The traps and pitfalls of anticipatory governance: Comparative cases of South Korea and the United Kingdom

Kyungmoo Heo, Jonathan M Joseph*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

Abstract

This article examines anticipatory governance (AG) in South Korea and the UK, revealing contrasting approaches, shaped by unique historical, political, and social contexts. It explores the levels of trust, consensus, and empowerment and the dynamics of government, society, and citizens in both countries. First, Korea demonstrates proactive, future-oriented and anticipatory policymaking through strong government leadership, readiness for adaption, and the participation of and wellnurtured futures literacy of citizens. This is rooted in a tradition of development and the government’s consciousness of public reaction, trust and legitimacy. Second, while the UK embraces an AG approach such as horizon scanning and foresight, these efforts are hindered by short-term resilience thinking, an absence of education and awareness of the public, and fragmented implementation. In the UK’s AG, resilience becomes an excuse for incapacity in finding solutions to complex problems while shifting responsibility of a government to the public without adequate capacity-building. Instead of longer-term planning, AG is used to justify governance from a distance, the role of the market and the responsibilisation of individuals. Moreover, resilience becomes an excuse for incapacity to find solutions to complex problems while shifting responsibility from the government to the public without adequate capacity-building. From this perspective, the Korean approach would be criticised as rooted in an overly-modernist and state-interventionist strategy that still sees the government as the main actor in times of crisis. The article concludes with the traps and pitfalls of AG, constrained by relation-based dynamics, neoliberal ideologies, and a focus on resilience over longterm planning.
Original languageEnglish
Article number103707
Number of pages15
JournalFutures
Volume174
Early online date30 Sept 2025
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2025

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2025 The Authors

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The traps and pitfalls of anticipatory governance: Comparative cases of South Korea and the United Kingdom'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this