DOCSLIB.ORG

Setting up a Horizon Scanning System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

WFRXXX10.1177/1946756717749613World Futures ReviewHines et al. 749613research-article2018 Article World Futures Review 2018, Vol. 10(2) 136 –151 Setting Up a Horizon Scanning © The Author(s) 2018 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav System: A U.S. Federal Agency https://doi.org/10.1177/1946756717749613DOI: 10.1177/1946756717749613 Example journals.sagepub.com/home/wfr Andy Hines1, David N. Bengston2, Michael J. Dockry2, and Adam Cowart1 Abstract Managers and policy makers are continually working toward a desired future within a context of rapid and turbulent change. To be effective in this context, they must look ahead to anticipate emerging trends, issues, opportunities, and threats. Horizon scanning is a foresight method that can help managers and policy makers develop and maintain a broad and externally focused forward view to anticipate and align decisions with both emerging (near-term) and long-term futures. This article reports on the design and early stage development and implementation of a horizon scanning system established for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Strategic Foresight Group, and developed cooperatively with the University of Houston Foresight Program. The goal of the project is to develop an ongoing horizon scanning system as an input to developing environmental foresight: insight into future environmental challenges and opportunities, and the ability to apply that insight to prepare for a sustainable future. In addition, the horizon scanning system is supported by volunteers from within the Forest Service. By including participants from throughout the Forest Service, the project seeks to foster a culture of foresight within the organization, and eventually to develop a more forward looking organizational structure for the USFS and other natural resource management agencies. Lessons learned from the experience to date are shared as well as future challenges for keeping the horizon scanning system in good working order—current, relevant, and consistent. Keywords foresight, horizon scanning, forestry, emerging issues, policy Introduction as “the acquisition and use of information about events, trends and relationships in an organiza- Managers and policy makers are continually tion’s external environment, the knowledge of working toward a desired future within a con- which would assist management in planning the text of rapid and turbulent change. To be effec- organization’s future course of action” (Choo tive in this context, they must look ahead to 2002, 84). anticipate emerging trends, issues, opportuni- ties, and threats. Horizon scanning (also referred to as environmental scanning) is a foresight 1University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA method that can help managers and policy mak- 2U.S. Forest Service, St. Paul, MN, USA ers develop and maintain a broad and externally Corresponding Author: focused forward view to anticipate and align Andy Hines, University of Houston, 4235 Cullen Blvd., decisions with both emerging (near-term) and Cameron Building, Houston, TX 77204, USA. long-term futures. Horizon scanning is defined Email: [email protected] Hines et al. 137 Horizon scanning has long been practiced inaccurate expectations of shoreline erosion in the military, the intelligence community, rates, and overoptimistic cost estimates of arti- and the business world. Business research has ficial beaches (Pilkey and Pilkey-Jarvis 2007; demonstrated that effective horizon scanning Sarewitz et al., 2000). improves organizational performance (Choo The inability to accurately forecast the 2002). In recent years it has been increasingly future of complex social-ecological systems used in other public sector fields, such as stems from many factors, such as the emergent human health (Douw and Vondeling 2006) and nature of these systems and their sensitive education (Munck and McConnell 2009). But dependence on initial conditions. Emergent the use of formal horizon scanning in natural properties of a system cannot be predicted from resources and environmental organizations has the parts (de Haan 2006). The prevalence of sur- been limited (Sutherland and Woodroof 2009). prise in social-ecological systems (Gunderson Among the few examples are scanning exer- and Longstaff 2010) implies that some impor- cises related to biodiversity (Sutherland et al. tant uncertainties in long-term forecasts are 2008), global conservation issues (Sutherland irreducible and that traditional scientific tools et al. 2015), and environmental issues with and models are blunt instruments for studying implications for the U.S. military (U.S. Army a future that does not exist. Environmental Policy Institute n.d.). The goal of horizon scanning, therefore, is The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment not to try to accurately predict the future, but to concluded that “over the past 50 years, identify, compile, and analyze the various sig- humans have changed ecosystems more rap- nals of change. These signals can be explored idly and extensively than in any comparable to stimulate thinking about the range of future period of time in human history, largely to possibilities. While getting “the future” pre- meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh cisely right is futile, it is possible to use signals water, timber, fiber, and fuel” (Millennium of change identified in horizon scanning to Ecosystem Assessment 2005, p. 1). Surprises map plausible scenarios and pathways to the are increasing along with the expanding scale future (Hines 2009). Horizon scanning serves of human impacts (Gunderson and Longstaff as an early warning system to identify poten- 2010). Hibbard et al. (2007) refer to the period tial threats and opportunities. Some character- following World War II as the “Great istics of horizon scanning that distinguish it Acceleration,” a time of significant increase in from typical activities that planners use to sur- the scope, scale, and intensity of impacts on vey future conditions include (Bengston 2013): the social-ecological system. At the same time, the rapid pace of technological change has the •• It emphasizes “weak signals” or early potential for sweeping environmental effects, indicators of potential change, such as genetic engineering and nanotechnolo- •• It is comprehensive across a wide range gies, and makes the future landscape more of sectors, challenging to discern (Olson and Rejeski •• It emphasizes external trends and devel- 2005). opments, and In the face of such profound and uncertain •• It includes possible wild cards or low- change, foresight developed through horizon probability, high-impact events. scanning is not an attempt to “predict the future.” It is simply not possible to accurately This article reports on the design and early predict the future of complex social-ecological stage development and implementation of a systems for long timeframes. Efforts devoted horizon scanning system established for the to social and environmental prediction have U.S. Forest Service (USFS), Strategic been plagued by a host of shortcomings, and Foresight Group, and developed cooperatively unjustifiable faith in these predictions have with the University of Houston (UH) Foresight contributed to unmanageable nuclear waste Program. The goal of the project is to develop disposal practices, poisoned mining sites, an ongoing horizon scanning system as an 138 World Futures Review 10(2) input to developing environmental foresight: UH Foresight Program for exploring the future insight into future environmental challenges of any topic (Hines and Bishop 2013). The pri- and opportunities, and the ability to apply that mary focus for this horizon scanning project insight to prepare for a sustainable future involves the first two steps of the Framework (Bengston 2012). Broadly speaking, the objec- Foresight process: Framing the topic and its tives of the horizon scanning system are to boundaries and scanning to identify emerging find, collect, and analyze the signals of change, issues. Framing and scanning provide the and to identify emerging issues suggested by foundation for forecasting, depicted as the these signals that could affect forests and for- baseline and alternative futures in Figure 1. estry in the future. This project will also use The baseline future or “business-as-usual” this information to support the development of assumes continuity with the present without scenarios of the future of forestry that integrate major surprises: trends stay on track, plans are signals of change and emerging issues into fulfilled, and mainstream projections are on each scenario. Once the scenarios are crafted, target. Emerging issues, however, may indi- indicators based on signals of change for each cate potential alternative futures, that is, alter- scenario will be identified. Going forward, the native outcomes to the baseline. Thus, the horizon scanning system can be used to moni- identification of emerging issues provides tor these indicators and provide early warnings early warning for potential shifts or disconti- that the future seems to be moving toward a nuities from business-as-usual and helps frame particular scenario (Schwartz 1996). This alternative future scenarios. information can alert decision-makers to adjust plans accordingly and take timely action where Framing necessary. In addition, the horizon scanning system is The process begins with framing the domain or supported by volunteers from within the Forest topic to be explored. The goal is to scope the Service. By including participants from topic so that
Recommended publications
  • What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R

    What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R

    HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – Vol. IV - What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R. J. Gómez WHAT IS THAT THING CALLED PHILOSOPHY OF TECHNOLOGY? R. J. Gómez Department of Philosophy. California State University (LA). USA Keywords: Adorno, Aristotle, Bunge, Ellul, Feenberg, Habermas, Heidegger, Horkheimer, Jonas, Latour, Marcuse, Mumford, Naess, Shrader-Frechette, artifact, assessment, determinism, ecosophy, ends, enlightenment, efficiency, epistemology, enframing, ideology, life-form, megamachine, metaphysics, method, naturalistic, fallacy, new, ethics, progress, rationality, rule, science, techno-philosophy Contents 1. Introduction 2. Locating technology with respect to science 2.1. Structure and Content 2.2. Method 2.3. Aim 2.4. Pattern of Change 3. Locating philosophy of technology 4. Early philosophies of technology 4.1. Aristotelianism 4.2. Technological Pessimism 4.3. Technological Optimism 4.4. Heidegger’s Existentialism and the Essence of Technology 4.5. Mumford’s Megamachinism 4.6. Neomarxism 4.6.1. Adorno-Horkheimer 4.6.2. Marcuse 4.6.3. Habermas 5. Recent philosophies of technology 5.1. L. Winner 5.2. A. Feenberg 5.3. EcosophyUNESCO – EOLSS 6. Technology and values 6.1. Shrader-Frechette Claims 6.2. H Jonas 7. Conclusions SAMPLE CHAPTERS Glossary Bibliography Biographical Sketch Summary A philosophy of technology is mainly a critical reflection on technology from the point of view of the main chapters of philosophy, e.g., metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. Technology has had a fast development since the middle of the 20th century , especially ©Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS) HISTORY AND PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY – Vol. IV - What Is That Thing Called Philosophy of Technology? - R.
  • Strategic Surveillance for Food Safety Designing a Surveillance Approach and Considerations for Implementation

    Strategic Surveillance for Food Safety Designing a Surveillance Approach and Considerations for Implementation

    Strategic Surveillance for Food Safety Designing a surveillance approach and considerations for implementation Jon Freeman, Nathan Ryan, Julian Glenesk For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2519 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. RAND Europe is a not-for-profit research organisation that helps to improve policy and decision making through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.randeurope.org Preface This document reports on RAND Europe’s study into the Food Standards Agency’s (FSA) strategic surveillance programme. The FSA commissioned the study in February 2018. The aim of the project is to design a high-level end-to-end approach for strategic surveillance, identify relevant analytic tools and methods, and develop an implementation plan for the programme. The report’s intended audience is the FSA, the programme’s senior responsible officer (SRO), those involved in the current practice of food surveillance and the nascent strategic surveillance team (SST).
  • Disruptive Technology Assessment Game 'DTAG' Handbook V0.1

    Disruptive Technology Assessment Game 'DTAG' Handbook V0.1

    Disruptive Technology Assessment Game ‘DTAG’ Handbook V0.1 Executive Summary What is the DTAG? The Disruptive Technology Assessment Game (DTAG) is a table-top seminar wargame, used to assess potential future technologies and their impact on military operations and operating environment. How is it played? There are four distinct steps in executing a DTAG experiment. The first two are part of the planning process, prior to playing the game. Step 1: Identify Possible Future Technologies that are under development and are of interest to the military. Step 2 – Create Ideas of Systems (IoS) cards from the technologies identified. Specific technologies, or combinations of technologies are combined with equipment to create new systems that could be employed by the military or by an adversary. These are described on cards. Step 3 – Play the DTAG. Figure 1 summarizes the process. Red teams and Blue teams both plan courses of action in the context of a scenario & vignette. After the initial confrontation of plans, which establishes the baseline, the teams plan again with the addition of future technology from the IoS cards. The second confrontation highlights the effect that the technology has on the plans and the wargame outcome. Figure 1: The DTAG Process Step 4 – Assess the results of the wargame through questions and analysis of data captured. Who plays it? The DTAG unites Technology experts, Military and Analysts providing a broad perspective on the potential impacts of future technology on military operations. The approach allows for an element of unconstrained thinking and the wargame-like rounds encourage open communication opportunities. Why should a DTAG be played, and when? It is most useful when assessing technology that is a prototype or at early stage of development, or technology that is not in widespread use by the military.
  • Neil Postman

    Neil Postman

    Five Things We Need to Know About Technological Change by Neil Postman Talk delivered in Denver Colorado March 28, 1998 … I doubt that the 21st century will pose for us problems that are more stunning, disorienting or complex than those we faced in this century, or the 19th, 18th, 17th, or for that matter, many of the centuries before that. But for those who are excessively nervous about the new millennium, I can provide, right at the start, some good advice about how to confront it. …. Here is what Henry David Thoreau told us: “All our inventions are but improved means to an unimproved end.” Here is what Goethe told us: “One should, each day, try to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if possible, speak a few reasonable words.” Socrates told us: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” Rabbi Hillel told us: “What is hateful to thee, do not do to another.” And here is the prophet Micah: “What does the Lord require of thee but to do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.” And I could say, if we had the time, (although you know it well enough) what Jesus, Isaiah, Mohammad, Spinoza, and Shakespeare told us. It is all the same: There is no escaping from ourselves. The human dilemma is as it has always been, and it is a delusion to believe that the technological changes of our era have rendered irrelevant the wisdom of the ages and the sages. Nonetheless, having said this, I know perfectly well that because we do live in a technological age, we have some special problems that Jesus, Hillel, Socrates, and Micah did not and could not speak of.
  • Gao-20-246G, Technology Assessment Design Handbook

    Gao-20-246G, Technology Assessment Design Handbook

    HANDBOOK Technology Assessment Design Handbook Handbook for Key Steps and Considerations in the Design of Technology Assessments GAO-20-246G December 2019 Contents Preface 1 Chapter 1 The Importance of Technology Assessment Design 6 1.1 Reasons to Conduct and Uses of a Technology Assessment 6 1.2 Importance of Spending Time on Design 8 Chapter 2 Technology Assessment Scope and Design 8 2.1 Sound Technology Assessment Design 9 2.2 Phases and Considerations for Technology Assessment Design 9 2.2.1 GAO Technology Assessment Design Examples 14 Chapter 3 Approaches to Selected Technology Assessment Design and Implementation Challenges 18 3.1 Ensuring Technology Assessment Products are Useful for Congress and Others 19 3.2 Determining Policy Goals and Measuring Impact 20 3.3 Researching and Communicating Complicated Issues 20 3.4 Engaging All Relevant Stakeholders 21 Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 22 Appendix II Summary of Steps for GAO’s General Engagement Process 35 Appendix III Example Methods for Technology Assessment 38 Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 44 Page i GAO-20-246G Technology Assessment Handbook Tables Table 1: Summary of GAO’s Technology Assessment Process 3 Table 2: Examples for Technology Assessment Objectives that Describe Status and Challenges to Development of a Technology 15 Table 3: Examples for Technology Assessment Objectives that Assess Opportunities and Challenges that May Result from the Use of a Technology 16 Table 4: Examples for Technology Assessment Objectives that Assess Cost-Effectiveness,
  • The Fourth Industrial Revolution: How the EU Can Lead It

    The Fourth Industrial Revolution: How the EU Can Lead It

    EUV0010.1177/1781685818762890European ViewSchäfer 762890research-article2018 Article European View 2018, Vol. 17(1) 5 –12 The fourth industrial © The Author(s) 2018 https://doi.org/10.1177/1781685818762890DOI: 10.1177/1781685818762890 revolution: How the EU journals.sagepub.com/home/euv can lead it Matthias Schäfer Abstract The fourth industrial revolution is different from the previous three. This is because machines and artificial intelligence play a significant role in enhancing productivity and wealth creation, which directly changes and challenges the role of human beings. The fourth industrial revolution will also intensify globalisation. Therefore, technology will become much more significant, because regions and societies that cope positively with the technological impact of the fourth industrial revolution will have a better economic and social future. This article argues that the EU can play an important role in developing an environment appropriate for the fourth industrial revolution, an environment that is vibrant and open to new technologies. Member states would profit from an EU-wide coordinated framework for this area. The EU has to establish new common policies for the market-oriented diffusion and widespread use of new technologies. Keywords Fourth industrial revolution, Technology policy, Industrial policy, Leadership Introduction Historically there have been four industrial revolutions (see Schwab 2016). The first began in the early nineteenth century, when the power of steam and water dramatically increased the productivity of human (physical) labour. The second revolution started almost a hundred years later with electricity as its key driver. Mass industrial production Corresponding author: M. Schäfer, Department Politics and Consulting, Head of the Team for Economic Policy, Konrad-Adenauer- Stiftung, Berlin, Germany.
  • Horizon Scanning

    Horizon Scanning

    Horizon Scanning Process Updated: April 2015 Version 1.0 REVISION HISTORY Periodically, this document will be revised as part of ongoing process improvement activities. The following version control table, as well the version number and date on the cover page, is to be updated when any updates or revisions are made. Section Revision Date Description/Changes Made Number Horizon Scanning: Process 2 Effective Date: April 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Revision History ....................................................................................................................... 2 Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... 4 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 About Horizon Scanning .............................................................................................. 5 1.2 Scope .......................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Audience ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.3.1 Primary Audience: ............................................................................................ 5 1.3.2 Secondary Audience ........................................................................................ 5 1.4 Purpose and Application for Decision-Making .............................................................
  • Technology, Development and Economic Crisis: the Schumpeterian Legacy

    Technology, Development and Economic Crisis: the Schumpeterian Legacy

    CIMR Research Working Paper Series Working Paper No. 23 Technology, development and economic crisis: the Schumpeterian legacy by Rinaldo Evangelista University of Camerino Piazza Cavour, 19/F, 62032 Camerino (IT) +39-0737-403074 [email protected] June 2015 ISSN 2052-062X Abstract This contribution aims at highlighting the complex, non-linear and potentially contradictory nature of the relationships between technological progress, economic growth and social development, in particular within the context of market based economies. The main (provocative) argument put forward in the paper is that the recent neo-Schumpeterian literature, while providing fundamental contributions to our understanding of innovation, has contributed to the rising of a positivistic reading of the relationship between technology, economy and society, with technology being able to guaranty strong economic growth and (implicitly) social welfare. This is confirmed by the fact that, contrary to other influential heterodox economic schools and Schumpeter himself, in the recent neo- Schumpeterian literature technology is only rarely associated to macroeconomic market failures such as systemic crises, structural unemployment, and the growth of social and economic inequalities. It is also argued that the emergence of a “positivistic bias” in the neo-Schumpeterian literature has been associated to the dominance of a supply-side and micro-based view of the technology-economy relationships. Key words: Technology, Innovation, Schumpeter, Development, Crisis JEL codes: B52, O00, O30. 2 1. Introduction There is no doubt that the last economic crisis, with its depth, extension and length, could have, at least in principle, the potentiality of shaking at the fundamentals the dominant neo-liberal economic thinking and policy framework.
  • Horizon Scanning Why Is It So Hard?

    Horizon Scanning Why Is It So Hard?

    Horizon Scanning Why is it so hard? By Dr. Peter Bishop University of Houston September 2009 Introduction Surprise is an odd emotion. We like to be surprised–an unexpected visit from a friend, a gift from our spouse, a beautiful spring day. Sometimes we even pay to be surprised–at the fair or the cinema. But surprise is not a good thing at work. Being surprised means that we expected something to happen that didn’t or something to not happen that did. It’s just not right even when the surprise is a good thing,. We are supposed to know what is going on and what is about to happen all time--to know and be prepared for everything that occurs. We are never supposed to be surprised. Of course that is unreasonable. Everyone is surprised even at work, even though we try not to show it when it happens. So we basically cover-up--never let them see you be surprised, even when you are. But rather than just wait, we can take steps to reduce surprise even if we cannot eliminate it altogether. Horizon or environmental scanning warns us about change coming in the future. The term evokes images of lookouts on old ships or modern-day radar scanning the horizon. Lookouts and radars report sightings or signals from objects that are far off before they have the chance to harm to a vessel, a plane or a fortified encampment. It takes time for the objects to get to the lookout’s or the radar’s location, time that people can use to prepare.
  • Taking Technology Seriously: Introduction to the Special Issue on New Technologies and Global Environmental Politics • Simon Nicholson and Jesse L

    Taking Technology Seriously: Introduction to the Special Issue on New Technologies and Global Environmental Politics • Simon Nicholson and Jesse L

    Taking Technology Seriously: Introduction to the Special Issue on New Technologies and Global Environmental Politics • Simon Nicholson and Jesse L. Reynolds* Human beings are at once makers of and made by technology. The ability to wield tools was an essential ingredient in propelling an otherwise unremarkable ape to a position of dominance over ecological and even planetary affairs. This dominance has been attained through a remaking of the physical world and has produced a planet fundamentally altered. Technology, this is to say, has been central to history and human-induced environmental change. Our earliest significant environ- mental impacts appear to have been mass extinctions of megafauna, especially in North and South America, Australia, and the Pacific Islands, enabled by hunting and trapping tools and techniques. These were followed by large-scale land use changes from the rise of agriculture, another early set of technologies that were key to Homo sapiens’ success (Boivin et al. 2016). Technology presents a paradox. Existing, emerging, and anticipated technol- ogies offer remarkable possibilities for human well-being and the environmental condition. Since 1900, global average life expectancy has more than doubled and continues to rise (Roser et al. 2013). Most people can access information and educational opportunities that in the not-too-distant past were restricted to a tiny elite. The growth of farmland—which may be the leading direct driver of change in nature (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 2019)—has recently been reversed through agricultural intensification (World Bank, n.d.). Ozone-depleting substances have been largely replaced by synthetic substitutes.
  • REGULATING the FUTURE and the NEW NORMAL (Or Is It the Future of Regulation?)

    REGULATING the FUTURE and the NEW NORMAL (Or Is It the Future of Regulation?)

    REGULATING THE FUTURE AND THE NEW NORMAL (or is it the future of regulation?) 2nd Webinar Session 6th ASEAN-OECD Good Regulatory Practices Network (GRPN) 5 October 2020 Nick Malyshev Head of the Regulatory Policy Division OECD Regulatory challenges in the era of digitalisation 1. Pacing problem 2. Designing “fit for purpose” regulatory frameworks 3. Regulatory enforcement 4. Institutional and trans-boundary challenge These challenges are exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic Regulatory approaches Regulatory policy and co-operation are the cornerstone of effectiveness and efficiency Approaches: • Anticipatory governance (e.g. horizon-scanning, scenario-planning) • Wait and see • Guidance • Self-regulation and co-regulation (e.g. industry standards, ethical business regulation) • Regulatory experiments (e.g. sandboxes, testbeds) • Traditional regulations (e.g. outcome based regulations, means-based regulation etc.) OECD Workstreams on Regulations & Emerging Technologies Work programme: 1. Digitising regulatory delivery (2019/2020) 2. Future of regulators: the impact of emerging technologies on economic regulators (2019/2020) 3. Digital technology & regulatory responses to COVID-19 (2021/22) - collaborative project & database with the World Bank 4. Data driven regulation (2021/22) Principles on “effective and innovation-friendly rulemaking in the Fourth Industrial Revolution” Four pillars guiding the development of the principles: 1. The governance and institutional set up supporting effective/ agile/future regulation, inclusive role of oversight,
  • THE FUTURE of the WORLD OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/07/18, Spi

    THE FUTURE of the WORLD OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/07/18, Spi

    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/07/18, SPi OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS NOT FOR SALE DO NOT COPY THE FUTURE OF THE WORLD OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/07/18, SPi OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS NOT FOR SALE DO NOT COPY OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/07/18, SPi OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS NOT FOR SALE DO NOT COPY The Future of the World Futurology, Futurists, and the Struggle for the Post-Cold War Imagination JENNY ANDERSSON 1 OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 05/07/18, SPi OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS NOT FOR SALE DO NOT COPY 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6D P, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Jenny Andersson 2018 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2018 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2018933809 ISBN 978–0–19–881433–7 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.