Table 1 Systemic barriers to foresight... | Emerald Publishing

Table 1

Systemic barriers to foresight integration in public management

Theme	Mechanisms (causal drivers)	Manifestations in practice	Implications for anticipatory public management
Fragmented approach and ad hoc practice	Absence of standardised approaches Lack of institutionalised routines Dependence on individual champions Crisis-driven imperatives Structural impediments and cultural resistance	Foresight units isolated from decision-making Incompatible techniques across departments One-off initiatives rather than continuous processes Reactive deployment arriving too late Limited integration reducing effectiveness	Undermines foresight as systematic policy input Reduces institutional learning Perpetuates cycles of underinvestment Reinforces perceptions of marginal value Self-reinforcing marginalisation
Capability and methodological gaps	Insufficient methodological expertise Resource constraints Lack of systematic learning mechanisms Inadequate evaluation processes Absence of cumulative knowledge building	Inability to conduct rigorous multi-dimensional analysis Limited capacity for STEEPED framework implementation Limited methodological validation Continued ad hoc practices Failure to establish validated best practices	Exceeds organisational capacity Prevents development of evidence-based practices Perpetuates methodological uncertainty Limits ability to demonstrate consistent value Impedes professional development in the field
Departmental silos and cross-boundary coordination failures	Departmental-based bureaucratic organisation Organisational inertia Tension between integrative requirements and hierarchical structures Limited network governance capabilities	Projects confined within departments Inability to provide holistic governance view Impeded crisis response capabilities Gap between rhetorical commitments and actual implementation	Prevents holistic analysis of complex issues Limits polycrisis management capacity Contradicts integrative approach foresight demands Reduces effectiveness of whole-of-government approaches
Political and budgetary short-termism	Electoral cycles and political transitions Annual budget appropriations focus Electoral accountability pressures Hyper-accountable environment Preference for visible, short-term outcomes	Frequent reorganisation disrupting continuity Priority shifts with new administrations Simplified analyses due to time constraints Underinvestment in long-term capabilities Focus on immediate legacy projects	Erodes institutional memory Prevents sustained capability development Inhibits innovation and experimentation Creates systematic bias against anticipatory investments Misalignment between foresight benefits and political incentives
Measurement and evaluation challenges	Difficulty demonstrating value through conventional metrics Reliance on subjective evaluation criteria Absence of systematic feedback loops Lack of post-exercise assessments	Programmes stuck at basic technocratic maturity level Reports disconnected from policymaking Minimal stakeholder engagement Budget cuts due to unproven value Ad hoc continuation without improvement	Confines programmes to rudimentary levels Creates vicious cycle of marginalisation Prevents evolution toward sophistication Undermines resource allocation Limits methodological refinement and evidence-based practices
Legitimacy and credibility deficits (evidential-standing deficit)	Lack of scientific credibility compared to other fields Epistemological tensions (speculation vs facts) Contested theoretical foundations Practitioner overstatement of influence Limited empirical evidence base	Easy dismissal as mere speculation Vulnerability when challenging status quo Conflation of foresight with strategic decision-making Damaged reputation with decision-makers Struggles with transformative change topics	Reduces influence on policy processes Particularly problematic for disruptive insights Self-defeating credibility erosion Reinforces marginalised position Diminishes potential for genuine influence

Theme	Mechanisms (causal drivers)	Manifestations in practice	Implications for anticipatory public management
Fragmented approach and ad hoc practice	Absence of standardised approaches Lack of institutionalised routines Dependence on individual champions Crisis-driven imperatives Structural impediments and cultural resistance	Foresight units isolated from decision-making Incompatible techniques across departments One-off initiatives rather than continuous processes Reactive deployment arriving too late Limited integration reducing effectiveness	Undermines foresight as systematic policy input Reduces institutional learning Perpetuates cycles of underinvestment Reinforces perceptions of marginal value Self-reinforcing marginalisation
Capability and methodological gaps	Insufficient methodological expertise Resource constraints Lack of systematic learning mechanisms Inadequate evaluation processes Absence of cumulative knowledge building	Inability to conduct rigorous multi-dimensional analysis Limited capacity for STEEPED framework implementation Limited methodological validation Continued ad hoc practices Failure to establish validated best practices	Exceeds organisational capacity Prevents development of evidence-based practices Perpetuates methodological uncertainty Limits ability to demonstrate consistent value Impedes professional development in the field
Departmental silos and cross-boundary coordination failures	Departmental-based bureaucratic organisation Organisational inertia Tension between integrative requirements and hierarchical structures Limited network governance capabilities	Projects confined within departments Inability to provide holistic governance view Impeded crisis response capabilities Gap between rhetorical commitments and actual implementation	Prevents holistic analysis of complex issues Limits polycrisis management capacity Contradicts integrative approach foresight demands Reduces effectiveness of whole-of-government approaches
Political and budgetary short-termism	Electoral cycles and political transitions Annual budget appropriations focus Electoral accountability pressures Hyper-accountable environment Preference for visible, short-term outcomes	Frequent reorganisation disrupting continuity Priority shifts with new administrations Simplified analyses due to time constraints Underinvestment in long-term capabilities Focus on immediate legacy projects	Erodes institutional memory Prevents sustained capability development Inhibits innovation and experimentation Creates systematic bias against anticipatory investments Misalignment between foresight benefits and political incentives
Measurement and evaluation challenges	Difficulty demonstrating value through conventional metrics Reliance on subjective evaluation criteria Absence of systematic feedback loops Lack of post-exercise assessments	Programmes stuck at basic technocratic maturity level Reports disconnected from policymaking Minimal stakeholder engagement Budget cuts due to unproven value Ad hoc continuation without improvement	Confines programmes to rudimentary levels Creates vicious cycle of marginalisation Prevents evolution toward sophistication Undermines resource allocation Limits methodological refinement and evidence-based practices
Legitimacy and credibility deficits (evidential-standing deficit)	Lack of scientific credibility compared to other fields Epistemological tensions (speculation vs facts) Contested theoretical foundations Practitioner overstatement of influence Limited empirical evidence base	Easy dismissal as mere speculation Vulnerability when challenging status quo Conflation of foresight with strategic decision-making Damaged reputation with decision-makers Struggles with transformative change topics	Reduces influence on policy processes Particularly problematic for disruptive insights Self-defeating credibility erosion Reinforces marginalised position Diminishes potential for genuine influence

Source(s): Compiled by the author based on the analysis of existing literature