8. Summary findings and comparison of the pilot case studies

Abstract

This chapter introduces the summary findings of the case studies in a comparative perspective. Specific learnings from each of the pilot case study for the anticipatory innovation governance model are outlined together with the tailored approaches and recommendations for each of the policy fields. Throughout the pilot case studies re-occurring topics connected to working across silos, co-ordination, collaboration and the systematic use of anticipatory innovation approaches emerged.

    

All the selected cases had a strong commonly understood need for future-consciousness and anticipatory approaches. Case pilot case studies had some elements of anticipatory action already in place be it through forums that looked through the future or medium- or long-term plans. Below the cases are summarised outlining the key challenges and developments of the work. In following chapters (3-6) the pilot case studies are covered in detail and can be read separately from the rest of the report.

Continuous learning

The world of work is continuously transformed by the complex interaction of trends such as automation, climate change and an aging population. The changes they precipitate affect the demand for skills: jobs and tasks in one sector may disappear while others emerge which require new combinations of competencies. According to OECD estimates, 46% of jobs may experience significant change or be automated in the coming 10 to 20 years (Nedelkoska and Quintini, 2018[1]). In addition, these trends alter demands for the provision of learning: new forms of self-employment such as ‘gig-work’ may create opportunities for individuals to learn at times that suit them, but they also challenge expectations about employers’ role in skill development.

Against this backdrop, Finland has recognised the need for a reform of continuous learning to create a system that is able to anticipate and respond to changes in the demand for skills and learning across the labour market and broader society. The Continuous Learning Reform project was initiated on 25 September 2019, and is due for completion on 31 March 2023. This pilot case engaged representatives from the Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Social Welfare and Health, and the Service Centre for Continuous Learning and Employment to explore together how anticipatory innovation governance could facilitate the development and implementation of the Continuous Learning Reform. This group was known as the Continuous Learning AIG Taskforce.

In order to identify gaps and challenges, the OECD conducted online group interviews with 21 representatives from labour market organisations, educational institutions, central government and regional government in Finland. This research was complemented by a review of government papers and reports, academic texts and grey literature relating to continuous learning in Finland and around the world. Working with the Taskforce, the OECD identified the following challenges for the development of an anticipatory continuous learning system in Finland.

The work identified three types of challenges: 1) co-ordination challenges; 2) anticipatory information challenges; and 3) issues concerning funding of continuous learning. These can be summarised as follows:

Co-ordination challenges

• The system for continuous learning is complex and effective implementation of the reform is reliant on the consistent action of autonomous stakeholders across Finland

• Co-ordination of the reform requires a consistent shift in mind-set and practices among these stakeholders

• Governance of the system must co-ordinate stakeholders horizontally and vertically

Anticipatory information challenges

• Anticipatory information is regularly produced but fragmented and not used in a systematic fashion to inform policy or curriculum planning

• Information related to continuous learning is complex and uncertain. There is a need for a collective approach for interpreting anticipatory information and the impact of trends and challenges on the labour market and continuous learning system

• Anticipatory information must better serve the needs of stakeholders

Issues concerning funding of continuous learning

• There is a lack of clarity around funding responsibilities for continuous learning

• Current funding model for adult learning (free or low-cost) provides few levers to promote training for anticipated in-demand skills

• The benefits of continuous learning are realised in the long-term and distributed among a wide range of actors – this means ‘urgent’ concerns often take precedence

Given the complex and context-specific challenges relating to finding, it was decided with the Taskforce to focus on the first two challenge areas in this pilot. Recommendations pertaining to those were developed through the consideration of the anticipatory innovation governance model (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[2]) and analysis of good practice in international cases.

The OECD proposed a ‘bipedal’ governance model in which one ‘leg’ engages key government and non-government stakeholders in co-ordination for decision-making, while another ‘leg’ ensures that relevant anticipatory information is identified and interpreted through collaborative processes. Four key principles were proposed as foundational for governance through the model.

• The continuous learning system will function most effectively if the autonomy and knowledge of stakeholders is respected and leveraged

• Governance structures should establish meaningful and fair co-operation with relevant ministerial and non-government stakeholders throughout the policy process

• A shared understanding of information about jobs and skills is a core pillar of co-ordination for continuous learning

• The application of anticipatory approaches should aim to do more than facilitate timely matching of skills to jobs

For the overall anticipatory innovation governance model (see Figure 8.1 below), the pilot case study showed that collective sense-making of anticipatory information is vital to enable co-ordinated action among stakeholders trying to address complex phenomena. Leveraging the knowledge of networks and partnerships can help to build a better understanding of the diverse future challenges associated with complex phenomena such as the changing demand for skills. Such participation also builds the legitimacy of a shared information resource, which can be relied upon by different stakeholders as a foundation for shared decision-making. Anticipatory information must be packaged in ways that help stakeholders to address their jobs to be done. Level of integration of anticipatory data sources (data and analytics) and the collaborative networks it depends on is crucial for action in complex policy domains. Regular use of anticipatory approaches should allow stakeholders to align on objectives, and stress-test and readjust strategies Regular collaboration and engagement of high-level stakeholders in complex issues is essential for their prioritisation, however, holding the attention of senior decision makers is difficult with competing day-to-day issues. There must be functions in government that call for senior decision makers to continuously engage with complex issues and anticipatory information. The summary findings from the pilot case study are presented in Table 8.1 below.

Figure 8.1. Gaps in anticipatory innovation governance mechanisms: Case of continuous learning

Source: OECD.

Table 8.1. Summary of the continuous learning pilot case study
Existing anticipatory practices (continuous/one-time)	Gaps and challenges in the system	Reform responses	Example international cases	Recommendations for the case	Learnings for the AIG model
Components of the system are advanced (e.g. existing data sources), but overall anticipatory capacity is fragmented and projections are not aligned Knowledge is based on one-time studies rather than continuous and systematic anticipatory evaluation Anticipatory processes for projecting skills demands exist (e.g. in regional committees), but are not used to the full extent in policy or curriculum planning	Co-ordinated reform: Complex, decentralised system reliant on autonomous providers Shift to continuous learning requires a shift in mind-set and practices from education providers Need for a robust model for horizontal and vertical governance of the system Sub-optimal use of anticipatory information: Fragmented information sources Information is complex and uncertain. Need for a collective approach in interpreting anticipatory information and the impact of trends and challenges on the labour market and continuous learning system. Need for anticipatory information to better serve the needs of stakeholders Lack of sustainable funding: Lack of clarity around funding responsibilities for continuous learning Current funding model for adult learning (free or low-cost) provides few levers to promote training for anticipated in-demand skills Benefits of continuous learning realised in the long-term and distributed among a wide range of actors – this means ‘urgent’ concerns often take precedence	The Continuous Learning Reform 2019-2023: Key creation of a Service Centre for Continuous Education and Employment (Service Centre)  Enhancing co-operation between employers and education providers  Anticipatory information: New model for medium term skills anticipation  New reporting system to make anticipatory information more accessible	High-level strategic governance through collaboration with non-governmental stakeholders in NOR and DE (Skills policy councils) Working level co-ordination between ministries and with some non-governmental stakeholders in NL Governance of (anticipatory) information about skills and jobs in NOR & EST (Labour Market Information Committees)	Bipedal governance model with clear roles (visioning versus action plan): Skills Policy Council Inter-departmental co-ordination group Working groups for specific issues Future Skills & Labour Market Information Committee Collective intelligence Integrated information resources Information products designed for the needs different stakeholders in the system Key principles for anticipatory governance of continuous learning: The continuous learning system will function most effectively if the autonomy and knowledge of stakeholders is respected and leveraged Governance structures should establish meaningful and fair co-operation with relevant ministerial and non-government stakeholders throughout the policy process A shared understanding of anticipatory information about jobs and skills is a core pillar of co-ordination for continuous learning The application of anticipatory approaches should aim to do more than facilitate timely matching of skills to jobs, for example promoting a shared vision and stress-testing strategies Anticipatory Continuous Learning Governance: High-level strategic governance with non-governmental stakeholders ensures that policy decisions are perceived as legitimate Working-level co-ordination across ministries enables co-ordinated responses to future and present changes in the system and its context Shared governance with non-governmental stakeholders of anticipatory labour market information ensures that it is consistently understood, legitimate and addresses the needs of stakeholders throughout the system	Learnings for the AIG model: Collective sense-making of anticipatory information is vital to enable co-ordinated action among stakeholders trying to address complex phenomena Leveraging the knowledge of networks and partnerships can help to build a better understanding of the diverse future challenges associated with complex phenomena such as the changing demand for skills. Such participation also builds the legitimacy of a shared information resource, which can be relied upon by different stakeholders as a foundation for shared decision-making. Anticipatory information must be packaged in ways that help stakeholders to address their jobs to be done. Level of integration of anticipatory data sources (data and analytics) and the collaborative networks it depends on is crucial for action in complex policy domains. Regular use of anticipatory approaches allows stakeholders to align on objectives, and stress-test and readjust strategies. Regular collaboration and engagement of high-level stakeholders in complex issues is essential for their prioritisation, however, holding the attention of senior decision makers is difficult with competing day-to-day issues. There have to be functions in government that call for senior decision makers to continuously engage with complex issues and anticipatory information.
Source: OECD based on the analysis presented in Part III, Chapter 3.

Carbon neutrality

Finland aims to be carbon neutral by 2035 and eventually become the world’s first fossil-fuel free welfare society. Carbon neutrality means that emissions and the sinks that sequester carbon are in balance or that greenhouse gas (GHG) removals are as high as the emissions produced by humans. Finland is also party to the Paris Agreement, which sets per country GHG emission mitigation targets, or nationally determined contributions.

Achieving this balance is not easy. Carbon neutrality is characterised as having numerous interconnected factors, incomplete and contradictory information, and no clear idea of what an ideal solution would be if it existed. The field is subject to evolutions and transformations in the future involving society, technology, environment, and the economy. It is therefore increasingly necessary for a network of domains to address this wicked problem in concert. Finland has demonstrated a commitment to a networked approach through the creation and renewal of its Climate Change Act, and the creation of the Climate Policy Roundtable, an advisory body set up in 2020 and chaired by the Prime Minister. These initiatives engage a wide range of stakeholders to develop plans and strategies to attain carbon neutrality.

However, no governance model—even with the most successful of reforms—can deliver support to transition to carbon neutrality unless it has the ability to constantly perceive, understand, and act upon the changes of the future as they emerge. For this reason, the Government of Finland sought to work with the OECD to explore how anticipatory innovation governance approaches could be applied to support the country’s transition to carbon neutrality. The OECD worked with the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, the Prime Minister’s Office, and the Ministry of Finance, which co-chairs an international Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action.

Climate change policy plans in Finland have been produced for the medium-term and long-term by the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, respectively. The National Climate Change Adaptation Plan 2022 was published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry in 2014-15 and was reviewed in 2020. Although the plans are comprehensive and detailed, the OECD found that they lack a systemic engagement with uncertainty, for instance relating to energy imports, regulations, and the effectiveness and timing of proposed emissions reduction measures.

The pilot case identified additional challenges that inhibit consistent anticipatory action to achieve carbon neutrality:

• Traditional approaches to forecasting, planning, and evidence do not engage with uncertainty in policy making and budgeting.

• Responsibilities for achieving carbon neutrality are divided between a wide set of actors both on the national and subnational levels, making co-ordinated action challenging.

• Ambitious carbon measures are cross-cutting and require sense-making across different government levels that is currently not undertaken.

In order to for Finland to develop and act on anticipatory strategies for carbon neutrality, the OECD considers that the country should prioritise the following actions:

• Creating responsibility and urgency to act: setting clear accountability, roles, functional mandates, and resources.

• Collaboration and coherence: overcoming silos between ministries, facilitating expert and political consensus around policy measures and information gaps, and creating whole-of-government sense-making and decision forums.

• Capacity development: building expertise, capabilities and tools at an individual and institutional level.

• Integration of green fiscal practices into the mainstream: alternatives exploration, dynamic monitoring and evaluation, alignment of decision-making cycles (i.e. budget, strategy, planning).

• Holistic medium-term strategic planning: systems approach, engagement with uncertainty, bridging short-term cycles and long-term ambitions.

The pilot case study highlighted for the overall anticipatory innovation governance model (see Figure 8.2) the importance to pay attention to cognitive biases and vested interests in implementing new tools and methods need to be taken into account as much as the capacity to use the latter. The case showed that organisational cultures and structures are not supportive in hiring or building up anticipatory capacities and alternatives exploration is often not directly aligned with their immediate priorities or expert biases. It is difficult to create demand for new approaches that are uncertain in nature and do not fall into anyone’s specific field of responsibility. Creating demand for anticipation should be a core feature of the anticipatory innovation governance system. It is clear that creating responsibility to act on complex, systemic challenges through functional mandates does not happen a priori. There must be a follow up function that evaluates if the work is actually undertaken and urgency is created by establishing dynamic evaluation and accountability for inaction. Co-ordinating across government challenges requires an actor who has the legitimacy to convene and incentivise both politicians and civil servants to work transversally across existing silos. Similar to the continuous learning case, there is a broader lack of capacity to support signal detection on the policy ecosystem level and the analysis of that information on a continuous basis. The summary findings from the pilot case study are presented in Table 8.2 below.

Figure 8.2. Gaps in anticipatory innovation governance mechanisms: Case of carbon neutrality and uncertain evidence

Source: OECD.

Table 8.2. Summary of the carbon neutrality case
Existing anticipatory practices (continuous/one-time)	Gaps and challenges in the system	Reform responses	Example international cases	Recommendations for the case	Learnings for the AIG model
Very ambitious climate target set at a high political level for 2035, but not yet entirely on track to achieve it Annual Climate Change Report drawn up by the MoE and presented to the Parliament Existence of long-term climate change policy and climate change adaption plans Legitimacy from various expert bodies including the Finnish Climate Change Panel and the Coalition of Finance Ministers for Climate Action	Traditional forecasting, planning, and evidence discounts uncertainty in policy making and budgeting particularly Responsibilities divided between a wide set of actors both on the national and subnational levels Ambitious carbon measures are cross-cutting and require legitimacy to act, sense-making across different government levels that currently are not undertaken The Finland’s decarbonisation plans are quite detailed, but they lack a systematic engagement with uncertainty. Scientific knowledge is rapidly changing and policy needs to keep pace	In 2015 the first Climate Change Act adopted with following medium-term and long-term strategies and national adaption plans Finland's Climate Policy Roundtable, an advisory body set up in 2020	Physical and transition risks in modelling practices in Switzerland, the EU, US, UK, NZ, AUS region of New South Wales Organisational capacity for climate risk modelling: UK Treasury, NZ, DK, the NL Climate-related uncertainty in fiscal policy: EU, NZ Tracking climate related expenditure: EU Future-oriented decision making: the NL	Creating responsibility and urgency to act: setting clear accountability, roles, functional mandates, and resources Collaboration and coherence: Overcoming silos between ministries, expert and political coherence around policy measures and information gaps, and whole-of-government sense-making and decision forums Capacity: building expertise, capabilities and tools at an individual and institutional level Integration of green fiscal practices into the mainstream: alternatives exploration, dynamic monitoring and evaluation, alignment of decision-making cycles (budget, strategy, planning) Holistic medium-term strategic planning: systems approach, engagement with uncertainty, bridging short term cycles and long-term ambitions	Cognitive biases in implementing new tools and methods need to be taken into account as much as the capacity to use the latter There is a need to experience new tools and methods, provide peer examples and socialisation before adoption Organisational cultures are not supportive in hiring or building up anticipatory capacities that is not directly aligned with their immediate priorities Established structures and processes are difficult to unpack and resistant to experimentation due to constant time pressures and expert biases Very difficult to create demand for new approaches that are uncertain in nature and do not fall into anyone’s specific field of responsibility. Creating demand for anticipation should be a core feature of the AIG system Creating responsibility to act on complex, systemic challenges through functional mandates does not happen a priori. There has to be a follow up function that evaluates if the work is actually undertaken and urgency is created by establishing accountability for inaction Co-ordinating across government challenges requires an actor who as the legitimacy to convene. There has to be measures in place to deal with politically-motivated interests in getting credit for transversal work and ways to incentivise both civil servants and politicians to go beyond the existing silos. There is a broader lack of capacity to support signal detection on the policy ecosystem level and the analysis of that information on a continuous basis
Source: OECD based on the analysis presented in Part III, Chapter 4.

Child well-being

Finland published its first National Child Strategy in February 2021. The aim of the Strategy is to create a consistent foundation and better co-operation for all policies and practices concerning children in Finland, embed consideration for children's rights in the mainstream, and better secure the status of vulnerable children. The task is to formulate a vision for a child and family-friendly Finland that spans government terms and crosses administrative boundaries. The implementation of the Strategy is to be undertaken alongside changes occurring as part of Finland’s social and welfare (SOTE) reform, which completely re-envisages how child well-being services are governed and organised. Co-ordination for child well-being is to shift from national-local to a three-level approach, namely national-county-local.

Anticipatory innovation governance has particular relevance to the challenges associated with developing and implementing policy in this context. Its approaches enable governments to prepare for and create alignment around:

• The changing nature of childhood, whereby the world in which children grow up tomorrow is different from the world in which previous generations grew up

• Changing policy and measurement considerations for childhood, with new concepts emerging and an eternally incomplete evidence base

• The sense of uncertainty and complexity inherent in policies affecting people early in their lives, whereby the impacts could be unpredictable, profound, and long-lasting for the future of society, economy, and the environment

The pilot case study on child well-being was conducted by OECD experts in close collaboration with a task force from Finland composed of officials from several ministries, in regular contact with interested parties from newly formed welfare service counties. Through analysis of international cases as well as desk research and consultation with stakeholders on the current characteristics of the Finnish system, a number of areas were identified as gaps in the ability to develop and carry out anticipatory innovation in the governance of child well-being. These included:

Lack of systemic ways of working

• Different actors within the system (welfare counties, municipalities, service providers, etc.) pursue objectives without adequate co-ordination and coherence.

• There is no universally agreed upon concept of the child or definition of child well-being.

Implementation challenges

• The implementation process is overly legalistic and focused on rights to the exclusion of well-being.

• Well-being counties have difficulty transposing the provisions of the National Child Strategy into the planning and day-to-day running of services at the local level.

Silos, fragmented knowledge and “institutional amnesia”

• Siloed nature of Finnish child well-being governance and service provision inhibits co-ordinated action.

• Incoming administrations tend to develop policies and programmes with little reference to the initiatives or achievements of prior administrations.

Insufficient connection with actors on the ground and inability to detect where problems are coming from now and in the future:

• It is not clear how children will be able to participate in dialogue to shape the proposed models for welfare and education systems.

• It is not clear how sources of futures knowledge are used in child-oriented policy making and service delivery.

The pilot case study on child well-being showed that, by addressing some of the missing mechanisms of anticipatory innovation governance (see Figure 8.3), it is possible for Finland address existing challenges while preparing to better meet the needs to future generations. The OECD proposes focusing on the mechanisms of public interest and participation, sense-making, networks and partnerships and tools and methods. These enable the identification of the following options for action.

• Child-wellbeing missions: These would consist of unifying, ambitious, and measurable objective that engage actors at multiple levels, most notably the welfare counties, to define a common cause and commit to mutually reinforcing activities to further child well-being in Finland.

• Ecosystem building: An inventory of all stakeholders and their contribution to child well-being could be used to review and develop the interactions between different elements of the system and identify points for strengthening collaboration or initiating it where it does not yet exist. It would also help actors to navigate the complex space of child well-being in Finland in order to facilitate ad hoc collaborations, exchange information, and prototype and test new initiatives.

• Signal exchanges: Regular exchange sessions between actors that do not usually share information can promote the sharing of futures knowledge.

Figure 8.3. Gaps in anticipatory innovation governance mechanisms: Child well-being

Source: OECD.

For the overall model the pilot case highlighted that anticipatory processes should be underscored by collective sense-making and identification of specific tasks and areas of action that are more manageable (e.g. introducing annual cross-sectoral priorities (missions) to be tackled to ensure responsiveness to emerging themes). It is necessary to commit to transparency in and dynamic upgrading of indicator development and the monitoring practice. Co-ordination activities need to be separately resourced as ecosystem management is badly organised, which means that continuous and collective intelligence is missing on emerging issues. Signal detection requires a more immediate connection to implementation to achieve impact. The summary findings from the pilot case study are presented in Table 8.3 below.

Table 8.3. Summary of the child well-being case
Existing anticipatory practices (continuous/one-time)	Gaps and challenges in the system	Reform responses	Example international cases	Recommendations for the case	Learnings for the AIG model
While anticipatory and future-oriented elements are present, few concrete strategic foresight exercises have been conducted (incl. visioning, horizon scanning for issues etc.) Anticipatory elements of the National Child Strategy	Implementation difficulties, in particular of the National Child Strategy due to a legalistic focus and lack of well-being analysis Lack explicit processes such as scanning, trends analysis, or scenario-building that would be characteristic of a more deliberately anticipatory approach The prioritisation of the issue of child well-being has coincided the roll-out of the SOTE reform building up the regional level of government in Finland. Blind spots in the currently fragmented system. The effect of silos, fragmented budgeting and “institutional amnesia” Lack of concerted ways of working, or unified core concept of the child Lack of child-centric view across levels of impact of policies and needs Lack of connection between child policy goals and funding measures across government levels	The Finnish National Child Strategy adopted in 2020 SOTE reform with added elements (Innokylä, Perhekeskus and Ohjaamo) and the responsibility to organise health, social and rescue services in 21 self-governing “well-being service counties” Consideration of the Child-oriented budgeting pilot, a forthcoming initiative for the 2022 budget	Use of strategic foresight studies in policy making connected to child well-being: the NL and UK Whole of government approaches to well-being: Scotland, Ireland Multi-level co-ordination: AUS, NOR	Child well-being missions Build more targeted missions for child well-being for government terms Ecosystem building Study of current actors and stakeholders as well as their relationships Identification of new processes, meetings, and interactions Opportunities for collaboration between those who do not normally interact Signal exchanges Developing organisational habits in anticipatory practice Connecting public consultation with service-delivery partners and policy makers	Actors become entrenched in their functional roles and though the anticipatory process it should be possible to expand or create new roles for actors in the system (e.g. expanding the responsibilities of the ombudsman to include foresight activities together with ITLA and their funded future-oriented research and experimentation) Anticipatory processes should be underlined by collective sense making and identification of specific tasks and areas of action that are more manageable (e.g. introducing annual cross-sectoral priorities (missions) to be tackled to ensure responsiveness to emerging themes) There is a need to assure that funding is aligned with policy goals, hence, broader stress-testing of policies and accountability is required Transparency in and dynamic upgrading of indicator development and the monitoring practice Co-ordination activities need to be separately resourced as ecosystem management is badly organised, which, means that continuous and collective intelligence is missing on emerging issues Need tools, methods and capacity to build ecosystems in ways that break silos and discourage competition between ministries, agencies, etc. Signal reading requires more immediate connection to implementation and its partners
Source: OECD based on the analysis presented in Part III, Chapter 5.

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[3]). 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[4]). An important question is how different actors within the Finnish government can work together on anticipatory policy making and what forms of collaboration between public officials and politicians could be instrumental.

This pilot case was steered by a taskforce of members of the overall project secretariat in Finland from the Ministry of Finance and the Prime Minister’s Office. The purpose of the pilot case was 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

As part of the project, several public-sector leadership dialogues (“AIG dialogues”) were held using the Timeout1 method to discuss the development of anticipatory innovation governance and policy making between members of parliament, key party actors and senior officials of the Ministries. They addressed various governance issues including how the political and administrative branch can best work together when it comes to futures work and anticipation.

Participants in the dialogues identified a range of challenges relating to collaboration between politicians and civil servants around issues characterised by uncertainty (see Figure 8.4). These include:

• Diminishing trust between civil servants and politicians as part of declining overall trust between Finland’s elites

• Fuelled by real-time media reporting, politicians face public scrutiny characterised by a lack of acceptance of uncertainty and errors. This can lead to short-termism on the political side. Civil servants tend to me more shielded from public opinion, and can take a longer-term view on issues

• Lack of ‘future seeking moments’ characterised as opportunities for civil servants and politicians to exchange ideas, discuss complex issues, explore alternatives and develop mutual understanding

• Lack of clear roles and understanding of the management system between politicians and senior civil servants when dealing with long-term policy challenges

• Differences in communication between parties in municipalities and agencies, while interaction is more closed on the ministerial level

• Lack of transition structures to build trust between politicians and public officials with an incoming government, lack of opportunities for handover and in-depth analysis

Figure 8.4. Gaps in anticipatory innovation governance mechanisms: collaboration between politicians and public officials

Source: OECD.

A literature review was undertaken to identify cases which incorporated mechanisms of anticipatory innovation governance to provide illustrations of how collaboration between politicians and public officials in future-related fields can look like in practice. 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. This work informed the following recommendations:

Trust between politicians and civil servants is an essential resource and needs to be a constant concern

• Opportunities to foster dialogue, such as the Timeout method, can help to build trust through a common understanding of the issues at hand

• An objective facilitator for dialogues that enjoys trust from both sides can support the development of trust

Transition processes for government terms should be leveraged to build effective relationships between civil servants and politicians

• There should be an institutionalised anticipatory dialogue proceeding the government elections between the public administration and politicians

• Finland should establish a dedicated process for politicians and public officials to get to know each other, their respective expertise & priorities at the beginning of a new term

Establish new ‘future-seeking moments’

• Facilitate dialogues to create future seeking moments on complex issues that benefit from human centricity and a shared commitment by all stakeholders

• Embedding anticipation into existing future seeking moments, such as the development of the Government Programme

The pilot case study showed that while crises can create windows of opportunity for different stakeholders to come together on some policy issues, but in general limit opportunities for informal exchange and relationship-building that is crucial to establish trust. The increasing speed of policy decisions and external changes direct attention away from the development of anticipatory capacity. Media reporting on a real-time basis can create additional tension between politicians and civil servants. To overcome these issues, public officials need to take a role in producing and presenting futures knowledge and insights in a format that is ready for decision-making while politicians need an understanding of the context and limitations of the analysis. Politicians and public officials need dedicated fora to collectively engage in sense-making of futures knowledge, develop a common understanding of the overarching objectives and work towards concrete actions. The design of anticipatory processes should include accountability to participants. There is a need to make sure that all inputs (such as the advice of civil servants) are seriously considered. The summary findings from the pilot case study are presented in Table 8.4 below.

Table 8.4. Summary of collaboration between politicians and public officials
Existing anticipatory practices (continuous/one-time)	Gaps and challenges in the system	Reform responses	Example international cases	Recommendations for the case	Learnings for the AIG model
Independence of civil servants is seen critical to provide counterbalance to short-term policy development Senior leadership training programs	Diminishing trust between civil servants and politicians Politicians face public expectations, lack of acceptance of uncertainty and errors, while civil servants tend to be more shielded. This leads to short-termism on the political side Role of real-time media speeding up policy-making processes and deprioritising complex, long-term policy issues Conflict between openness and discussing complex and difficult issues and future (existential) risks Lack of opportunities for civil servants and politicians to exchange ideas and develop mutual understanding Lack of clear roles and understanding of the management system between politicians and senior civil servants during exchange of government and dealing with long-term policy challenges Few future seeking moments (government formation) and immense time pressure Lack of channels to influence major issues Differences in communication between parties in municipalities and agencies, while interaction is more closed on the ministerial level Time pressure during government change leaving little opportunity for handover and in-depth analysis (Government Programme short and open for misinterpretation). Need for a transition period and structures to ensure that learning does not start from zero (continuity)	Introduction of the Timeout dialogues	Collectively preparing for an uncertain future; interdepartmental futures model: the NL The UK Institutionalised collaboration: Singapore Smooth handover: Stockholm SWE Different modes for collaboration: Ireland Room for dialogue: Gipuzkoa Human centricity: Scotland	Instituting trust as an essential resource between politicians and civil servants Platforms to foster dialogue Need for an objective facilitator for dialogues (e.g. SITRA) that enjoys trust from both sides Transition structures for government terms: There should be an institutionalised anticipatory dialogue proceeding the government elections between PA and politicians Finland should establish a dedicated process for politicians and public officials to get to know each other, their respective expertise & priorities at the beginning of a new term Future seeking moments: The AIG dialogues can help foster collaboration in fields that are cross-cutting, in VUCA areas or without a dedicated process Topical framing dialogues to create future seeking moments and reverse engineer how to reach outcomes defined in the Government Programme Embedding anticipation into existing future seeking moments i.e. Government Programme: dialogues in preparation of the Government Programme aligning visions with available resources Other areas to consider joint working parties on existential risk Role of the Futures Committee in the parliament to bring together the civil servants and politicians	Crisis mode creates windows of opportunity for some policy issues, but in general means less opportunities for informal exchange and relationship-building that is crucial to establish trust Increasing speed of policy decisions and external change and shocks have taken too much attention to build anticipatory capacity. Both sides are consumed by emerging issues and pressures, very focused on the day-to-day, lacking a long-term perspective. Media reporting on a real-time ad hoc basis can create tension between both communities, reinforced by social media bubbles and echo chambers Public officials need to take a role in producing and presenting futures knowledge and insights Politicians and public officials need to collectively engage in sense-making of that knowledge and work towards concrete actions When designing anticipatory processes, accountability should also play a role: there is a need to make sure that inputs (e.g. the advice of civil servants) actually matter and are taken into account
Source: OECD based on the analysis presented in Part III, Chapter 12.

References

[3] 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.

[1] Nedelkoska, L. and G. Quintini (2018), “Automation, skills use and training”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 202, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/2e2f4eea-en.

[4] 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.

[2] 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.

Note

← 1. The Finnish Innovation Fund Sitra together with other organisations 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.