Planning and Land Use establishes territorial planning as a political-administrative procedure of the State throughout provincial territory; in other words, it is a State policy applicable to the provincial and municipal governments.

Territorial scale: Provincial; it applies to the entire territory of the corresponding province.

Context: The province of Mendoza has a long history of attempts at territorial planning through a land- use planning process stretching back more than 20 years. At the initiative of the National University of Cuyo, in 2007 a Draft Land-use and Territorial Planning Bill was proposed as a result of inter-agency collaboration involving different national and provincial institutions.

Methodological approach: The case is an example of the land-use planning formulation and management model, which is an administrative procedure and a permanently ongoing process that forms the basis for decisions by the public sector, the private sector and the community at large. It aims to achieve predefined goals and objectives, facilitate the control of actions and alter the course of the territorial development process as and when this is appropriate. It represents an integrating vision, aligned with economic, social and environmental development strategies, with a view to achieving sustainable development. Foresight is incorporated as a stage in the formulation phase, with both trend and alternative scenarios being considered.

Results: Preparation of the Mendoza 2030 Strategic Development Plan; the Provincial Territorial Management Plan (Law No. 8999/2017); municipal land management plans (with varying degrees of progress, some approved and others in the formulation stage) and sectoral plans, among other initiatives.

Innovation: The case innovates by including the future dimension, and in particular foresight, in the following aspects (Vitale and others, 2016):

Art. 1: “…it is preventive and forward-looking [...], using planning to reconcile the process of economic, social and environmental development with balanced and efficient forms of territorial occupation”.

Art. 3: “…to reconcile current and future economic and social development with conservation of the environment and natural resources [...]”.

Art. 11: The criteria for the preparation of land-use plans include “strategic vision” and “preventive and forward-looking nature”.

Art. 16: The construction of alternative scenarios for the territory is defined as one of the stages in preparing the plans.

Success factors: The socioinstitutional fabric that participates in the social construction of futures process; and the leadership provided by science and technology organizations, such as the National University of Cuyo.

Constraints: The advances and setbacks of the public land-use planning policy and the fact that it has not yet been consolidated as a State policy at the provincial level.

Lessons learned: The need for robust political-technical leadership and the commitment and support of public and private institutions to reflect, debate and construct a shared project.

Sustainability: Although the regulatory-legal framework does not guarantee the success of the territorial planning and land-use planning process, it helps to institutionalize the areas of participation and procedures.

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), on the basis of Government of Mendoza and J. Vitale and others, Guía de prospectiva para el ordenamiento territorial rural de la Argentina a nivel municipal, National Institute for Agricultural Technology (INTA), 2016.

Table IV.A2.2

BIO 2030 Medellín Master Plan (Colombia)

Instrument: BIO 2030 Medellín Master Plan (Colombia).

Type: Strategic master plan.

Promoting agency: The Mayoralty of Medellín and the Metropolitan Area of the Aburrá Valley, under the technical coordination of the Centre for Urban and Environmental Studies (Urbam) of Universidad EAFIT.

Objective: Dynamic planning process, through which trends are identified, sectoral planning is coordinated and complemented, the structural factors

of the metropolitan area are addressed, and strategic actions are defined to promote the desired occupational model.

Territorial scale: Metropolitan; its scope of action encompasses the ten municipalities that comprise the territory of the Aburrá Valley, from Barbosa to Caldas.

Context: In the late 1990s, the metropolitan municipalities of the Aburrá Valley were preparing to formulate their first land-use plan, promoted by Law No. 388 of 1997. The BIO 2030 Medellín Master Plan takes the existing metropolitan-scale sector planning, and harmonizes and complements it in light of the compact and sustainable city model proposed by the Metropolitan Land-use Planning Guidelines. On that basis, it seeks to build a coherent planning proposal that contributes to creating mechanisms for consensus and inter-agency coordination.

Methodological approach: The BIO 2030 Medellín Master Plan was developed under a collective consensus building strategy, with participation by public, private and academic stakeholders. These interacted in the different stages of the process, in order to reach agreements on the following questions: How are we doing? Where should we be heading? and What must we do to achieve this?

Results: Preparation of a strategic, forward-looking and action-focused document that will guide the territorial development of the Aburrá Valley towards the fulfilment of a shared dream: namely to construct a sustainable and socially equitable valley with a globally competitive economy.

Success factors: The mobilization of municipalities, society and their institutions around common purposes to overcome the challenges imposed by geography and climate change, as well as those arising from the processes of metropolization and globalization, which, if not adequately addressed, would jeopardize the sustainability of the territory.

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), based on Medellín City Council, Bio 2030 Plan Director Medellín, Valle de Aburrá: un sueño que juntos podemos alcanzar, Medellín, 2011.

Table IV.A2.3

Visión Cali 2036 (Colombia)

Instrument: Vision Cali 2036.

Typology: Local government policy.

Promoter: The Cali Urban Renewal Alliance (ARUC), in coordination with the Municipal Urban Renewal Corporation (EMRU), the Administrative Department of Municipal Planning (DAPM) and the Cali Mobility Secretariat (Colombia).

Objective: This exercise aims to visualize, analyse and study the city, with a view to defining its potential future development; optimizing its resources (physical, infrastructural and natural), and consolidating its economic specialisms, to attract new forms of real estate development.

Territorial scale: Local level.

Context: It is the outcome of a long process of territorial planning to promote social cohesion.

Methodological approach: Vision Cali 2036 is based on a model that views foresight and territorial strategy as a continuous cycle of building futures.

Innovation: This is an innovative model of coordinated collaboration between the public and private sectors, which seeks to contribute in a comprehensive and collaborative way to the planning of the capital of Valle del Cauca.

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC)), on the basis of Cali Chamber of Commerce, Visión Cali 2036 - Diagnóstico Estratégico, 2009.

Table IV.A2.4

Canario Strategic Plan 2040 (Uruguay)

Instrument: Canario Strategic Plan (PEC) 2040.

Typology: Document with general guidelines.

Promoting agency: Department of Canelones (Uruguay), Canarios Strategic Studies Centre (CEEC).

Objective: To provide the department of Canelones with a strategic plan that enables it to frame immediate and urgent actions with in-depth solutions

and long-term definitions, through a broad citizen participation process.

Territorial scale: The department of Canelones, which comprises the following municipalities: Aguas Corrientes, Atlántida, Barros Blancos, Canelones, Ciudad de la Costa, Nicolich, Empalme Olmos, La Floresta, La Paz, Las Piedras, Los Cerrillos, Migues, Montes, Pando, Parque del Plata, Paso Carrasco, Progreso, Salinas, San Antonio, San Bautista, San Jacinto, San Ramón, Santa Lucía, Santa Rosa, Sauce, Soca, Suárez, Tala, Toledo and 18 de Mayo.

Context: The strategic planning process in Canelones began in June 2005 when the Advisory Office for Strategic Planning and Coordination was created.

This defined territorial planning as a priority, with the aim of being proactive instead of merely reacting to the current situation. To this end, successive approaches were proposed through four advances (2007, 2010, 2014 and 2019). As the functions of departmental governments expanded, making them increasingly the prime agents of development, the need arose for a management model with the capacity to comprehensively address territorial

development processes.

Methodological approach: The first advance (2007) was based on the strategic planning methodology; and the subsequent advances (2010, 2014 and 2019) incorporated foresight tools. The case is based on the territorial planning formulation and management model, involving the definition of four desired scenarios.

Results: Currently being developed and implemented.

Innovation: The incorporation of a long-term view with periodic updates made it possible to incorporate the changes that occurred in the territory

and in the context.

Success factors: The municipal authorities’ conviction and political decision on the need for planning. It should be noted that the same political coalition held power for several terms of office from 2005 to 2020). Although in the last period (2015–2020) the administration’s incumbent changed, the fact that the same political sector continued to head the department could be seen as favouring the sustainability of the process.

The Canelones Planning Secretariat formulated and followed up on the updates, thereby building endogenous capacities. An agreement was reached with Asociación Profundación para las Ciencias Sociales (APFCS) of the School of Social Sciences of the University of the Republic (Udelar), to provide theoretical

and practical training in foresight methodology.

Lessons learned: The need to institutionalize long-term thinking in the local government structure, and to create planning capacities for time horizons

that transcend the administration for which the authorities are elected.

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), based on Government of Canelones, “Plan Estratégico Canario” [online] https://www.imcanelones.gub.uy/es/conozca/gobierno/plan-estrategico.

Table IV.A2.5

Guadalajara Municipal Development and Governance Plan 2021–2024 (Mexico)

Instrument: Municipal Development and Governance Plan (PMDyG) 2021–2024 of Guadalajara (Mexico).

Typology: Local government policy.

Promoting organization: Guadalajara City Council

Objective: The Municipal Development and Governance Plan (PMDyG) 2021–2024 establishes a future vision for Guadalajara, with an eye towards 2042,

the 500th anniversary of its founding. The plan starts from a rigorous assessment of the previous 2018–2021 Plan and a participatory diagnostic assessment

of the municipality’s present situation; and it defines a vision for the future.

The Municipal Development and Governance Plan Guadalajara – 500/Vision 2042 aims to develop a dynamic, hospitable and cosmopolitan city. As the capital

of the state of Jalisco, it has had a fundamental influence on the political, economic and social life of the western region of Mexico throughout the country’s history; and it is an example of development and growth. In that context, it is expected to update and give continuity to the 2015–2018 and 2018–2021 plans.

Territorial scale: Local level, the municipality of Guadalajara in the state of Jalisco (Mexico).

Context: The Law on Participatory Planning for the State of Jalisco and its Municipalities underlies the planning of government actions at the state level.

A broader regulatory framework is provided by the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, particularly in the definition of its territorial organization and the role of municipalities; and also in the Political Constitution of the State of Jalisco, which empowers municipalities for the planning and development of their territories. The plans are prepared mainly from the standpoint of desired future. The PND therefore defines public policy pillars that inform the national objectives, goals and strategies of government action.

Guadalajara faces the challenges and complexities that are typical of large cities around the world. This makes it necessary to achieve societal consensus

to chart a path and a strategic vision to continue consolidating the city as an example of quality of life and good governance.

Methodological approach: The update that resulted in the formulation of PMDyG 2021–2024 was supported by a participatory planning mechanism. The main objective of this process was to encourage participation, debate and interaction by the representatives of the different sectors of the municipality of Guadalajara, in order to ascertain their perspectives, opinions and proposals in the formulation of the PMDyG for 2021–2024.

Methodologically, the process included the following steps:

(i) Evaluation of the 2018–2021 PMDyG;

(ii) Participatory planning for situational diagnostic assessment;

(iii) Working roundtables involving the technical areas of the city council to evaluate its proposals;

(iv) Integration of the plan and inclusion of priority projects.

Results: Currently being developed and implemented.

Innovation: The plan aligns municipal objectives and strategies with the National Development Plan and the Governance and Development Plan of the State

of Jalisco 2018–2024, and also with the Goals and targets of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Success factors: Monitoring and evaluation tools are considered necessary conditions for a more democratic and transparent society, while providing information for informed decision-making.

Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), based on Government of Guadalajara, Plan Municipal de Desarrollo y Gobernanza 2021–2024. Vision 2042: 500 years, Guadalajara, 2021.

1. [1] There are a variety of schools, such as the proposal of the French Laboratory for Investigation in Prospective Strategy and Organisation (LIPSOR) or the strategic foresight model developed by the University of Manchester.

Chapter V

Conclusions

The region and the world are grappling with increasingly complex development challenges that require robust State institutions that have developed technical and political capacities to anticipate, prepare for and respond to the disruptive events brought about by economic, social, environmental and political crises, described by ECLAC as “cascading crises”.

The capacities that need to be strengthened at all levels of the State and at all territorial scales include the foresight capacities to build —in a participatory and multi-stakeholder approach— scenarios of possible futures which, through the cycle of formulating short- and medium-term plans and policies, can transform the environment in the long term.

The available evidence suggests that the region has made progress in long-term planning. In the last 15 years, 20 national long-term development exercises with time frames stretching from 2030 to 2050 and no fewer than 65 subnational and local exercises were conducted in Latin America and the Caribbean. A number of these exercises have built multi-stakeholder foresight scenarios for generating plans and strategies, while others have projected a vision for desirable development.

However, the challenge is to link short- and medium-term plans and policies with long-term visions and plans and to systematically review changes in the socioeconomic and political context, so that adjustments can be made in line with present and emerging realities. In essence, it is a question of bringing together present and future because the effects of present-day government decisions usually extend beyond political cycles. In this regard, institutionalizing foresight at all levels of State is also vital in order to transform it into an ongoing activity that enables comprehensive and coherent development in a direction that is agreed on by all development actors.

For decades, the private sector, academia and various think tanks have turned to foresight analysis in pursuit of various objectives, such as security and defence, technology and innovation, to show the development of specific sectors from a forward-looking perspective. The value of these exercises lies in their ability to connect the views and aspirations of development actors. However, despite the full participation of State institutions in such exercises, it is sometimes difficult to incorporate them in decision-making processes or for them to have an impact on the formulation of long-term public policies.

When foresight is State-led and linked with planning for development at national and territorial levels, it becomes a powerful instrument for steering State action in the long term, broadening its vision of possible outcomes, strengthening the sense of identity and of belonging to a territory, and facilitating the generation of anticipatory knowledge so that multiple possible scenarios can be addressed over time. Similarly, the State exercises its political capacity to coordinate stakeholder interests so that specific action can be taken to meet the needs of citizens through plans, policies, programmes and projects. Lastly, foresight builds public confidence in institutions, establishing a channel of communication through which people participate in the decisions that affect their environment and quality of life, now and in the future.

What are the distinctive characteristics of foresight exercises conducted by the State with the aim of planning for sustainable development with a long-term perspective? The observation and practice of these exercises in the region have shown that they are integrated with the pillars of sustainable development, interconnected with development planning instruments and based on multi-stakeholder participation and that the process of reviewing the assumptions concerning the future is systematically and continuously embedded in the functioning of public institutions.

An analysis of some examples of long-term planning processes using foresight at national (Peru and Jamaica) and subnational (Canelones, Uruguay; Cali, Colombia) levels shows that there is no “one size fits all” formula regarding its application, the use and usefulness of the analysis, the moment in time at which it is performed, the monitoring of changes in the variables initially included in the construction of the future scenarios.

In the case of Canelones, Uruguay, the process involved successive approximations, beginning in 2005 with the establishment of the Advisory Office for Strategic Planning and Coordination, which prioritized territorial planning as a means of anticipating action, and continued with successive revisions in 2007, 2010, 2014 and 2019 aimed at establishing a management system with financial resources and strengthening decentralization and citizen participation with a view to implementing a model of proper governance. The experience in Cali, Colombia was the outcome of a long territorial planning process that sought to foster social cohesion and was based on a model that considered foresight and territorial strategy as an ongoing cycle of building future scenarios.

In the case of Peru, the 2050 Strategic Plan for National Development refers to the linkage between a forward-looking approach and (multi-temporal) strategic planning that aims to drive the country’s development in the medium and long term, while at the same time implementing immediate measures in the short term to move gradually towards established targets. For its part, Jamaica’s three-year, medium-term socioeconomic policy framework is the main mechanism for implementing its Vision 2030 plan, which prioritises results, strategies, actions and programmes, and links and aligns medium-term policies with the long-term vision.

These examples, while far from exhaustive, lead to the conclusion that foresight can be applied flexibly and adapts to various territorial realities and institutional capacities. The literature has shown the challenges of institutionalizing foresight, complemented and reaffirmed in the comments of public officials from 16 countries in the region in the framework of an online consultation conducted by the Latin American and Caribbean Institute for Economic and Social Planning (ILPES) of ECLAC. They stated that political will and institutional leadership lacking in incentives, in importance given to the future compared with the present, and technical institutional capacity, as well as the absence of adequate regulatory frameworks limit the institutionalization of foresight in the public sphere. These limitations are reflected in national planning systems that are still being consolidated, weak subsystems for monitoring and evaluation, and limited coordination between foresight and public policy design. They are also reflected in the lack of communication between State institutions and academic and civil society organizations.

Models of institutionalization exist, both in the region and beyond, ranging from the establishments of executive branch entities (units attached to ministries in the offices of the president and ministries of planning), to commissions in the legislative branch (such as one in the Chilean Senate pertaining to future challenges, Comisión Desafíos de Futuro). However, the real challenge lies in generating a foresight ecosystem that includes all sectors of society (private sector, civil society, academia and government) and can establish systematic feedback loops on the changes in the future scenarios proposed.

Another of the main challenges for foresight is securing ownership of scenarios by the public. While these exercises promote a collective construction of futures, it is necessary to incorporate participatory methods that facilitate an understanding of the current reality, covering the myriad of opinions and views of various actors and sectors, in order to collectively build proposals for the long term. However, it is not enough to create spaces for exchange and dialogue; trust must be built between actors in order to strengthen the social fabric and between them and institutions, to give greater legitimacy to the decisions taken and future actions.

Participation is not without its complexities and can engender tensions that should be considered when encouraging dialogue. The tensions that need to be taken into account include issues related to the role of elites, power games and asymmetries, economic and social polarization, and the difficulty of coordinating the temporalities of any long-term process. The structural power typically wielded by elites in Latin American and Caribbean societies is evident in the degree to which they influence the definition of country-level objectives and the development model and the design of public policy. The influence of elites has generated conflicts of interest and a disconnect with other citizens.

Participation entails empowering social actors and groups to influence decisions regarding the future. However, the asymmetrical distribution of power between different actors can impede equality in the exercise of power, result in subordinate relationships and impair the effective participation of other groups, thus affecting the quality of social interactions. Polarization gives rise to irreconcilable positions that result in political crises and violence and paralyse society. Participatory spaces in polarized contexts are prone to the reinforcement of stereotypes and biases that erode the social fabric and make it impossible to build trust. Participating in the construction of futures requires taking into account the tensions associated with temporality and the difficulty of reconciling immediate interests and needs with a long-term vision.

To overcome those obstacles and move towards a multi-stakeholder and transformative process through foresight, new forms of citizenship and public leadership are required. The new forms of citizenship are characterized by active and engaged participation in public affairs; citizens acknowledge and value the cultural, ethnic and social diversity of territories, advocate inclusion and equal opportunities for all and seek to build new societies.

Public leadership in territories is evolving towards more collaborative and collective approaches, where multiple actors work together to address challenges and seize opportunities in their communities. These new forms of leadership have the capacity to bring together diverse visions and aspirations, generate agreements, build alliances and represent the voice of the community. Only in this way will sustainable and actionable foresight processes be achieved.

Applying foresight to the challenges of sustainable development means that a variety of approaches and a flexible perspective that includes the different pillars of development must be taken into account in a coherent and effective manner.

The need to institutionalize the practice of foresight in the countries of the region is addressed through the flexible use of methodological pathways, which are structured around four approaches based on the intrinsic characteristics of the concept of foresight for development: the systemic approach, the multiple futures approach, the collective construction of futures approach and the anticipation approach. This methodology for the implementation of foresight stems from the recognition that several pathways exist for effectively incorporating foresight into the regular and ongoing operations of public institutions. Each of these pathways is adapted to the specificities and accumulated experience of each institution.

Most of the techniques associated with the methodological pathways are used in other disciplines. This convergence means that they can be organized in a coordinated manner, ensuring that they can be effectively adapted to the proposed approaches. This, in turn, simplifies the foresight process, making it accessible and enabling more public officials and stakeholders to apply and understand the proposed methodologies.

The adoption of the model of flexible methodological pathways responds to the need to overcome sequential or linear logics in the way foresight is applied and also to overcome some of the common limitations that have been expressed by the countries of the region. This flexibility ensures that foresight processes or analyses do not stop at one stage and that the sequencing of the traditional methodology does not prevent progression to the next stages. In addition, the flexible model allows for the use of different techniques for the same stage or objective, thereby providing alternatives that can better respond to the capacities, experiences, regulations and resources available to public institutions. This improves efficiency in the use of time and resources as activities are carried out simultaneously and capitalize on inputs from the planning processes, which facilitates the incorporation of foresight into an ongoing cycle of action.

The institutions most in need of foresight are often those with the least resources and technical capacity. It is therefore important that existing processes, practices and knowledge be recognized in the proposed methodologies and that this information and experience be used as a basis for incorporating foresight into institutions’ routine tasks. Thus, incorporating foresight for development in State institutions should be considered a component of or activity within national planning systems, so that linkages between planning, foresight and public policy can be achieved in a coordinated and synergetic manner. This linkage would help to effectively form a foresight ecosystem by enabling future analyses to feed back into plans and informing decision-making on long-term development issues in the present.

The proposed methodological pathways model also offers the flexibility to generate new pathways in response to challenges or constraints not addressed in this document. Similarly, it enables two or more pathways to be implemented simultaneously, which can leverage efforts and resources in a coordinated manner. These characteristics facilitate the constant evolution of foresight, fostering a systemic approach and embedding foresight as a continuous activity in public institutions.

The value of exploring foresight for development and its application at different levels of government in greater depth is that it can serve as a contribution for governments of the region to draw on their own capacities to build long-term visions, plans and public policies in order to close structural development gaps, particularly poverty and inequalities, and to strengthen the productive capacity of territories with multi-stakeholder participation. As these capacities are at different stages of maturity, they must be identified and strengthened in order to advance towards the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and to deepen governance and democratic governance in the territories of the countries of the region.

Table of Contents

Maintitle

Copyrights

Contents

Introduction

Chapter I

The theoretical framework of foresight and contributions to the definition of foresight for development

Chapter II

Planning systems in Latin America and the Caribbean: advancements in foresight systems

Chapter III

The social construction of futures: the linkages between foresight, participation, deliberation and citizen ownership

Chapter IV

Methodological pathways to deploy foresight for development in public institutions: a proposal

Chapter V

Conclusions