12. Collaboration between politicians and public officials in the field of anticipatory innovation
Both civil servants and politicians, appointed officials and members of parliament, play an essential role in anticipatory innovation governance. The two communities need to have a clear idea of their respective roles and responsibilities within the anticipatory system and collaborate on a basis of trust. Finland needs to create more moments for the two communities to collectively make sense of futures knowledge and develop functional, trust-based and robust relationships. This is particularly crucial when transitioning to a new government to ensure effective collaboration and continuity. The pilot case study showed that only if politicians and public officials develop a mutual understanding of the present, potential disruptions and desired future directions, they can become pillars of Finland’s anticipatory innovation governance system.
The OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) is working with the government of Finland and the European Commission to examine how Finland's governance processes and mechanisms can be refined to deal with complex and future challenges in an even more systemic manner. As part of this work, four policy domains have been identified as case studies to gain greater understanding and pilot initiatives to build further Finland's anticipatory capacity: carbon neutrality, continuous learning, child-well-being, and collaboration between politicians and public officials.
Finland aims to better incorporate the anticipatory innovation function within its governance structure. The Government Programme adopted in 2019 pledges "to make systematic foresight and future thinking a key part of management and also of policy preparation and decision-making processes.” (Government of Finland, 2020[1]). To date, future-oriented policy making in Finland is conducted mainly by a 'coalition of the willing' and co-exists alongside traditional policy-making processes and mechanisms (Tõnurist, 2021[2]). An important question is how different actors within the Finnish government can work together on future-oriented policy making and what forms of collaboration between public officials and politicians could be instrumental.
In this context, collaboration between politicians & public officials is about a well-functioning interface of politicians and leading civil servants in anticipating the future, which requires acknowledging mutual roles, functions, processes, and challenges connected to policy development and decision-making under uncertainty (Tõnurist, 2021[2]).Politicians can be government officials in the executive branch, for example as ministers or state secretaries or in the legislative branch as members of parliament. Public officials can be from all levels of the public service, in the context of this paper the focus will be mostly on public servants in national ministries and agencies.
This paper will contribute to this work by reviewing existing knowledge and international practices of collaboration between politicians and public officials in the context of anticipatory innovation governance. The OECD assessment of Finland outlines "this topic has come out across the anticipatory innovation governance themes, from complex and long-term policy issues to knowledge creation and advice by civil servants" and "the role of public administration and politicians in complex and long-term policy issues is unclear and subject to (hidden) power relations." (Tõnurist, 2021[2])
The purpose of the research is to:
Contribute to further build Finland’s anticipatory capacity by identifying insights about collaboration between politicians and public officials in the field of anticipation through literature, international case studies and peer-learning sessions
Contribute to the development of the AIG model by assessing how politico-administrative collaboration could be integrated into the model
Background to this work
To steer the pilot case on collaboration between politicians and public officials in the field of anticipatory innovation a taskforce was set up. It consists of members of the overall project secretariat in Finland from the Ministry of Finance and the Prime Minister’s Office. Through various online scoping sessions, discussions and ongoing exchange, the OECD and Finnish taskforce assessed the status quo and outlined objectives and the scope for the pilot case.
It was agreed to focus on the following topics:
Gap analysis of the current state of collaboration between politicians and public officials in Finland to date using insights discussed during the leadership dialogues organised by Finland
Insights about the role of collaboration between politicians and public officials in anticipatory innovation and elements of fruitful collaboration such as trust-building in general
Draw inspiration from a variety of cases that facilitate collaboration between both communities
Scope ideas for initiatives that could strengthen collaboration in Finland
A project plan was created, and regular meetings were set up for the OECD and the Taskforce to share information relating to the pilot case.
Methods and limitations
A literature review and personal research was undertaken by an external researcher to identify cases which incorporated mechanisms of anticipatory innovation governance (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[3]) to provide illustrations of how collaboration between politicians and public officials in future-related fields can look like in practice. The researcher has extensive experience in the Dutch government and leveraged insights about the internal functioning of the system for the case analysis. The international cases are meant to contribute to the further understanding of collaboration between politicians and public officials in anticipating and preparing for an uncertain future. They were selected based on both relevance to anticipatory innovation governance and variety based on the following criteria:
1. Share characteristics of the anticipatory innovation governance model
2. Include mechanisms that address challenges for anticipatory innovation governance in Finland
An overall necessary criterion was the availability of sufficient granular details about the inner functioning of the cases. This turned to be an important challenge when identifying suitable international examples. During the course of the research it became clear that personal insights into the system were particularly helpful for identifying and analysing case studies. Therefore, the cases identified through literary research have a focus on the Netherlands due to the personal experience of the researcher.1 To balance out this focus, the peer-learning sessions were organised with countries from other regions.
The criteria are ranked in importance, and because this work is exploratory, not all cases perfectly match the anticipatory innovation governance model or address all relevant challenges to Finland. They were selected based on their potential to provide relevant insights into forms of collaboration in the context of AIG in general and in Finland more specifically. For the latter, examples from countries with a similar political system and culture were chosen. To identify cases that fit these criteria, the research has drawn on available literature, examples listed in international governance databases, and personal knowledge of the Dutch public administration.2
In addition to the literature review, regular exchange about the ongoing initiatives in Finland took place between the OECD team and the Finnish project secretariat. The Timeout dialogues (see further information below) organised by Finland generated essential insights about the current challenges and opportunities that members of parliament, key party actors and senior officials of the Ministries currently face when collaborating with each other.
To complement the research from literature and international cases, three cases from Scotland, the province of Gipuzkoa and Ireland were selected for peer-exchange sessions with relevant representatives. These 90-120 minute online meetings provided Finnish representatives with an opportunity to ask direct questions about the governance of collaboration between politicians and public officials, and for both parties to identify areas of similar opportunities and challenges in which they could provide mutual support.
Need for Dialogue
The importance of effective dialogue between different communities regained particular attention in Finland throughout the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. As a rapid and creative response to the unfolding crisis, Finland set up the Finnish National Dialogues or so-called “lockdown dialogues” using a new facilitation format, the Timeout method3 (Heikka, 2018[4]).These dialogues brought together various communities to share their experiences, learn from one another, and build trust in the nation’s ability to steer through the crisis. The lockdown dialogues lasted from April 2020 to December 2022 and had 13 rounds of dialogue days, 296 discussions with 111 different organisations with 2130 individuals participating altogether in 47 different geographic locations (see also Box 3.3 in Part II).4 The National Dialogues offered an opportunity to test the Timeout methodology on a larger scale (see Box 12.1 below) and see the value of this facilitated dialogue format in making stakeholders engage with an issue in an open-minded and constructive way. The Finnish National Dialogues were warmly received overall by people who participated in them. The civil servants involved perceived them as a meaningful part of their work, providing them with new methods to use in enhancing trust and developing open government. Finland has used the approach in various projects, for example as part of the open government work.
During the assessment of Finland’s anticipatory innovation governance system, various conversations pointed to the need for better dialogue between politicians and public officials. Both the AIG support group and participants of the Public Sector Leadership group, work initiated by Finland going on in parallel, discussed organising Timeout dialogues as a suitable way to bring both communities together. It was decided that inviting members of parliament, key party members and senior public officials to this facilitated format could allow to better understand and improve the relationships between politicians and public officials. So-called AIG dialogues, designed to discuss anticipatory and future issues based on the Timeout method, were put in place to better understand the perspectives of both communities and enhance their collaboration.
Identifying the gaps
In parallel to the AIG project, Finland undertook work in the field of public sector leadership. A steering group created in this context discussed elements of the AIG analysis, including the need for better collaboration between politicians and public officials. Members of the group also participated in the dialogues discussing anticipatory innovation governance and the politico-administrative interface.
Various AIG dialogues were organised by the Finnish taskforce over the course of several months as can be seen in Figure 12.1 below. In October 2021 a dialogue about the entire topic of anticipatory innovation governance based on the executive summary of the OECD’s intermediate report took place. Following this high-level discussion, four dialogues were organised in February and March 2022 to discuss each theme of the pilot cases. Instead of focusing only on collaboration between public officials and politicians, the fourth dialogue focused on the topic of public sector leadership. It was based on a draft paper that was drawn up by the public sector development group.
Source: Ministry of Finance, meeting handouts.
Participants in the dialogues5 identified a range of gaps that currently exist in the Finnish system.6 They discussed that there is a need for more informal opportunities to meet and build relationships between politicians and public officials. Currently, most communication between Ministries and Parliament takes place in parliamentary committees and indirectly through the media. It would be beneficial to expand these modes of collaboration in an effort to strengthen relationships and trust. This could take place in the form of continuous discussions between public officials and parliamentary groups to allow preparing policy issues with a more long-term perspective. For example, hearings of civil servants at the parliamentary groups could be established. Currently, lobbyists and other organisations are consulted by parliamentary groups, but there is no established process for ministries to provide information for decision-making besides the official hearings at parliamentary committees. This lack of exchange can create or reinforce silos across the political system. It can also make it challenging to ensure continuity when government or public opinion changes.
Another gap participants identified was the difference in timing between the two groups as well as the overall pace. While members of parliament focus their efforts on delivering results during the period of their elected term, four years, public officials have a more long-term and continuous approach to their work. Participants discussed that it would be beneficial if members of parliament could have a more long-term involvement in policy issues, ensuring better continuity. In addition, both sides notice an acceleration of the overall policy environment, partly driven by social media and modern communication technologies that react immediately to breaking news. Overall, the media has a tendency to speed up the policy-making process and deprioritise complex, long-term policy issues. Both politicians and public officials are affected by this change of pace, civil servants may be required to prepare analysis in a matter of hours and members of parliament might be asked to comment on evolving matters in real time. This leaves less space for thorough assessments and long-term thinking and can cause friction between the actors. Participants also noted that the media can also play a role in focusing attention on the moments that politicians and civil servants may face challenges. Mistakes and scandals tend to take up more space in media headlines than when both sides work seamlessly in a tandem.
Regarding the importance of a well-functioning politico-administrative interface across government cycles, participants identified that the beginning of any government term as a crucial moment. Before negotiations between coalition partners or with stakeholders are finalised and the government programme is put together, it is a suitable time to establish ground rules and communication as a basis for how the two branches can work together throughout a government term. At the same time, time pressure is high at this particular moment as the public is waiting for the coalition to quickly get to work. There is a need for structures that ensure the learning curve of the new government does not start from zero, but that there is continuity in the issues discussed. Currently, Finland does not have an established approach to facilitate collaboration between politicians and public officials when a new government is incoming. While there are a lot of formal and informal interactions, no dedicated effort has been made to establish trust and functional working relationships between politicians and public officials.
Finally, participants identified a gap regarding how well members of parliament are able to draw on existing knowledge in the public service. They would often benefit from substantive support by public officials, but it currently takes knowledge of the system and people in order to identify the right channels to get the right inputs. This can be especially challenging for new staff working for members of parliament that are hesitant to reach out. Members of parliament and their staff can lack the necessary time to get acquainted with the various departments within ministries. Without pre-established relationships due to the lack of occasions to meet, interactions can lead to misunderstandings between the two sides.
Overall, politicians and public officials in Finland currently do not work together in a systematic, well established and ongoing way. A lot of the interactions take place in formal settings, mostly in parliamentary committees, or on an ad hoc basis. The collaboration of the two sides is made even more challenging through the fast pace of policy development and decision-making, responding to the public’s demand to see solutions and statements as events unfold in real time. Even though complexity and uncertainty have become the norm in policy making (Cook and Tõnurist, 2020[5]), long periods of assessment and debate are often rare. While both sides are challenged by this pace, timing nonetheless differs between the two communities. Politicians need to respond to the expectation to deliver results within their elected term so they often lack the time to dive into deep analysis and long-term thinking around a given topic. Public officials on the other hand often work on issues in a more continuous manner, and need to fulfil their responsibility to ensure continuity within the government.
In Finland, there is an underlying assumption that parliament and administration need to keep their distance in order for democracy to function well. Independence of civil servants is seen critical to provide counterbalance to short-term policy development. At the same time, a strict separation can lead to a lack of opportunities for the two sides to interact and build relationships which in turn undermines trust and hinders fruitful collaboration. As a result, there is an opportunity to rethink how the politico-administrative interface can be transformed to allow building functional relationships while upholding democratic principles.7
The Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra together with a number of other large foundations developed the dialogue model “Timeout”. It brings different actors and groups together to engage in a constructive dialogue, question preconceptions and seek understanding and ideas based on trust. Timeout fosters a feeling of inclusion between the participants and of social inclusion in general. The approach can help to establish a deeper understanding of the topic in question and of diverging perspectives towards it.
At best, the dialogues generate unpredictable insights and new thinking. They do not aim for unanimity, but for new ways to embrace and leverage diversity of thought. The dialogues are meant to be a joint search for meaning and understanding. By thinking together, participants can collectively find new pathways that no member alone would have been able to identify. The Timeout method was not designed to produce concrete solutions, but rather as an environment to experiment, build trust and look beyond existing preconceptions. It is based on the following main principles or ground rules:
1. Listen. Participants are encouraged to listen to what others are saying before thinking about what they want to say next.
2. Relate. This means relating to what others have said by using simple, everyday language.
3. Tell. Talking about personal experience and feelings is part of the dialogue. Tapping into the personal stories behind each person is just as important as tapping into rational reasoning.
5. Be present and respect others and the confidentiality of the discussion.
The method was co-created by various organisations and experts by trying out various approaches all around Finland (Heikka, 2018[4]). More information about the approach, how it can be used and resources to make a Timeout dialogue happen can be found on the Website of the Timeout foundation that was created by the organisations involved: https://www.timeoutdialogue.fi.
Being on the same level is crucial. Instead of aiming at a consensus, it is important to highlight the different starting points, so that diversity can be considered and accepted.
Olli-Pekka Heinonen, Former Director General for Finnish National Agency for Education
Source: (Heikka, 2018[4]; Timeout Finland, 2022[6])
Building and maintaining trust
Trust is defined as a psychological state comprising “the intention to accept vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intention or behaviour of the other” (Rousseau et al., 1998[7]). Trust has been identified as a necessary component of any collaborative arrangement (Getha-Taylor et al., 2018[8]) and described as the “essence of collaboration” or the “lubricant and the glue” that “facilitate the work of collaboration” (Bryson, Crosby and Stone, 2006[9]). When the identity of public management is built, trust is at the core. This foundation of trust is also a crucial factor when politicians and public officials work together. Their foundation of trust can be enhanced or undermined by various circumstances and practices. Understanding those mechanisms better can help to create a suitable environment for constructive engagements between the two communities. Continuous dialogue, constructive forms of engagement and an atmosphere of mutual appreciation can help to maintain an environment of trust.
Overall, Finland has been observing declining levels of trust between the elites across the system. During the AIG “Timeout” dialogues,8 participants discussed various factors that can enhance or challenge the trust base. Participants identified a critical moment at the very beginning of a government term.. This is when election promises and ambitions that politicians set out need to be transformed into a concrete government programme underpinned with quantifiable outputs and feasible mechanisms. There can be a mismatch between promises and what can realistically be achieved, bringing about a need to find compromise. This can lead to frustrations by both sides and create distrust between the two communities. On the one side, politicians perceive the pressure of their electorate to accomplish what they set out to do and rely on the support of public officials to make things happen. On the other side, public officials see their role in guiding a negotiation process towards constructive compromise between different objectives, advising on the most feasible approaches. The two perspectives do not always integrate seamlessly, even less so without relying on a deliberate dialogue to reconcile them. In order for this process not to undermine the trust base between the two communities at the very beginning of a government term, these two perspectives need to be better reconciled. Participants suggested that politicians need to better convey to the public that there are limits to what can be accomplished and transparently show that politics are a joint effort by actors with diverging objectives.
Participants also discussed the new reality of policy making that is increasingly confronted with volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous information (Cook and Tõnurist, 2020[5]). The COVID-19 pandemic revealed to what extend information can evolve and existing data can even be contradictory, needing continuous interpretation and reassessment when used for decision-making. Especially when it comes to anticipation, it is important to acknowledge that evidence is always incomplete and evolving. While data can only be collected in the past, decisions need to be made using prospective judgement about the future (Wilkinson, 2017[10]). This inherent uncertainty and need for sense-making of incomplete information can be a challenge when it comes to maintaining trusted relationships. Both politicians and public officials alike are looking for the best answers, but may not look at the available information in the same way. There is a need to raise awareness that information and knowledge are subject to change, making it easier to communicate adapted interpretations of an evolving situation. Participants discussed that efforts need to be made for the public to better accept and understand that information can evolve and change.
Furthermore, participants discussed how job security of public officials can have an impact on trust levels that they build up with politicians. In general, feeling uncertain about the future of one’s employment is associated with a variety of negative consequences, both in the short and long term (Richter and Näswall, 2018[11]). Participants discussed that one of these can be a fear of public officials to speak their mind and share critical opinions when advising politicians. They agreed that there could be risks associated with fixed term appointment of public servants in managerial roles. Particularly towards the end of a contract length, the relationship might be undermined by the uncertain job prospects. For example, public officials may refrain from disagreeing with a high-ranking politician or avoid pointing out existing gaps or contradictions in the information available. Overall, the independence of public officials is an important factor in strengthening their collaboration with politicians. This also plays a factor when they interact with politicians from different parties, potentially needing to bridge disagreements or divergence of priorities. There currently lacks a transparent and effective conflict management approach to resolve issues between ministries run by different parties. This often incentivises people to avoid problematic or overlapping topics for which there is no clear guideline to follow.
A factor that can help build trust between the two communities is ensuring a clear definition of their respective roles and responsibilities. Participants discussed the need for a common understanding of the management system between politicians and senior civil servants when dealing with long-term policy challenges. This includes knowledge of the steering system for decision-making, who has what level of authority and what are the formal and informal rules of that process. This also includes ensuring flexibility of the system, giving public servants space to adjust when new political leadership structures are established with a change of government.
Another trust building factor lies in transparency about the means available to bring policy ambitions to life. Politicians often get confronted with the reality of limitations in the implementation or funding of policy initiatives when they come into office. It would be beneficial to ensure they know which means, approaches and resources the government has its disposal before entering into concrete discussions about the government programme.
Overall, building and maintaining trust between politicians and public officials is a continuous effort without any definite end point. It is necessary for both sides to know each other and benefit from regular interactions before collectively facing the pressures of policy making in a fast-paced environment. Establishing and maintaining reliable processes that generate clarity of roles and expectations can help the two sides to work well together. Trust is an essential component of their functional collaboration and it needs to be constantly built, enhanced and preserved.
Actors and institutions
In times of rapid change, growing complexity, and critical uncertainty, responsible governance requires preparing for the unexpected. One essential element for governments to do so is by building anticipatory innovation governance. Several countries have demonstrated their future receptivity by investing in anticipatory capacity, mainstreaming foresight practices and creating dedicated bodies within government (or at arms-length) and in parliament for future-oriented policy making. Finland is internationally recognised for having one of the most highly developed strategic foresight systems consisting of various institutions with formal and informal roles related to fostering anticipatory governance (see Box 12.2 below). The different actors in Finland “co-operate and sometimes challenge one another over the implementation of foresight and feedback processes ultimately sustaining [anticipatory governance].” (Heo and Seo, 2021[12]).
Other countries, like South Korea and Singapore, have established similar foresight institutions and systems. South Korea has a National Assembly Futures Institute (NAFI) that implements national foresight and manages and controls the countries research output. Singapore has an institutionalised and decentralised network of (mainly security-focused) foresight practitioners across the public service. The Centre for Strategic Foresight within the Prime Minister’s office manages national scenario development and engages senior (political) leaders (Roth and Husar, 2021[13]). Politicians in Singapore are chiefly engaged with foresight through the regular National Scenarios exercises, while senior public officials are engaged through multiple other channels such as quarterly Strategic Futures Network meetings (OECD, 2019[14]). In European countries, some countries like the Netherlands and UK established foresight practices that did not get institutionalised long-term (Heo and Seo, 2021[12]). Others such as Germany, Spain or France have established foresight capacity in various governmental departments or functions (Boettger and Tekin, 2022[15]).
Finland has anticipatory capacity spread across the political system as well as a lively foresight community outside of government.
A key actor in the Finnish foresight system is the innovation organisation and fund Sitra that has been conducting foresight studies for decades and promotes foresight and future tools within the Finnish public administration. It reports directly to Parliament and has both financial and political independence. Foresight is integrated within the central government through the Prime Minister Office’s Strategy Department that co-ordinates national strategic foresight within the government through a Government Foresight Group that brings together strategic foresight experts. It also has a high-level steering group with five State Secretaries from ministries representing the coalition parties. An important vehicle in Finland is the Report on the future that is prepared every four years and feeds into elections and the Government Program that follows after a coalition is formed. The Finnish Parliament has a Parliamentary Committee for the Future (PCF) that discusses long-term challenges, science and technology policies, and prepares the Parliament’s response to the Government Report on the future every four years. It works on a consensus basis to develop a common view of future possibilities. The parliament also has its own foresight capacity independent of party-political interests.
Source: OECD.
In recent years there has been a lot of interest in futures work, but in many countries the follow-through and connection to policy measures has not always been accomplished. Foresight informs decision making in a variety of settings; however, it is often not sufficiently integrated into the activities of public sector organisations or done in pockets and disconnected from policy making (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[3]).
Collaboration between politicians and public officials in anticipation
Both politicians and public officials have an important role to play in anticipation. Politicians have a role in identifying future challenges, delivering visions for the future, and signalling a road ahead. Public officials assist elected politicians and also have a role to play in safeguarding professionalism and continuity over time.9 In practice, however, governments are less well equipped to act preventively or embrace risk and often start acting only when hazards materialise. “Avoiding risks is often justified for political and reputational reasons.” (Tõnurist, 2021[2]). In addition, urgent matters are often prioritised over important matters, and policy making therefore focuses mainly on the short-term rather than long-term (Tõnurist, 2021[2]).10
Although the AIG literature hardly addresses collaboration between politicians and public officials specifically, literature on foresight, innovation governance and collaborative governance does provide some relevant insights.
Existing evidence on foresight practices highlights for instance the importance of both politicians and public servants participating in foresight activities to ensure the use of foresight insights in the policy-making process. This helps to create trust, and generate political buy-in for possible solutions. Otherwise, there is a risk of foresight becoming a too specialist area of researchers with little relevance to policy makers and politicians involved in daily governance. In addition, the ability of foresight outcomes to survive the current political environment is also deemed important, which points to the need for embedding foresight well into policy and political processes (Dreyer and Stang, 2013, p. 26[16]; OECD, 2019[14]).
The foresight literature further points out that there is no one recipe for sustainable foresight in governments. Rather, an ecosystem approach is promoted that fits into countries’ socio-cultural and political context. According to the School of International Futures, “A healthy foresight ecosystem creates demand for futures work, ensures quality supply, and nurtures itself.” (School of International Futures, 2021[17]). In addition, sustained political leadership, champions, and co-ordination between different actors are deemed important. In Finland, for instance, the Parliamentary Committee helps create visibility and can ensure that line ministries focus on shared opportunities and risks (School of International Futures, 2021[17]).
Literature on innovation governance points out that a trusted environment is needed in which innovators, regulators, and other stakeholders are motivated to understand each other's concerns and develop solutions together to anticipate and address future challenges. One approach is the so-called ‘Safe Innovation Approach’, where trusted environments support agile regulatory practices and anticipatory regulation. Trust drivers mentioned in this literature to facilitate trusted environments include focusing on the public interest, competence, respect, integrity, inclusion, fairness, and openness (Soeteman-Hernández et al., 2021[18]). The same factors equally hold true for collaboration between politicians and public officials.
While Finland is an international leader when it comes to mainstreaming futures across government and beyond and taking a thoroughly embedded model to anticipation, this approach has not yet arrived in the collaboration between politicians and public officials. So far, their interactions mainly take place alongside mainstream policy-making processes and in parliamentary committees. Anticipatory knowledge can be part of this process, but often stems from external research institutions, separate units within government, and commissions in parliament. There is a committee of the future in parliament, but that remains a separate forum and does not contribute to building anticipatory innovation governance at large. Currently, no deliberate process exists to embed futures thinking and anticipation into the interactions of the two communities.
Source: OECD.
Literature on collaborative governance provides insights into what public officials and politicians can do to link the anticipatory innovation function to traditional governance structures. Collaborative governance is often positioned alongside traditional governance. It refers to processes and structures of public policy decision-making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and the public, private and civic spheres. Productive interfaces between both forms of governance depend on so-called ‘boundary spanning’ by both public officials and politicians within representative democracy. Boundary spanning involves the effort of actors to accommodate and guide cross-institutional conflict resolution, communication, and co-ordination (van Meerkerk and Edelenbos, 2018[19]).
The literature distinguishes between boundary spanning by public officials (so-called managerial boundary spanning) and politicians (so-called political boundary spanning). Managerial boundary spanning is deemed important for aligning cross-sectoral efforts to solve wicked policy problems and can enhance effectiveness and innovation in policy making and implementation. This can include tasks such as developing cross-sectoral relationships, aligning activities, promoting information exchange and pursuing windows of opportunity towards political alignment. Political boundary spanning, on the other hand, can lead to innovative political strategizing, and fairer and more legitimate policy processes and outputs. Political boundary spanning can be more hands-off, where politicians activate others (for instance public managers) to perform on the ground managerial boundary spanning or more hands-on, where politicians broker activities between governance arenas and institutions of representative democracy. The literature suggests that a combination of hands-off and hands-on political boundary spanning leads to best policy alignment. That way it can be ensured the designs, structures and arrangements for interfacing collaborative governance and governmental policy making “stay active and get energised each time by specific on the ground boundary-spanning activities”. All these activities are not performed by politicians alone but typically in interaction with other public and political officials (Sørensen et al., 2020[20]).
An example is a community enterprise that was undertaken in De Meevart, in the Netherlands. Volunteers decided to take over their community centre and turn it into an accessible space for all stakeholders in the neighbourhood. The project was initiated in a partnership between politicians and stakeholders, and politicians participated on an entirely informal basis in the collaboration in all its phases as well as in the leadership of the collaboration. They promoted dialogue and information exchange between stakeholders. The intense hands-on political boundary spanning was supported by hands-off political boundary spanning by way of funding and administrative support (Sørensen et al., 2020[20]).
Collectively preparing for an uncertain future
The following cases show how collaboration between politicians, public officials and often a range of other stakeholders has been possible in fields with substantive uncertainty.
Dutch Deltaprogram - Governing climate change adaptation
The Dutch Deltaprogram is a policy programme to prepare the Netherlands for the highly uncertain future effects of climate change. The programme started in 2015 and runs until 2050 while keeping possible futures in 2100 in mind. Unlike the former Deltaworks that were created after the flooding in 1953, the programme was created in the absence of a direct crisis. It was nonetheless influenced by the flooding of New Orleans that raised awareness of the possibility that the Netherlands could be similarly affected in the future. The programme aims to prepare the country for an uncertain future with a variety of resilient solutions (rather than only waterworks) to safeguard intergenerational water security. It includes present-day interventions that shape the future while also enabling anticipation and adaptation to new and emerging developments over time. For example, this includes creating ‘room for the river’ now well before climate change would require it. It also has ensured that space for potential future interventions is reserved in spatial planning initiatives. (Twist, M. van et al., 2013[21])
The programme is financed by a Delta fund, backed up by a Delta Act, and managed by a Delta Commissioner, a politically neutral process co-ordinator positioned in-between the responsible Minister and Cabinet and above administrative parties (Bloemen, Van Der Steen and Van Der Wal, 2018[22]). When the coalition parties had to renegotiate the budget in 2009 in response to the economic crisis, an ‘additional policy agreement’ on top of the existing coalition agreement was presented which included the decision to establish a Delta fund that would receive at least EUR 1 billion per year from 2020 onwards. (Ministerie van Algemene Zaken, 2021[23]) The Fund is financed by yearly contributions from the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water and from contributions from water boards. (Ministerie van Algemene Zaken, 2021[23])
The chosen governance arrangement aims to move adaptation policy away from everyday battles over short-term interests and financial resources. Delegated decision-making occurs among relevant ministries, provinces, local authorities, and water boards co-operating on regional strategies, adaptive delta management, and long-term options (Bloemen, Van Der Steen and Van Der Wal, 2018[22]). A national steering group ensures administrative embedding and includes representatives of the union of water boards, provinces and municipalities, the chairs of regional co-operation structures and DGs of the ministries of Infrastructure and Water, Interior, Agriculture, Nature and Food, Economic Affairs and Climate. Citizens are involved through so-called ‘Living Labs’, a research environment in which research and innovation take place based on co-creation and participation (Buijs et al., 2021[24]).
This particular governance structure was designed after several commissions and reports had underlined the importance of a long-term approach for climate adaptation and after several other governance arrangements had been considered. The model of having a special commissioner has been used in the Netherlands before for exceptional topics of national interest, like food security and distribution after the first and second world wars. When the governance structure for the Deltaprogram was adopted, it did not get much political attention, which can be seen as a testimony of the broad political support for having a special governance arrangement for anticipatory governance in this area (Twist, M. van et al., 2013[21]).
Insights for Finland
The governance of the Dutch Deltaprogram can be seen as an example of a fit-for-purpose AIG model that is located somewhere in-between the space of politicians and public officials. It exists alongside traditional governance structures and processes to secure a long-term approach, sufficient funding, and a permanent political advocate. Key to its establishment was political consensus on the need for a long-term anticipatory approach to climate adaptation on the one hand and experience with this specific governance arrangement to deal with topics of national interest on the other hand. For Finland, this approach could be of inspiration for policy areas of particular national importance that depend on collaboration between all stakeholders independent of the current political climate.
Future-oriented coalition government programmes
After a year of negotiations, the most recent coalition programme crafted in the Netherlands was published in December 2021 and has the title Looking out for each other, looking ahead to the future. (Ministerie van Algemene Zaken, 2021[23]). It includes several objectives that leave considerable room to design policies along the way together with members of parliament and societal actors. The programme can be seen as a response to long-term uncertain challenges like the green transition and strong demands for a new ‘governance culture’ that have emerged as a consequence of a trust crisis due to different scandals in the last years.11
The ‘business-as-usual’ model in the Netherlands has been to draft detailed coalition agreements that the coalition partners can implement in 3 to 4 years’ time without any major changes. However, the last cabinet largely broke with this tradition when in response to several agreements (primarily, on climate and pensions), COVID-19 and other challenges (including a Climate Case court case, earthquakes as a result of gas drilling, a crisis over childcare benefits etc.) there was a lot of ad-hoc additional spending and decision-making during the term, thereby side-lining established budget processes and rules in practice.
The newest coalition agreement is not only very expansionist in terms of spending, but also includes a number of features that could be labelled anticipatory. It includes, for instance, EUR 35 billion for a climate and transition fund for the next 10 years, a statement to prepare for the building of 2 nuclear plants by 2030 to diversify the energy mix, and to prepare for the introduction of mobility taxation. All are examples of measures taken now to prepare for a future carbon-neutral economy, but which largely have to be designed and implemented after this coalition government’s term. The agreement also includes a special paragraph 'looking towards the future' stating that the government will strive towards a 'sustainable welfare country for current and future generations where everyone can participate', which includes introducing a so-called 'generation-test'.
As coalition agreements are drafted behind closed doors, there is little information on how politicians and public officials collaborate in practice and what roles both actors have had in drafting more future-oriented agreements. While political party leaders are in the driver seat in this process, public officials (especially from the Prime Minister’s Office, the Finance Ministry and independent knowledge centres at arms-length) have an important role to play as well in providing non-partisan information on policy options, costs, implementation etc. Moreover, they can also play a role in agenda setting by publishing reports on future challenges and policy options.
Insights for Finland
Given the importance of ‘coalition government programs’ in steering governance practices in Finland, it can be relevant to follow closely how coalition programs are becoming more future-oriented in practice and what roles politicians and public officials play in this process. While it is challenging to gain direct insights into the internal process, the resulting agreements can be a reference point for what outputs successful collaboration can produce. Overall, future-oriented coalition programmes are an important boost for the authorising environment for anticipatory innovation governance. They can set a vision for what politicians and public officials will work towards during the government term. A common framing of the overall direction that both communities are working towards can be a source of trust for the ongoing collaboration.
Negotiating climate change mitigation policies
While the first signals of climate change and its potential impact on human security date back to the Club of Rome’s 1972 publication “Limits to Growth”, it took a while for the topic to dominate political agendas in many countries. With less time to prevent devastating consequences of climate change, governments have to make decisions now under conditions of scientific uncertainty and normative conflict. Consequently, anticipatory innovation governance is emerging - whether governments are aware of it or not - and that will require some form of co-operation between public officials and politicians.
In the Netherlands, a ‘national climate agreement’ was reached in 2019 (Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, 2019[25]) after deploying the ‘polder model’ that has been part of the Dutch political culture for centuries (see Box 12.4 below). The Coalition Agreement of 2017 includes the goal of lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in 2030 by at least 49% and announced the need for a national climate and energy agreement to realise this goal (Bureau Woordvoering Kabinetsformatie, 2017[26]). Such a ‘societal accord’ was deemed necessary to provide stakeholders certainty about long-term goals and would create a platform for continuous engagement and anticipation. To broker an accord, the cabinet installed a Climate Council as national platform and appointed a widely trusted former politician and expert, Ed Nijpels, as chair. The Climate Council was tasked with negotiating an agreement based on sub-agreements on how to reach the GHG reduction target in five sectors (industry, energy, build environment, mobility, and agriculture and land use). (Traub, 2019[27])
The ‘polder model’ is a deliberative structure that has emerged from the collective action that was needed in the past to keep the Netherlands from flooding and brings together all stakeholders on a given issue (whether it is social security, pensions, or in this case climate change) to reach a conclusion acceptable to all, which is then presented to parliament, that usually converts this societal consensus into legislation. Even though these so-called Polder accords have no legal force of their own, they enjoy a moral authority and political legitimacy that policy makers cannot ignore even if they do not ask for the advice.
Source: OECD.
The cabinet asked a wide range of actors including public authorities, companies and environmental groups (in the Netherlands referred to as the ‘polder’) to negotiate how to meet GHG reduction targets in different sectors. Former politicians from the right and left were asked to chair the different ‘tables’ to negotiate measures to reach GHG reductions in different sectors. The chairs of these tables then took part in the Climate Council. After two rounds of bargaining, first between the stakeholders, and then between the technocrats and the political order, the exercise resulted in a national climate agreement in June 2019 that, to a large degree, was turned into national climate policy (Traub, 2019[27]).
Parallel to these negotiations, parliament members had proposed a Climate Act, which was passed in July 2019, requiring the government to present a Climate Plan. The Climate Act also includes the long-term GHG reduction targets and a system of anticipatory monitoring. The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) yearly publishes a Climate and Energy explorative study that presents the effects of energy and climate policies in the past, moment, and future and is based on ‘current’ knowledge of climate policies. It is an important instrument for anticipation in the Netherlands, as it assesses whether the reduction targets for 2050 are in sight (Traub, 2019[27]).
An interesting detail in pushing the Dutch government to accelerate climate action has been a successful lawsuit of citizens and an environmental NGO against the Dutch state. The case was upheld in the Supreme Court at the end of 2019, forcing the government - in addition to implementing the Climate Agreement - to step up its climate efforts now in order to safeguard future generations’ human security, which could be seen as an example of citizens/civil society demanding the government to be more anticipatory (Spier, 2020[28]).
Insights for Finland
The governance of climate mitigation policy in the Netherlands can be seen as example of anticipatory innovation governance emerging out of necessity to act now under conditions of high uncertainty. The example illustrates that traditional governance mechanisms rooted in political culture can be used for anticipation when there is broad-based (political and public) support for anticipating an uncertain future. The negotiation process can be of inspiration for Finland in the way it prepared the debate and brought politicians and public officials together around the table. By leaving the first round of bargaining to external stakeholders, the discussion has the potential to break free of traditional party lines and potential disagreements of the past. Bringing former politicians or other neutral actors such as SITRA in as chairs can help bridge the more technocratic perspective of public officials and the more political one of members of parliament. It’s important that they can both interact with a mutually respected moderator who does not have a direct stake in what is being discussed.
Embracing opportunities for fruitful collaboration
The following cases have in common that they show process designs that allow for politicians and public officials to work together without high pressures from the outside or expectations to produce immediate results. They show that collective anticipation can be possible when the conditions allow for a constructive discussion between both sides, potentially even experimentation. Nonetheless, the cases also exemplify the importance that such processes are tied in with follow-up action, ensuring they are not disconnected from the “standard” functioning of the government.
Future-oriented interdepartmental policy research
Research with a focus on possible futures is one of the characteristics identified in the anticipatory innovation governance model. The Dutch tradition of civil servants conducting so-called ‘interdepartmental policy research’ (interdepartementaal beleidsonderzoek) independent of the politics of the day could be an interesting vehicle for AIG.12
In the Netherlands, interdepartmental policy research is conducted yearly by senior civil servants and aims to identify possible future policy alternatives for political decision-makers. The research consists of joint fact-finding and exploration of policy options by an assembled commission of high-level civil servants and external experts, headed by an independent chair, usually a Director General of a different policy area or recognised expert. The process is initiated yearly by the Director General of budget under the political responsibility of the Minister of Finance and overseen by an interdepartmental commission. While the selection of topics used to be part of the yearly budget negotiations, recent efforts have tried to move the process of topic selection away from that process.13 Topics can include broad policy themes such as part time work, specific topics such as innovation in health care, interdepartmental topics such as pensions or allowances or horizontal policy themes such as subsidies or agencies. There is a clear distinction between the role of civil servants who prepare possible policy options for the future and politicians who legitimise the process, appreciate policy options presented and make political decisions. This allow to stimulate out-of-the-box thinking and make it possible to analyse topics that are considered political taboos or lack political consensus. The process is closely linked to central budget processes and the reports are used as input for yearly budget decision-making, election programs and coalition negotiations.
The instrument has no legal base and is therefore flexible. Although the basic rules of the game or governance has not changed, the topics and focus of the research have changed overtime. The instrument started in the 80s as ‘comprehensive reconsideration’ (brede heroverweging) to identify options for budget cuts across the state budget (see Box 12.5). In the 90s, the focus switched to research advancing new public management. In the last few years, topics are increasingly selected to anticipate options for future spending/policy developments and the reports sometimes also include an ‘investment option’ in addition to the regular budget neutral and saving options. Examples of recent topics that are future-oriented include ‘air quality’, ‘towards a circular economy’, ‘future proof mobility’, ‘ready for climate change’, ‘financing the energy transition’.
A distinction is made in the Netherlands between yearly ‘interdepartmental policy research’ and so-called ‘comprehensive reconsiderations’. While the former is connected to yearly budget processes, the latter is a more extensive exercise covering the majority of policies/budgets and has been conducted three times, two times after a major financial crisis (in 1980 and 2009) and one time (in 2019) after a request from parliament to prepare future policy options to stabilise the economy and budget in case of a recession. Novel to the 2019 round was the introduction of ‘budget plus variants’ (or ‘investment options’), in addition to the usual ‘budget neutral’ policy variants and a ‘saving’ variant. While the yearly rounds have become a standard practice for which the Ministry of Finance takes political responsibility, comprehensive-spending reviews usually need some form of political legitimation from either the whole cabinet (like in 2010) or parliament (in 2019).
Source: OECD.
Insights for Finland
The longstanding practice of ‘interdepartmental policy research’ in the Netherlands has not been designed deliberately as an approach of anticipatory innovation but can be a potential vehicle for mainstreaming futures work, because the instrument is flexible, well connected to central budget and policy-making processes, and has proven successful in overcoming silo-thinking. This case also shows that anticipatory elements are emerging within existing governance mechanisms. Through a deliberate process with clear roles and responsibilities for both communities, collaboration between politicians and public officials can be enhanced, allowing them to work together towards concrete decision-making. What the case exemplifies is the importance of linking a more exploratory dialogue designed to identify topics of future relevance to concrete actions that follow afterwards, in this case budgetary process.
Regulatory sandboxes and outcome regulations
So-called regulatory sandboxes provide a structured context for experimentation and enable a real-world environment for testing innovative technologies by adopting a flexible regulatory framework and process (Attrey, Lesher and Lomax, 2020[29]). A regulatory sandbox facilitates dialogue between innovators and regulators to develop safe and sustainable innovation. Experimentation clauses are often the basis for these sandboxes that enables authorities to exercise a degree of flexibility to testing innovative technologies on a case-by-case basis (Soeteman-Hernández et al., 2021[18]).
The UK was the first to create a digital sandbox for anticipatory regulation of financial technology. Other examples of regular sandboxes can be found in Austria, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, Italy, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and the UAE. The idea has also been embraced in the EU, as the Council of the European Commission adopted a set of conclusions in 2020 on the role of regulatory sandboxes and experimentation clauses in an innovation-friendly, future-proof, sustainable, and resilient EU regulatory framework, which are considered tools for better regulation (European Council, 2020[30]).
In addition to regulatory sandboxes as specific tools, there have been calls for a more systemic change to embrace an “adapt and learn” mind-set to the practice of regulating to simultaneously seize opportunities of technological change and minimise risks. Some governments are investing in regulatory foresight (e.g. Canada, Singapore, Sweden, the UAE, and UK), and others have introduced the assumption that regulation should focus on outcomes rather than prescribe the use of specific inputs or processes (Denmark, Japan, UK). The regulatory co-operation partnership, Agile Nations, established by the governments of Canada, Denmark, Italy, Japan, Singapore, the UAE, and the UK in 2020 is a testimony of increasing international collaboration in this area (Signé and Almond, 2021[31]; Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[3]).
Insights for Finland
Regulation is not yet included in the anticipatory innovation governance model, but is a key to effective governance of emerging technologies. As public officials and politicians play an important role in drafting legislative proposals, regulatory sandboxes could be a deliberate approach to make the two communities work together in an anticipatory way. Finland could consider building its capacity in the field of anticipatory regulation in the form of sandboxes in order to create room for politicians and public officials to experiment together.
Collaborating on continuous evaluation
A continuous evaluation approach is another characteristic of the AIG model. Although evaluation systems and processes in many countries are still largely focused on ex-post evaluations, countries are increasingly embracing the need to continuously monitor, evaluate and learn to integrate the evaluation function better into policy-making processes (OECD, 2020[32]). Just like foresight, evaluation is often a separate function within governments that is interlinked with a broader policy research and advice ecosystem, where commissions, academies, and science advisors provide independent advice to governments and so-called trusted ‘knowledge brokers’ play a key role in enhancing evidence-informed policy making (EIP) (Gluckman, Bardsley and Kaiser, 2021[33]).
The Netherlands recently reformed its evaluation system in the context of a government programme called ‘Insight into quality’ (2019-2021) aimed at increasing evidence-informed policy making and continuous learning throughout the policy cycle. The Finance minister led the reform within the public administration and was backed up in the House of Representatives by two rapporteurs from both a coalition and an opposition party.
During the ‘Insight into quality’ program, public officials of the central evaluation unit stimulated experimentation within line ministries, developed capacity for better evaluations, and co-operated with policy makers, evaluation officers, research bodies, political advisors, and parliament support staff to create an enabling environment for EIP. While public officials worked on new evaluation approaches, instruments, and processes (strategic evaluation agendas, public value scans, spending appraisals, etc.) within the public administration, the rapporteurs promoted the use of evaluations in the House of Representatives and introduced new processes and instruments as well. For instance, the Dutch parliament has experimented with so-called ‘scientific tests’ prepared by academics to inform parliamentarians on the evidence of legislative proposals. (Matthew, 2020[34])In addition, the rapporteurs and other parliament members debated the progress of the government reform programme with the Finance minister in yearly commission debates, which helped to sustain progress and identify bottlenecks and possible solutions.14
At the end of the program, the Finance minister and the rapporteurs published a joint statement with reflections and lessons for the future. (Ministerie van Financiën, 2021[35])In this statement, the importance of non-political collaboration between parliament members and ministers is emphasised to counter the accountability paradox, where fear for the political repercussions of a negative evaluation can create adverse incentives for evaluations and a lack of mutual trust between government and parliament. The joint statement also underlines the need for a broader acceptance of uncertainty and ‘advancing insight’. The increasing use of ‘monitors’ rather than ‘evaluations’ is an interesting development in this regard, like the monitor of Dutch Climate policy mentioned before and the ‘Monitor of well-being’ (see Box 12.6 below). (Statistics Netherlands, 2021[36])
A Monitor of Well-being has been developed in the Netherlands in response to a request by the House of Representatives. The Statistics Bureau reports yearly to the House on well-being ‘here and now’, but also on the effects of our current well-being on future generations (‘well-being later’) and the rest of the world (‘well-being elsewhere’). The monitor describes trends in well-being in terms of the economy, the environment and society, Dutch progress towards achieving the United Nations’ SDGs, as well as the distribution of well-being over certain groups in the population. In the 2021 edition, for the first time Dutch well-being is analysed also in terms of how resilient it is in the face of unexpected events. While initially mainly developed as accountability instrument, the House of Representatives has requested the monitor to be better integrated in the policy and budget cycle, to make it an instrument of steering as well.
Source: OECD.
Insights for Finland
The evaluation function faces similar challenges as the foresight function and could play a supportive role in advancing AIG, especially when monitoring and continuous evaluation and learning are promoted. The collaboration between public officials and politicians to reform the Dutch evaluation system provide some insights into how non-political collaboration can create an enabling environment for more continuous evaluation and learning. It can be an opportunity to build relationships and trust between the two communities, allowing for both sides to better understanding each other before having to collaborate in a high-pressure context. In addition, the accountability frame that often poses challenges to transparency and learning might also impact foresight practices, as there is a risk that scenarios are treated as forecasts for which ministers are held accountable.
Another important aspect of leveraging collaboration between politicians and public officials for systematic learning is effective handover as described in Box 12.7 below:
In an effort to respond to spatial, ethnic, and socio-economic segregation, a number of policy initiatives were launched in Stockholm. One of them, the neighbourhood renewal programme, was carried out in nine administrative districts in Stockholm that were characterised by poverty, low election turnout, and—for most districts—a high proportion of residents with a non-Swedish background.
The programme was carried out with an ambition to fuel the development of new methods and processes for inclusive and holistic modes of neighbourhood governance. It brought together politicians, citizens and civil servants to work in neighbourhood level "collaboration groups" and issue-specific "working groups" in order to deliberate, share knowledge, define problems, develop, and to and to some extant prioritise between, policy solutions. The objective of the programme was to collectively formulate, discuss, and prioritise local development agendas and to have an influence on local decisions concerning the use of public resources, as opposed to participation on a purely advisory or consultative basis.
A major issue the initiative revealed regarding collaboration between civil servants and politicians was the lack of preparation for a smooth handover. While politicians actively promoted the organisation of neighbourhood-level collaborative governance, they did not take enough initiative to ensure that ideas could be brought to implementation. Their contribution rhetorically and financially was substantive, but they did not consider how the outcome of the programme would be linked to policy making within the political institutions.
A learning from the programme is how important it is to think through the more operative implications of collaboration and participation and how to switch between different governance logics within a system. Preparing the handover of ideas to public officials who can operationalise them is essential to ensure a smooth collaboration (Hertting and Klijn, 2017[37]).
Source: OECD.
Further ideas for a future-ready civil service
One of the mechanisms of the anticipatory innovation governance model is organisational capacity, structures that provide autonomy and resources to explore transformative ideas. The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) future of government project (2017-19) could be a good starting point to reflect on how to build a future-ready civil service. The JRC project explored possible changes in the landscape facing governments, focusing on the potential and implications of citizen participation in government and digital transformations. It describes different scenarios (‘do it yourself democracy’, ‘private algocracy’, ‘super collaborative government’ and ‘over-regulatocracy’) and includes a range of policy implications that stress the importance of collaboration across different policy fields (Vesnić Alujević and Scapolo, 2019[38]).
The Public Service for the 21st Century (PS21) project in Singapore is an interesting example at the country level. Singapore re-structured its working culture into a more entrepreneurial style to be ready for future challenges. In 2015 the programme Public Service for the 21st Century was launched that invited civil servants to suggest ideas for public service improvement and collaborate on innovative projects. PS21 committees were set up at every level of the public service, and each ministry had its PS21 committee chaired by the ministry's permanent secretary. (Centre for Public Impact, 2018[39])The establishment in 2017 of the Smart Nation and Digital Government Office (SNDGO) under the Prime Minister’s Office charged with key Smart Nation projects and building long-term capabilities for the public sector is another interesting example in Singapore to further explore collaboration between public officials and politicians (Prime Minister’s Office Singapore, 2018[40]; Omidyar Network India, 2018[41]).
Very different examples of anticipatory organisational capacity can be found in Wales, Gibraltar, and Hungary, where special commissioners or an ombudsman have been appointed to speak on behalf of future generations and who can act in legal procedures. The appointment of a legal representative in the name of future generations can be seen as an example of a futures checks and balances. While in New Zealand and Hungary their role is primarily focused on the protection of the environment and cultural heritage, the Welsh Commissioner has a broader mandate to protect the living conditions of future generations. It promotes the Sustainable Development Principle and acts as a guardian for the interests of future generations in Wales by providing advice, encouraging best practices, carrying out research, reviewing how public bodies take long-term impact into account, and preparing a Future Generations Report every five years (World Future Council, 2018[42]).
Insights for Finland
Building a future-ready civil service is an important mechanism for building AIG. The mentioned international examples can be of inspiration for future initiatives that would support an even more future-oriented civil service, ranging from the establishment of separate units within the centre of government that requires close co-operation between politicians and public officials to the establishment of legal representatives in the name of future generations as check and balance within the system.
Successful collaboration between politicians and public officials is a topic that does not only concern Finland, but all political systems. Various administrations have taken steps to facilitate exchange between the two communities and support their working relationship, often in the context of larger initiatives or as a side effect of another project. In an effort to learn from these experiences and allow for an opportunity to exchange on the challenges associated with the politico-administrative interface, the OECD organised various peer-learning sessions. These allowed for even more applied learning from a different context, from individual examples of collaboration to systematic reflections about the system. They were organised in a small format and in a confidential manner under Chatham House Rules so the findings are only excerpts of what was discussed and will be presented in a generalised way.
Ireland – Different modes of collaboration
The peer-learning session took part between the Finnish secretariat and an Irish policy maker with extensive experience in both the political branch as well as the public service. As somebody who worked as an advisor for high-ranking politicians for many years and then became a public official with management responsibilities, they can benefit from drawing on both perspectives. During the discussion, they gave insights into various concrete contexts of collaboration in Ireland that they were involved in as well as overall reflections about the system.
Effective collaboration in face of uncertainty
After the 2011 elections, the two elected parties needed to work together effectively under immense pressure and deep uncertainty, drawing on knowledge of the public sector. They needed to draw up a coalition agreement in the course of days and deal with the immediate challenges of the financial crisis and implications of the IMF programme for Ireland.
They drew in civil servants for advice who provided the existing evidence about the problems in question, often pointing to existing gaps and the uncertainty associated with the contextual environment as well as the outcomes of alternative options. Despite these challenges, the relationship between both communities and between the two parties did not decline. Rather, the need for taking action allowed those involved to develop a shared understanding of the main issues at stake and build trust. They focused on what could realistically be achieved and worked out a compromise.
Urgency and the need to take action in deep uncertainty can allow for better collaboration. Similar effects were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic when governments were forced to work together across departments and party lines. In many cases, governments successfully implemented policy and operational responses of unprecedented scale, speed and scope15 (OECD, 2021[43]). These examples show that overcoming the challenge of incomplete information that can lead to distrust between the two communities can be overcome. Regarding upcoming challenges that need to be resolved by successful collaboration, the principles of anticipatory innovation governance can help create room for taking transformative action, even in the absence of the catalyst of an immediate crisis.
Risk taking
In Ireland, a challenge for the collaboration between politicians and public officials lies in their diverging approach to risks. Politicians are held more directly responsible for policy outcomes so they tend to be very risk averse and try to avoid uncertainty. This can stand in contrast to public officials who are only indirectly associated with the decisions taken. Allowing for effective collaboration means acknowledging this dichotomy and facilitating dialogue that allows for better understanding of each standpoint.
Governments are generally known to be risk-averse, rule-driven, based on stable structures and predictable decision-making (Brown and Osborne, 2013[44]). This hinders taking proactive rather than reactive action, shaping long-term transformation in strategic ways. Recent OECD work laid out a principled framework on how governments can start addressing these challenges by integrating anticipatory capacities into public governance. Research shows that simplifying these issues into discrete models does allow to take decisive action, but often creates blind spots. Adequate action starts with the willingness to embrace radical uncertainty and complexity, and to put forward the right tools to make sense of new developments as they emerge (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[3]). It is important to note that this challenge also comes to play during the collaboration between politicians and public officials. It is necessary to include both sides in sense-making exercises, acknowledging the consequences of risk taking for politicians as well as the risks associated with a lack of anticipatory decision-making.
Distant vs. close collaboration
In Ireland there can be a disconnect between politicians and the advisors working for them and public officials. There seems to be an assumption that the highest quality knowledge for policy making lies within the public service which can lead to a feeling of superiority towards politicians. This can create challenges for the collaboration of the two communities in very concrete ways and needs to be addressed when facilitating collaboration.
This potential friction needs to be addressed. Both sides need to communicate more with each other, taking on each other’s perspective and understanding both the strengths and shortcomings of the respective roles. For example, this can be achieved by including public officials more directly in the process of decision-making. That often reveals that while policy knowledge, data and insights are essential, they cannot facilitate a decision on their own. Acknowledging that informational gaps are inherent and that data can never be completely unbiased could help.
Difference in timing
Similar to the observations made by Finnish participants of the AIG Timeout dialogues, timing has also shown to be an important factor in Ireland. Politicians are often forced to react to evolving issues on an ad hoc basis and lack the time to engage into longer-term analysis of complex issues. They tend to work with a more short-term time horizon. As a result, they rely on the insights produced by public officials who tend to have an opportunity to engage in policy issues in a more continuous basis. For the system to work well, it is important that the learnings produced in the public service get passed on to political decision-makers. It is important to acknowledge the difference in time horizon when designing collaborative processes.
Furthermore, Ireland has made the experience that timing can also play a role in relation to the government term. At the moment that a new government is elected and the Government Programme is not yet defined, working relationships are not yet manifested. This is an opportunity to support trust- and relationship-building between the two communities as it can set the basis for how politicians and the administration will work together during the entire government term. Currently, neither Finland nor Ireland make deliberate efforts to support this process. It could be useful to explore further how a framework for facilitating collaboration with an incoming government could look in Finland.
Gipuzkoa, Basque Country – Creating room for dialogue and reflections
The peer-learning session was organised between the Finnish secretariat and members of the Gipuzkoa Provincial Council that is responsible for governing and administering the province of Gipuzkoa. They presented the “Gipuzkoa Moadel” used for governing the province and their various initiatives in the field of anticipation, collaboration and trust building.
Etorkizuna Eraikiz (Building the Future)
Gipuzkoa runs an innovative programme called “Etorkizuna Eraikiz” (Building the Future) that strives for more open and collaborative governance. It was implemented by the previous government about 6-7 years ago. Etorkizuna Eraikiz incorporates public deliberation with the citizenship for the design of public policies, ensuring the effectiveness, efficiency and plurality of this participation (OPSI, 2016[45]).
The programme consists of an active experimentation exercise to develop the future of the territory. The aim is to address the crisis of democracy by giving citizens their own voice and encouraging them to collaborate. The programme constitutes of the Gipuzkoa Taldean, a space for active listening and deliberation including a Think Tank and the Gipuzkoa Lab, an experimentation and learning space. Under Gipuzkoa Taldean there is a committee of Political Parties that brings together all parties of the territorial parliament to discuss the political agenda of the future and take shared decisions.
Dialogue to create enthusiasm
Over the past 4-5 years Gipuzkoa set up a process of dialogue between political teams and civil servants to boost a new form of governance and open spaces for dialogue with other stakeholders. The initiative was first viewed as a marketing exercise trying to make things look better on the outside rather than really engaging. However, after conversations took place (5 hours per day on 6 different days) the results were very positive. Using the action learning methodology, a new level of trust was established and various issues could be resolved.
The dialogues did not only work on a substance level, but also on a relationship one. Bringing people together created trust and even enthusiasm. Enthusiasm to continue collaborating with each other. They realised that politicians were pleased to be involved in the thinking about procedures and that the roles of public officials needed to be broadened in deliberation and decision-making.
Framework for reflection
The Gipuzkoa team elaborated that in their view, transforming individual initiatives to a system of collaboration needs two components: institutional structures and a political decision for collaborative governance that is accepted by the technical civil service side; and structural process for co-creation and a collaborative process to generate knowledge. In order for this co-creation to work, there needs to be a framework for reflection and transforming those into action.
Finland picked up on the idea of a “framework for reflection” between politicians and public officials. It could be designed as a tool to facilitate collaboration between the two communities and allow space for them to co-create, reflect on what works well and what needs to be improved and generate common understanding of the policy issues they work on and the narrative of their respective roles and responsibilities.
Scotland – Keeping humans at the centre
This peer-learning session took place between the Finnish secretariat and various representatives from the Scottish government working in open government, the national performance framework, public service reform, spending review and others.
National Performance Framework
The Scottish Government introduced the National Performance Framework (NPF) in 2007. It sets out the government’s ambitions for society and the values that guide its approach. The framework aims to get everyone in Scotland to work together and break up existing silos. This includes national and local government, politicians, businesses, voluntary organisations and citizens. Unfortunately, politicians see the framework as a project of the public service that they do not feel connected to. Scotland will need to take steps in order to make it more accessible for members of parliament and use it as a futures tool that connects the two communities. There is an opportunity to take this on as new politicians coming in tend to be more open to working with the public service. The framework is more frequently discussed in parliamentary committees and there would be room to take this work forward.
Finland does not have a similarly well-established performance framework in place yet. The Scottish model could be an inspiration. By examining the framework further in more detail and the opportunities to implement it in Finland it could potentially be leveraged as a tool to facilitate future-oriented discussions and anticipation. This would need to explicitly include conversations between politicians and public officials in order to help building collaboration between the two communities. Agreeing on common high-level objectives could be used as a way to strengthen ties between politicians and public officials, establishing a common direction that they commonly work towards.
Human centricity
Scotland is still working on its service reform agenda, it was a process started by the Christie Commission on the future delivery of public services in 2011. (Government of Scotland, 2011[46])The analysis shows that public services in Scotland are unsustainable due to the pressures of demographic shifts, continuous new challenges and the decline of resources available in the public service. There is a need to acknowledge that the risk of not changing the system is far greater than the risk of trying something new and unestablished. The key principle is prevention and thinking about future generations when making decisions today. Scotland wants to take a human centric approach to this work, aiming to create the conditions for public services to work for anyone and anywhere – locally, regionally, and nationally. Public services need to be designed with the objective at heart that people can thrive.
Finnish participants were inspired by the human centricity of this approach. It could be helpful to use the Scottish experience to help bring this more concretely into the development work when redesigning public services in Finland, but also as a standard to frame dialogue between politicians and public officials. At the end of the day, both communities are there to serve the people of Finland, design policies and public services that can help the Finnish people to thrive. A stronger emphasis of the human aspect of policy making and the need to engage with the perspective of the ultimate end-user of any decisions could be a useful tool to align perspectives of politicians and public officials. If both sides agree on their common goal to support citizens, this can have a substantive effect on trust levels and the openness to collaborate.
Although both politicians and public officials have an important role to play in anticipatory innovation governance, it is a relatively new field, and the existing literature hardly addresses how the two communities can collaborate effectively to better prepare for the future. Furthermore, politico-administrative interactions and their inner functioning tend to be rather hidden and are often considered a sensitive topic, so it is a challenging topic to explore based on desk research.
Existing knowledge points out that collaboration between politicians and public officials within existing foresight ecosystems is largely non-political and takes place mainly alongside mainstream policy-making processes. This is not surprising, given that the literature on innovation governance points towards the importance of a trusted environment, and literature on collaborative democracy suggests the importance of ‘boundary spanning’ by both public officials and politicians to integrate or connect new forms of governance, like AIG, to more traditional governance processes.
The cases that have been identified in this paper for further exploration suggest that futures are becoming a more prominent topic in political debates which might be a powerful vehicle for building anticipatory innovation governance. Also, initiatives in anticipatory innovation are emerging not only alongside but also within more traditional governance processes and structures.
Despite the mentioned limitations of this research, with the combined analysis of the current situation in Finland, conceptual insights into collaboration and trust-building and exploration of international examples, relevant insights for Finland could be identified. These are intended as a starting point for Finland to give the topic of politico-administrative collaboration a greater focus in refining its futures work. Further reflections will be necessary to identify concrete actions going forward.
The nature of collaboration in anticipatory innovation governance
Key learning: When politicians and public officials work together in anticipation, they need to rely on pre-existing trust and openness. Anticipatory innovation tends to be exploratory and engage with uncertainty which requires a safe space so that all ideas and concerns can be heard before working towards a solution.
To integrate collaboration into Finland’s approach to anticipatory innovation governance, it is useful to identify what kind of collaboration between public officials and politicians is needed in contrast to ‘traditional’ policy making. Based on the observation discussed in the AIG Timeout dialogues, one important aspect for collective futures work is creating a foundation of trust. In Finland, it was observed that both communities would benefit from more opportunities to interact with each other, not just in the formal contexts of committee work, but also in more informal environments. Currently, politicians and their staff often lack insights into the administrative system, where responsibilities for a particular policy issue lie and what kind of knowledge is available. Creating greater transparency and support in particular for new members of parliament and their staff would be helpful. Also, there can be lines of tension between ministries led by different parties that affect the trust-levels of both the politicians and public officials involved. The development of a transparent and effective conflict management system would allow for more engagement with problematic and overlapping policy issues, which often is the case with futures topics.
Furthermore, collaboration on futures issues requires an environment of openness to new ideas. It can be useful to design deliberate engagement processes that allow for both communities to feel heard and comfortable enough to co-create and look at policy issues from a new perspective. Bringing in external facilitators that are trusted by both sides, for example former politicians or SITRA, might help to create an atmosphere of trust. Another element can be the involvement of external stakeholders to prepare inputs and explore ideas amongst themselves before bringing in politicians and public officials. This can help break up traditional lines of disagreement or conflict. Also, it can be a useful approach to anchor human centricity as a central element of the policy debate, focusing all efforts back on the individuals that will get to benefit from a policy. Mainstreaming the idea that policies and public services are there for the people of Finland to thrive can help to rally both communities behind this overarching objective.
Finally, it is important to acknowledge that work in anticipatory fields tends to come with a lot of uncertainty. Politicians in particular are often looked at to reduce risks and provide “easy answers”, this can lead to a big risk adversity on their part. They work in an environment that has low acceptance of errors while public servants tend to be more shielded from the impact of negative outcomes. One aspect of this is the lack of effective communication about policy change to the public that leads to limited acceptance for emerging standpoints and analysis as exemplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. Nonetheless, in the political system in general, there is a tendency to reduce uncertainty so making it a focus point can make politicians and public officials alike uncomfortable. It is therefore important to guide that exploratory process, offering opportunities to raise concerns and engaging with the emotional reactions anticipatory conversations can trigger. It can also be useful to guide the conversation to look at both challenges of future change as well as opportunities. This can counterbalance the tendency that future discussions engage more with potential negative outcomes.
Adjusting timeframes and enabling collaboration at suitable moments
Key learning: The timing of politicians and public officials tends to differ which can lead to misunderstandings and lack of opportunities to collaborate. For effective collaboration, it is important to integrate their perspectives, acknowledge the difference in their roles and create opportunities for both sides to dedicate time to policy issues.
The research showed that politicians and public officials often work in their own cycles, not necessarily aligning in their timing and opportunities to focus on an individual policy issue. Politicians are often forced to take a short-term perspective as they need to respond to the public and media’s expectation to have answers to evolving challenges. Even though the pace in administrations can also be fast, there still tends to be more room for deep analysis.
In principles, this reality could be a reason for the two sides to collaborate – so that politicians can benefit from the available knowledge and public officials get acquainted with the pressures of present-day decision-making. In practice, this does not always work as the difference in perspective can create tension and misunderstanding. It is essential to identify suitable moments that can help adjusting timeframes of both sides, creating even small windows of opportunity for them to engage in a policy issue collectively. The continuation of the AIG Timeout dialogues is a good way to do so and should ideally become a regular practice going forward.
Adjusting to the difference in timeframes can also be supported by choosing suitable moments across the government term to facilitate collaboration. A moment that opens opportunities for trust-building is the beginning of a new government term when the programme is not yet defined and there tends to be a general receptiveness to establishing new relationships. For the upcoming elections, Finland can identify initiatives that will enhance trust-building between politicians and public officials, for example through informal opportunities to meet, Timeout dialogues to align perspectives and a negotiation process facilitated by neutral partners. Institutionalising these and other elements as dedicated transition structures would help to ensure that trust-building and enhancing collaboration becomes a continuous effort that is independent of individual initiatives.
Existing governance structures as vehicles for collaborative anticipation
Key learning: Existing governance mechanisms can be effective vehicles for anticipatory approaches
Some of the examples described in this paper highlight that existing governance processes and mechanisms increasingly include anticipatory elements in the face of uncertain future challenges. Coalition programs, for instance, seem to evolve from static work programmes to more future-oriented documents, acknowledging the existing uncertainty of the contextual environment in which policy decisions are taking place. The negotiation of climate agreements is another area that by design brings about collaboration between politicians and public officials in an anticipatory field. Both examples indicate that when future uncertainty is acknowledged in political decision-making, it can be an important driver for building anticipatory innovation in mainstream governance processes and instruments. The examples also highlight the importance of political culture for effective collaboration between politicians and public officials in practice.
The examples of ‘interdepartmental policy research’ and ‘collaboration on continuous evaluation’ demonstrate that existing governance mechanisms that are less politicised can be potential vehicles for anticipatory approaches. In the case of ‘interdepartmental policy research’, public officials and politicians take on clearly defined roles in order to facilitate the development of future policy options independent of the politics of the day. In the case of ‘collaboration on continuous evaluation’, public officials and public officials engaged in non-political collaboration to create an enabling environment for continuous evaluation and learning.
For Finland these examples can be of inspiration to examine existing governance structures that currently do not include anticipatory elements and assess whether and potentially how those could be integrated. For example, both policy research and evaluation could be potential fields to include even more long-term thinking that engages with uncertainty and alternative future changes. When taking the initiative to include elements of anticipation, it is important to consider the roles that politicians and public officials will play in this work. This research has shown that the clearer roles and responsibilities are defined and acknowledged by the two communities, the better the basis for a trust-based collaboration can be.
Collaboration within ‘fit-for-purpose’ anticipatory governance structures
Key learning: Governance structures for anticipation that are separate from traditional governance structures can provide a less politicised space for policy making. It is nonetheless essential to create links back to the system in order for the results developed to be adopted and implemented.
Some examples described in this paper are anticipatory governance arrangements or mechanisms by design or fit-for purpose, like the case of the Dutch Deltaprogram, regulatory sandboxes, and the introduction of special Commissioners representing future generations. They tend to be located alongside traditional governance structures and have been designed after political consensus is reached on the need for anticipatory innovation governance. By creating separate governance structures or mechanisms, anticipatory innovation governance is depoliticised to overcome major barriers in more traditional policy-making processes. The actual practice of anticipatory innovation is left to a large extent to special designated actors, with built-in loops to politicians and public officials.
For Finland, there might be an opportunity to identify policy areas that would benefit from a separate governance structure similar to the ones described. This could be the case in the field of carbon neutrality and the mitigation of climate change effects where political debates can be a barrier to take decisive action. This is especially useful in areas where there already exists a broad consensus that action is necessary. The Dutch example of the Deltaprogram showed that it can be possible to take action without creating much political attention. This can help to create room for anticipatory innovation. What is nonetheless important to keep in mind is the need to connect any type of separate governance structure back to the system when it comes to bringing ideas to implementation. The neighbourhood renewal programme in Stockholm showed that “only” discussing ideas is not enough, there needs to be a handover to budget or implementation processes or sufficient capabilities included in the project to bring these ideas to life.
Overall, this pilot case has shown a light on how and in what context politicians and public officials work together. While it is an essential relationship for most policy processes, there is limited attention played to the factors that enable fruitful collaboration and allow both communities to benefit from one another. In Finland, there is room to explore this collaboration further in general, understanding even better when both communities meet, what their needs are and how they can develop and maintain a basis of trust in their relationships.
Collaboration in the field of anticipatory governance brings an even greater focus on the need for a functional collaborative system as engaging with futures and uncertainty tends to be an uncomfortable space to be (see Box 12.8 below). The cases and insights presented in this paper can be of inspiration to Finland to try new vehicles for enhancing anticipatory work that brings both communities together. None of the concepts presented are one-size-fits-all, but need to be adapted to the concrete contexts that they will be implemented in, responding to the needs to Finnish policy makers.
Collaboration between public officials and politicians in ‘traditional’ versus ‘anticipatory’ policy making
In traditional policy making, public officials and politicians have a shared responsibility for the policies and budgets for which ministers are held accountable during their term of office. Public officials typically assist their minister in developing and implementing policies during their term while also safeguarding professionalism and continuity over time.
In anticipatory innovation policy making, by contrast, public officials and politicians have a shared responsibility for exploring and anticipating the future, for which the cabinet as a whole can be held accountable, and which includes the responsibility to prepare for the future and develop the capacity to anticipate, learn and adapt. Public officials assist the cabinet in developing and implementing future-resilient policies and safeguarding future preparedness (exploratory foresight). While public officials provide a counterbalance to the short-termism of politicians, politicians steer public officials’ work with political visions for the future (strategic foresight).
Source: OECD.
References
[29] Attrey, A., M. Lesher and C. Lomax (2020), “The role of sandboxes in promoting flexibility and innovation in the digital age”, Going Digital Toolkit Note, No. 2, https://goingdigital.oecd.org/data/notes/No2_ToolkitNote_Sandboxes.pdf.
[22] Bloemen, P., M. Van Der Steen and Z. Van Der Wal (2018), “Designing a century ahead: climate change adaptation in the Dutch Delta”, Policy and Society, Vol. 38/1, pp. 58-76, https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1513731.
[15] Boettger, K. and F. Tekin (2022), Strategic foresight: imperative for good policymaking, [Preprint], (02/2022), https://iep-berlin.de/site/assets/files/2085/iep_paper_bp_foresight_final.
[44] Brown, L. and S. Osborne (2013), “Risk and Innovation: Towards a framework for risk governance in public services”, Public Management Review, Vol. 15/2, pp. 186-208.
[9] Bryson, J., B. Crosby and M. Stone (2006), “The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature”, Public Administration Review, Vol. 66/s1, pp. 44-55, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00665.x.
[24] Buijs, J. et al. (2021), Burgerparticipatie in Klimaatadaptatie Eindrapport 24122021.
[26] Bureau Woordvoering Kabinetsformatie (2017), Coalition Agreement ‘Confidence in the Future’, Bureau Woordvoering Kabinetsformatie, https://www.kabinetsformatie2021.nl/documenten/verslagen/2017/10/10/coalition-agreement-confidence-in-the-future.
[39] Centre for Public Impact (2018), The PS21 Office in Singapore, https://cpi-rwr-master.production.parallax.dev/case-study/ps21-office-singapore (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[5] Cook, J. and P. Tõnurist (2020), From Transactional to Strategic: Systems approaches to public service challenges. Alpha Version, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/media/oecdorg/satellitesites/opsi/contents/images/h2020_systemsthinking-fin.pdf.
[16] Dreyer, I. and G. Stang (2013), Foresight in governments – practices and trends around the world.
[30] European Council (2020), Regulatory sandboxes and experimentation clauses as tools for better regulation: Council adopts conclusions, Press Release, https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/11/16/regulatory-sandboxes-and-experimentation-clauses-as-tools-for-better-regulation-council-adopts-conclusions/.
[8] Getha-Taylor, H. et al. (2018), “Collaborating in the Absence of Trust? What Collaborative Governance Theory and Practice Can Learn From the Literatures of Conflict Resolution, Psychology, and Law”, The American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 49/1, pp. 51-64, https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074018773089.
[33] Gluckman, P., A. Bardsley and M. Kaiser (2021), “Brokerage at the science–policy interface: from conceptual framework to practical guidance”, Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Vol. 8/1, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00756-3.
[1] Government of Finland (2020), Strategy for Public Governance Renewal, https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/162573/Public_governance_strategy_2020.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
[46] Government of Scotland (2011), Christie Commission on the future delivery of public services, https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/independent-report/2011/06/commission-future-delivery-public-services/documents/0118638-pdf/0118638-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/0118638.pdf.
[4] Heikka, T. (2018), Dialogin Vuoro, https://www.sitra.fi/app/uploads/2018/03/dialogin-vuoro1.pdf.
[47] Henttonen, E. (2022), Poikkeusajan dialogit, https://www.sitra.fi/julkaisut/poikkeusajan-dialogit/.
[12] Heo, K. and Y. Seo (2021), “Anticipatory governance for newcomers: lessons learned from the UK, the Netherlands, Finland, and Korea”, European Journal of Futures Research, Vol. 9/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-021-00179-y.
[37] Hertting, N. and E. Klijn (2017), “Institutionalization of Local Participatory Governance in France, the Netherlands, and Sweden”, in Local Participatory Governance and Representative Democracy, Routledge, https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315471174-7.
[34] Matthew, D. (2020), Dutch Parliament Aims for ‘Gold Standard, Inside Higher Ed, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/10/02/dutch-parliament-aims-%E2%80%98gold-standard%E2%80%99-science (accessed on 11 March 2022).
[23] Ministerie van Algemene Zaken (2021), Deltafonds Rijksbegroting 2022 - Begroting - Rijksoverheid.nl, Ministerie van Algemene Zaken, https://www.government.nl/documents/publications/2022/01/10/2021-2025-coalition-agreement (accessed on 11 March 2022).
[25] Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat (2019), National Climate Agreement - The Netherlands - Publicatie - Klimaatakkoord, Ministerie van Economische Zaken en Klimaat, https://www.klimaatakkoord.nl/documenten/publicaties/2019/06/28/national-climate-agreement-the-netherlands (accessed on 11 March 2022).
[35] Ministerie van Financiën (2021), Reflecties en lessen - Inzicht in Kwaliteit 2018-2021 - Kamerstuk - Rijksoverheid.nl. Ministerie van Algemene Zaken, https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2021/05/03/reflecties-en-lessen-inzicht-in-kwaliteit-2018-2021 (accessed on 11 March 2022).
[43] OECD (2021), Government at a Glance 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en.
[32] OECD (2020), Improving Governance with Policy Evaluation: Lessons From Country Experiences, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/89b1577d-en.
[48] OECD (2020), “The Covid-19 crisis: A catalyst for government transformation?”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19), OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0c0788-en.
[14] OECD (2019), Strategic Foresight for Better Policies: Building Effective Governance in the Face of Uncertain Futures, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/strategic-foresight/ourwork/Strategic%20Foresight%20for%20Better%20Policies.pdf.
[41] Omidyar Network India (2018), Singapore Smart Nation And Digital Government Open Digital Ecosystem (ODE) Case Study, Boston Consulting Group, https://opendigitalecosystems.net/pdf/02-Singapore-Case-Study_vF.pdf.
[45] OPSI (2016), Etorkizuna Eraikiz (Building the Future), https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/etorkizuna-eraikiz-building-the-future/ (accessed on 5 April 2022).
[40] Prime Minister’s Office Singapore (2018), Formation of The Smart Nation and Digital Government Group in the Prime Minister’s Office, Prime Minister’s Office Singapore, Prime Minister’s Office Singapore, https://www.pmo.gov.sg/Newsroom/formation-smart-nation-and-digital-government-group-prime-ministers-office (accessed on 11 March 2022).
[11] Richter, A. and K. Näswall (2018), “Job insecurity and trust: Uncovering a mechanism linking job insecurity to well-being”, Work & Stress, Vol. 33/1, pp. 22-40, https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2018.1461709.
[13] Roth, S. and A. Husar (2021), Why Foresight Matters for Policy Makers, Development Asia, https://development.asia/explainer/why-foresight-matters-policy-makers (accessed on 11 March 2022).
[7] Rousseau, D. et al. (1998), “Not So Different After All: A Cross-Discipline View Of Trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 23/3, pp. 393-404, https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.926617.
[49] Royal Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development (2019), About the Relationship between Political Leadership and the Civil Service Seven Duties for the Civil Service, https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/8145632385cb477cba018d4a8dfaf6f8/about_the_relationship_between_political_leadership_and_the_civil_service.pdf.
[17] School of International Futures (2021), Features of Effective Systemic Foresight in Governments Globally, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/features-of-effective-systemic-foresight-in-governments-globally (accessed on 20 June 2022).
[31] Signé, L. and S. Almond (2021), “A blueprint for technology governance in the post-pandemic world”, Brookings, 17 February, https://www.brookings.edu/research/a-blueprint-for-technology-governance-in-the-post-pandemic-world/ (accessed on 15 February 2022).
[18] Soeteman-Hernández, L. et al. (2021), “Modernizing innovation governance to meet policy ambitions through trusted environments”, NanoImpact, Vol. 21, p. 100301, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.impact.2021.100301.
[20] Sørensen, E. et al. (2020), “Political boundary spanning: politicians at the interface between collaborative governance and representative democracy”, Policy and Society, Vol. 39/4, pp. 530-569, https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1743526.
[28] Spier, J. (2020), “‘The “Strongest” Climate Ruling Yet’: The Dutch Supreme Court’s Urgenda Judgment”, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 67/2, pp. 319-391, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-020-00172-5.
[36] Statistics Netherlands (2021), Monitor of Well-being & the SDGs 2021, https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/publication/2021/20/monitor-of-well-being-the-sdgs-2021.
[6] Timeout Finland (2022), What’s Timeout about?, https://www.timeoutdialogue.fi/whats-timeout-about/.
[2] Tõnurist, P. (2021), Towards an anticipatory innovation governance model in Finland. Intermediate Report, OECD, Paris, https://oecd-opsi.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Anticipatory-Innovation-Governance-in-Finland.pdf.
[3] Tõnurist, P. and A. Hanson (2020), “Anticipatory innovation governance: Shaping the future through proactive policy making”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 44, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/cce14d80-en.
[27] Traub, J. (2019), “There’s Only One Way for Democracies to Save the Planet”, Foreign Policy, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/21/democracy-has-only-one-way-to-save-the-planet-netherlands/.
[21] Twist, M. van et al. (2013), De deltacommissaris: een kroniek van de instelling van een regeringscommissaris voor de Nederlandse delta, NSOB.
[19] van Meerkerk, I. and J. Edelenbos (2018), Boundary Spanners in Public Management and Governance, Edward Elgar Publishing, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786434173.
[38] Vesnić Alujević, L. and F. Scapolo (2019), Future of Government 2030+: Policy implications and recommendations, European Commission, https://doi.org/10.2760/498535.
[10] Wilkinson, A. (2017), Strategic Foresight Primer, European Commission, European Political Strategy Centre, Publications Office, https://doi.org/10.2872/71492.
[42] World Future Council (2018), Guarding our Future: How to include future generations in policy making, https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/brochure_guarding2018b.pdf.
Notes
← 1. The centricity on cases from the Netherlands came about due to the personal insights of the researcher, Nynke de Witte, who worked as a Dutch public official for over 10 years. During the initial research, the project team identified that granular insights into collaboration mechanisms and functionality between politicians and public officials tend to be sensitive information that is rarely shared widely. Whether the two communities work well together or not can be a revealing insight into any political system. Also, governance literature tends to assess this relationship as part of a larger context, for example regarding stakeholder consultation or citizen involvement. Literature about collaboration between the two communities and their way to collectively work in anticipatory fields is very scarce.
← 2. This research paper is written on a personal title, and the findings do not represent the views of the Dutch government.
← 3. See the box below for further information about the Timeout methodology.
← 4. See further (Henttonen, 2022[47])
← 5. The dialogues take place in a confidential setting under Chatham House rules. This paper will refer to the ideas and suggestions discussed in a generalised way to ensure that individual opinions remain anonymous.
← 6. The following opinions and observations were discussed in the dialogue on the development of the Government’s anticipatory governance and policy-making in October 2021 and in the Public service leadership dialogue in February 2022.
← 7. The described gaps were put together based on a range of conversations with the Finnish project secretariat and the insights produced by the dialogues that were organised by Finland. This overview intends to give a better understanding of the context in Finland to help identify suitable ideas and recommendations. It does not aim to be an exhaustive assessment of the situation.
← 8. The concepts and suggestions in this section were mainly developed during the public service leadership dialogue in February 2022, some ideas also stem from conversations between the OECD and the Finnish project secretariat or were part of a broader exchange with counterparts in Ireland, Gipuzkoa and Scotland during the peer-learning sessions.
← 9. Regarding Norway see for instance (Royal Norwegian Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development, 2019[49]).
← 10. Find an overview of Finland’s current approach to collaboration between politicians and public officials in Box 12.3.
← 11. This new governance culture should increase transparency (by for instance publishing weekly ministerial council agenda’s), give parliament a bigger role in decision-making (by for instance abolishing weekly meetings between coalition party leaders and by drafting more ‘open’ coalition agreements) and create safeguards to make the civil service less ‘political sensitive’.
← 12. Internationally the instrument is often called ‘Spending Reviews’. Spending reviews are used in several OECD countries but means quite different things in different country contexts. For this research the literal translation from Dutch (interdepartementaal beleidsonderzoek) is used.
← 13. Find further details about the difference between ‘Interdepartmental policy research’ and ‘comprehensive reconsiderations’ in the Dutch system in Box 12.5 below.
← 14. This case is largely based on the personal experiences of the researcher, who was co-leading this Government Programme between 2019 and 2021.
← 15. Even though the overall outcomes of what governments were able to accomplish are remarkable, it is important to note that during the COVID-19 pandemic, institutional accountability by parliaments has at times been bypassed (OECD, 2020[48]).