This chapter outlines the main findings from the assessments prepared for Lithuania, Italy, and Malta. The findings detailed in this chapter have been identified through desk review, interviews, fact-finding missions and a wide-distribution survey questionnaire open to public servants in each country. This assessment reflects the situation in each country as of September 2024. Key considerations from both the authorising environment and agency dimensions of the anticipatory innovation governance (AIG) model are presented. A comparative analysis of survey findings is presented in the following chapter.
Building Anticipatory Capacity with Strategic Foresight in Government
Lessons from Lithuania, Italy, and Malta
Abstract
Properly situating strategic foresight capacity in a public administration allows for sustained action based on foresight knowledge and can integrate a future orientation into core functions of the public sector (OECD, 2022[1]). However, building strategic foresight into policy processes and governance structures is not straightforward, given cultural barriers, sectoral silos, and the underdeveloped evaluation processes of the impact of foresight work (Monteiro and Dal Borgo, 2023[2]; Ko and Yang, 2024[3]). The OECD’s anticipatory innovation governance (AIG) framework aims to help countries to identify the governance mechanisms that they can leverage or develop to integrate and mainstream strategic foresight into policy processes. The AIG framework was applied in an assessment process to identify existing “levers” that each country can use to enhance its capacity for anticipation by institutionalising strategic foresight.
These assessments present an overview of these levers for Lithuania, Italy, and Malta, as well as considerations for action that can be adapted by other countries intending to institutionalise or improve a foresight system. They have been developed to help the OECD and stakeholders in all three countries identify areas where existing capacity can be used to accelerate the development of strategic foresight capacities, to discover possible locations and structures for introducing strategic foresight, and to suggest areas where governance processes and capabilities may need to be adapted or strengthened to allow for its systematic application.
2.1.1. Lithuania
Lithuania’s progress in strategic foresight was somewhat different from Italy and Malta’s. The State Progress Strategy, Lithuania’s Vision for the Future “Lithuania 2050” (hereinafter LT2050) was already under way and in the process of reviewing recommendations, divulging outputs, and aiming for Parliamentary approval for the implementation of the strategy throughout government and the public administration.1 Strategic foresight had been applied at the outset of the process, and key stakeholders had been exposed to the fundamentals and principles of foresight. Nevertheless, there were still intrinsic capacity gaps and an incomplete understanding of what strategic foresight was and how it could be useful to Lithuania’s development. In addition, Lithuania had yet to identify and build up a sustained practice of strategic foresight.
The next section outlines the main findings of the assessment. Eight key levers for institutionalising anticipatory governance and strategic foresight were derived from the lessons learned.
1. Mechanisms are needed to ensure long-term policy continuity based on futures thinking
In the complex landscape of government strategy, ensuring continuity as governments change is a challenge. Lithuania’s Ministry of Social Security and Labour provided a unique example of continuity in ministerial strategy, specifically in childcare reform. However, after a four-year period, how long the reform and strategy will remain in place will depend on civic influence and demand.
Lithuania still faces challenges in instituting an authorising environment that iterates existing strategies across ministries. With the adoption of a new Law on Strategic Governance (Parliament of Lithuania, 2020[4]), the number of strategic planning frameworks was expected to be streamlined to improve efficiency, revision, and monitoring. The OECD (2021[5]) recommends reducing the number of strategic and planning documents to reduce complexity and enhance strategic planning and evidence-informed decision making.
As a major step to improve implementation and monitoring of these frameworks, STRATA was given the mandate to incorporate strategic foresight in drafting LT2050 (OECD, 2021[5]). This signalled a fundamental shift towards a futures-thinking and anticipatory approach to governance. However, across ministries, it was noted that changes in leadership during political cycles could continue to disrupt both policy continuity and the advancement of actions called for by LT2050. It was also noted that there is a need to ensure the organisational capability to continue to deploy strategic foresight to assess strategies’ resilience and robustness (see Box 2.1 on foresight uses and approaches to strategy stress-testing).
Ad hoc tools and approaches in foresight can help test a strategy’s future preparedness, resilience, and capacity for transformation. These tools can enhance portfolios of strategic initiatives, leading to action and understanding of the impact of exogenous factors (O’Brien and Meadows, 2013[6]).
The Parmenides Matrix Approach is intended to improve the integration of scenario planning, strategy formation, and stakeholder interests. It aims to optimise goal-based efficacy and robustness of strategies in multiple future scenarios. In Germany, the Environmental Ministry used this approach to develop new strategies and to update the German Resource Efficiency Programme and benefited from wide-ranging discussions with stakeholders from the science community, politics, and industry. This gave the ministry a tool to extend the scope of searching for solutions and reducing “bounded rationality” in decision-making processes (Lehr et al., 2017[7]).
“Wind-tunnelling” techniques can be used to stress-test current strategies and policies against a set of future scenarios and to assess how well a set of policies or policy objectives stand up to a range of market conditions (UK Government Office for Science, 2017[8]). The UK’s Government Office for Science used this technique in a foresight project that considered and questioned the capacity to deliver sustainable responses to obesity in the UK over the next 40 years. The impact and robustness of 17 policy responses were assessed in four different scenarios. This assessment revealed critical interactions between policy interventions and wider societal values and identified certain existing policy options that were not robust enough to tackle obesity in the UK (Butland et al., 2007[9]). In Norway, in an effort to strengthen long-term digital policy development, the Norwegian Board of Technology and the Norwegian Digitalisation Agency conducted horizon scanning to inform the policy development process and workshopped blind spots with ministry leadership and experts to identify areas of high potential impact where Norway has limited preparedness. In February 2024, the revised strategy underwent stress-testing, reinforcing its resilience and adaptability to future challenges (Government of Norway, 2024[10]).
SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis helps organisations identify both internal strengths and weaknesses and external opportunities and threats in various scenarios. It can also help identify new players and challenges that can be encountered in each of the scenarios. SWOT analysis was a key method in a technology foresight project of Poland (NT for Podlaskie 2020). The project was designed to advance cutting-edge technologies in the Podlaskie region, used SWOT analysis to expand understanding of such factors as nanotechnology development, to evaluate factors according to their current and future significance, and to formulate a comprehensive, futures-oriented strategy for the public management of technology (Nazarko et al., 2017[11]).
Technology “roadmapping” is a deductive, multi-layered and time-based framework for technology management. It can address the evolution – from past to long-term vision – of different functional perspectives, such as commercial and strategic perspectives (market and business); a design, development, and production perspective (product, service, and system); and technology and research perspectives (technology science, and resources). As a participatory process, technology roadmapping supports dialogue, alignment, and consensus among stakeholders (Phaal, Farrukh and Probert, 2004[12]; Phaal, 2020[13]).
Anticipatory technology governance: Additional methods have been developed more recently to assess strategies for the anticipatory governance of emerging technologies by 1) embedding values throughout the innovation process; 2) enhancing foresight and technology assessment; 3) engaging stakeholders and society; 4) building regulation that is agile and adaptive; and 5) reinforcing international co-operation in science and norm-making (OECD, 2024[14]).
With an established vision of the future, strategists can apply a foresight tool known as “back-casting”, which works backwards from the future to the present. This normative approach reviews the strategies and actions needed to arrive at a desirable or preferred future.
The reflections of participants in focus groups with Lithuanian stakeholders are supported by research indicating that “incoming Governments are not keen on implementing visions inherited from their predecessors” and that Lithuania has a lack of “hard mechanisms that would ensure that the next Government takes into account the suggestions/vision of their predecessors” (Paliokaitė and Sadauskaitė, 2023[15]). The Committee for the Future has also shown that reforms often fail to survive political handovers, and that agreements among political parties on long-term development in specific areas are often quickly overlooked (Lopata, Viliūnas and Augustinaitis, 2024[16]).
From an anticipatory governance perspective, strategic foresight is proposed as a sustainable and complementary practice to improve, rather than replace, in-house strategic planning frameworks. Ultimately, these frameworks should be aligned with the objectives of the new Law on Strategic Governance and should introduce long-term perspectives and foresight analysis of national interest rather than the interests of a given government structure (Chauke Nehme et al., 2012[17]).
2. Lithuania’s strategic foresight ecosystem is in development and requires further high-level discussions in Parliament for legitimacy
How strategic foresight will evolve in Lithuania has become a recurrent topic of discussion in Parliament and with the involvement of the Office of the Committee for the Future. Five government institutions play a fundamental role in the current foresight ecosystem: the Office of the Government, STRATA, the Committee for the Future, State Progress Council, and the National Library (see Box 2.2 for information on the committee). Additionally, new actors have appeared as important players in building the foresight ecosystem: the Research Unit of the Parliament, new science and innovation advisers in ministries,2 and the co-creation community of LT2050.
The committee considers that Lithuania does not have an effective strategic management system to introduce innovative methodologies and deliver resilient strategies (Lopata, Viliūnas and Augustinaitis, 2024[16]). To support the use of evidence and research generated through foresight, the OECD (2021[5]) has recommended that Lithuania hold “systematic discussions on the highest political level as well as in parliament on the results of strategic foresight […] produced by government institutions”, which will create systematic feedback loops for evidence and generate legitimacy for foresight (p. 60).
As part of the efforts to establish a framework for foresight governance, increase the demand for foresight, and reinforce leadership engagement with foresight, the Committee for the Future prepared a White Book (see Box 2.3 for definitions and purposes of government white books) outlining a roadmap to improve the Lithuanian strategic foresight ecosystem (Lopata, Viliūnas and Augustinaitis, 2024[16]). Ultimately, the White Book complements and does not duplicate the proposals of the LT2050 vision to make futures thinking a universal feature across government. The White Book focuses on the prerequisites and means of implementing the actions and strategic objectives outlined in LT2050.
The Parliament (Seimas) of the Republic of Lithuania enacted amendments to the statute of the Seimas in December 2020, introducing provisions for the creation of the Committee for the Future. The committee is mandated to support political decisions in the following key areas:
future development of society and the country
innovation and technological progress
emigration, migration, and demographic processes
modernisation of the state and its management system.
The committee is constituted based on the principle of proportional representation of the Seimas’ political parties. To ensure each committee’s representation, the parties typically delegate their representatives to the Committee for the Future, often selecting committee chairpersons and party leaders or their deputies. The specific number and composition of members of the committee are approved by a resolution of the Seimas.
The definitions of white books and white papers are closely related. In the UK’s Parliament glossary, white papers are defined as:
“policy documents produced by Government that set out their proposals for future legislation. White papers are often published as Command Papers and may include a draft version of a Bill that is being planned. This provides a basis for further consultation and discussion with interested or affected groups and allows final changes to be made before a Bill is formally presented to Parliament.”
Additionally, the Publications Office of the European Union explains that “white papers are documents containing proposals for European Union (EU) action in a specific area, and that their “purpose is to launch a debate with public stakeholders, the European Parliament and the Council in order to arrive at political consensus”. Although “white paper” is the term most commonly used, “white books” have been established as strategic reference documents that determine national objectives for a specific field. A white book can be proposed as an effective study to provide a synchronised and “single capability roadmap” to “form an institutional agreement of a binding nature” and begin a whole-of-government commitment and planning process.
The White Book outlines critical anticipatory governance components building towards a strategic foresight ecosystem in Lithuania and an ecosystem of support. The ecosystem is viewed as a necessary condition for the implementation and continuous support of the LT2050 strategy, supported by a civil service reform to introduce an innovative culture across the civil service and to improve policymaking and decision-making processes.
The White Book provides a roadmap and recommendations for creating the necessary support systems and institutional arrangements. The roadmap aims to establish high-level long-term objectives for the future of Lithuania and serves as a reference point for measuring whether activities and decisions across government effectively prepare the country well in the long run.
In September 2023, the preparation of the White Book was formalised with an assigned working group of 30 experts, led by the chairman of the Committee for the Future. Anticipatory governance is a key element outlined in LT2050, and the White Book is viewed by the Committee as a state-of-the-art implementation strategy. Nevertheless, the challenge is perceived to stem from the need to redistribute resources across a complex strategic management system and propose an ambitious ecosystem strategy – such as establishing3 – without immediate institutional arrangements, capacity, and capability readily available in the country. For this, an organic approach of gradual implementation was viewed as an alternative, building on existing structures and competencies.
The working group, composed of experts from institutions of strategic interest that touch every aspect of the public system, was set up to address these governance challenges and tasked to:
1. Evaluate the opportunities for the development of Lithuania’s foresight ecosystem
2. Assess the functions, qualification requirements and application of evidence-based solutions in organisations, areas of competence or activity for the establishment, operation, or improvement of foresight units
3. Provide lists of related institutions or organisations that could further develop strategic foresight analysis.
Given STRATA’s extensive research and analytical capability, as well as the centre’s deep understanding of the current state and future needs of Lithuania’s foresight ecosystem, a close collaboration between the Committee for the Future and STRATA could prove beneficial for implementing the White Book and setting standards for an effective foresight governance model.
A deep understanding of the foresight system, the needs of leadership, and the decision makers’ pain points, such as the issues and priorities they face, has been shown to be an important factor in developing foresight that impacts policymaking and decision-making processes (Calof and Colton, 2024[23]).
The OECD also engaged with stakeholders directly involved in developing the White Book and supported the Office of the Committee for the Future to create an action plan and map strategic foresight functions, as well as to identify necessary structural aspects (see Box 2.4 for an overview of the focus group session).
In collaboration with members of the working group preparing the White Book, the OECD facilitated a focus group session to assess the existing structures, such as councils, regional units, and centre-of-government units, that underpin strategic foresight in Lithuania. They were asked to consider which of the structures were most and least relevant for anticipation and that would be shaping the direction of the implementation of the LT2050.
The session also explored the functions necessary to support foresight, and how various institutions provide intelligence, for example, facilitate participation, and conduct oversight and evaluation.
Finally, the OECD prompted participants to identify existing capability and expertise in their ecosystem, as well as the role of specific functions in sustaining anticipatory governance and supporting implementation of LT2050.
As an outcome of this activity, the OECD developed a map categorising various functional options, based on their potential impact in sustaining anticipatory governance and identifying which functions in Lithuania require more or less attention to build capability. For each area in the map, the OECD provided descriptions and suggested actions to guide the prioritisation and implementation of foresight functions in the Lithuanian government.
For findings of this process and key considerations for Lithuania, see Annex D.
Source: OECD.
3. Efforts to enhance networks in strategic foresight can help break down knowledge silos and expand futures knowledge, capability, and skills across government
Lithuania has yet to develop a sustained strategic foresight community of practice that can help disseminate capabilities, create government-wide capacity, and increase bottom-up strategic foresight demand. Lithuania could allocate resources and build a strategic foresight community of practice in which government foresight practitioners can spread awareness, support practitioners through knowledge sharing, enhance the quality of foresight by sharing best practices, and connect people with interest in strategic foresight. This community could eventually become a working body offering input for policy development.
The Martynas Mažvydas National Library, which has the status of a Parliamentary Library and provides information for ongoing work and activity of Parliament, collaborates with the Committee for the Future to promote foresight research and knowledge. Together, these institutions organise weekly informal discussions on varied topics related to future developments such as AI, neurotechnology, and the future of democracy. The National Library has an important role in facilitating and leading discussions with the Committee and academia. Moreover, it has recently established a Strategic Forecasting Unit dedicated to producing foresight knowledge and engaging in related activities, which can be interpreted as a signal of an emerging community of practice.
There is increasing evidence that information management of foresight outputs could benefit from being assigned to specific actors in government. This could improve the dissemination and co-ordination of information across departments more effectively, thus promoting knowledge-based decision making. A recent example is Finland’s National Audit Office (NAO) assessment of the country’s foresight ecosystem, which identified the need for better co-ordination of information and knowledge management to support strategic decision making in Finland. One of NAO’s recommendations was to assign institutional responsibility for structuring foresight-related information more effectively (National Audit Office of Finland, 2022[24]). In Lithuania, the National Library could play a similar role in organising, storing, and facilitating access to foresight knowledge. As a parliamentary library and a strategic partner in national information policy, it is already involved in big data analysis, research services for policymakers, and digital knowledge management, making it well-positioned to centralise and co-ordinate foresight-related resources (Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania, 2021[25]).
With the National Library, the Committee for the Future can continue to harness leadership buy-in, contribute to an existing repository of reports for foresight and policy evaluation exercises, and benefit from institutional arrangements to promote a government-wide foresight learning network and community of practice.
In the context of LT2050, STRATA, which has already convened diverse stakeholders to integrate strategic foresight methods into the process, could take on a more permanent role as a network convener. This could involve refining its functions or adapting its approach to better support a broader range of stakeholders in sectoral policy planning. Given that STRATA already has the Strategic Insights and Foresight Group, which supports policy planning at both national and sectoral levels, a clearer articulation of how this convening role would complement existing efforts may be needed.
Collaborations and partnerships between organisations in governments have in general been useful for disseminating foresight capability. One case in point is the collaborative effort in Singapore between the Centre for Strategic Futures (CSF) and the Civil Service College (see Box 2.5).
The Singaporean Civil Service College (CSC) is a statutory board under the public service division of the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO). The CSC is the learning and development arm of the public service. One of the missions of the CSC is to equip Singapore’s public service to be future-ready. The Learning Futures Group is a business support unit and team in the CSC that helps develop futures capability and capacity.
Nevertheless, building futures capability is a collaborative effort between the CSC Learning Futures Group and the Centre for Strategic Futures (CSF), which has the mandate to produce and disseminate foresight work from a whole-of-government perspective. While the CSC does not directly build foresight capability, it works closely with CSF to complement its existing work in this area and provide public and civil servants with innovative foresight abilities, such as the use of gaming and simulations for policy development. One of the key initiatives of the Learning Futures Group is the Social Policy 101 programme, which not only examines current issues but also explores their future implications for policymakers. They emphasise through the Social Policy 101 programme the need for futures thinking in policymaking and the importance of building capability through gaming, simulations and role playing, as a means not only to explore issues but also their future implications.
Source: OECD.
4. Continuous efforts are needed to ensure collaborative policymaking with foresight
Citizen participation in foresight processes is still limited in Lithuania and is often disconnected from government action. Initiatives with collaborative governance approaches in Lithuania already existed with the previous Progress Strategy Lithuania 2030 (LT2030) and recently with LT2050. For LT2050, stakeholder and citizen participation were a key component for its development. Discussions were held in more than 10 regions in Lithuania and “served as a way to find out citizens’ expectations, hopes and fears regarding Lithuania’s future” (Vilnius University, 2022[26]). Participatory foresight with citizen visioning, futures dialogues and shared narrative development can be a powerful process to provide “bottom-up images of the future and expectations” towards sustainability and resilience (Kononenko, 2021[27]). However, citizen participation in foresight processes is still limited in Lithuania and often disconnected from government action. The Progress Strategy LT2030 was Lithuania’s first attempt to institutionalise participative and collaborative governance for a long-term strategy (Paliokaitė and Sadauskaitė, 2023[15]). However, LT2030 provided limited feedback to society on what happened to their ideas and suggestions (Paliokaitė and Sadauskaitė, 2023[15]) and was not considered in and of itself a strategic foresight process.
STRATA identified that if Lithuania were to introduce effective tools and functions for stakeholder inclusion and representation, government would need to empower cross-sectoral networking and strengthen forward-looking capabilities beyond the public sector (Sriebaliūtė et al., 2021[28]). For cross-sectoral networking and to build anticipatory innovation ecosystems (OECD, 2023[29]), the White Book aims to identify solutions to increase innovation and competitiveness and envisage a modern development of the smart specialisation strategy system.
Wider participation with citizens and stakeholders can provide signal-detection and early-warning systems to inform policy and adapt to changing trends, and provide an opportunity for collective sense making around potential policy directions (see Box 2.6). Foresight proves to be a valuable, democratic practice for governments to engage with society. Involving citizens in futures-oriented participatory processes can help inform them about long-term strategies and to contribute to its development. This, in turn, sustains the efforts towards strategic revision, improvement, and continuous implementation.
The experiences of LT2030 and LT2050 show the importance of stakeholder and civic participation in Lithuania, where municipalities have recently built up the practice of holding more in-depth forms of public dialogues. The dialogues were held to expand opportunities for input on municipal renovation projects for parks, boulevards, streets, and plazas beyond traditional one-time consultation processes. A foresight ecosystem could provide both formal and informal environments and build on these existing initiatives for public participation.
Lithuania’s “Dialogue between the city and its people: A practical guide for municipalities on public participation” aims to provide municipality specialists a methodology to involve stakeholders in public space projects. Published in August 2022, it provides free access for municipalities and other interested parties to implement its principles. Its primary beneficiaries are specialists in municipal architecture and in communication departments, with local communities and other groups affected by the project as secondary beneficiaries.
Sources: (OPSI-OECD, 2022[30]).
Despite the differences in their legislative mandates, the United States and Lithuania share a common imperative to seek collaborative and sustained foresight practice in shaping policymaking with experts and international peers. The US Congress has not issued a strategic foresight mandate, but government agencies have been working on practices intended to deliver foresight products, iteratively assessed with different audiences. The Center for Strategic Foresight at the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has frequently incorporated foresight in its work and uses trend papers as “breadcrumbs” to shape its work and inform Congressional decisions (e.g. on the future of education and on increasing technology access to underserved communities).
COVID-19 had an impact on GAO’s role in informing the public and Congress in their analysis of emerging trends. GAO is involved in various activities, including roundtables, conferences, speaker series, and the sharing of trends papers internally. The office values international collaboration with countries like the UK and Canada’s Policy Horizons, as well as the presence of international strategic foresight fellows to support their work, e.g. the School of International Futures and the University of Houston. While there is no legal mandate for GAO to practice strategic foresight, in the executive branch, every federal agency that prepares a strategic plan is mandated to include some forward-leaning or foresight principle, such as identifying “key factors external to the agency and beyond its control that could significantly affect the achievement of the general goals and objectives” and “cover a period of not less than 4 years”.4 This macro-level analysis of factors beyond the immediate strategic environment of US agencies requires collaborative engagement with external experts, peers, and stakeholders.
5. Lithuania’s institutional culture could promote proactivity and embrace change
The innovative potential of Lithuania’s government institutions seems to be limited by a “tight culture” (Deckert and Schomaker, 2022[31]) which has limited tolerance when new ideas do not respond to expectations and interests. Focus group participants perceived its institutional culture as restricting innovative approaches rather than valuing learning from failure or recognising and exploring options. Its institutional settings and barriers tend to promote a silo mentality and favour short-term results over addressing long-term challenges (OECD, 2022[1]; Dal Borgo and Sasia, 2022[32]).
This stands in contrast to the vision outlined in Lithuania 2030, which espoused an open, competent, efficient, and participatory governance system for delivering quality public services. In pursuit of a “strategically potent government”, the LT2030 also called for a “performance-and-efficiency-driven governance culture”, setting clear action policies with wide consultation and participation.
The strategy recognised that making this transition would require that public authorities have the capability to implement strategies, monitor and make sense of global trends, and “creatively apply best practices” (State Progress Council, n.d.[33]). This shift in culture would align with the OECD legal instrument “Declaration on Public Sector Innovation”, to which 43 countries, including Lithuania, have subscribed. Principle I.B. of the declaration says that participating countries affirm a commitment to “encourage and equip all public servants to innovate”, such as by acknowledging “the advantages that a culture of openness, of learning from errors and of collaboration across silos and sectors offers to the practice of innovation” (OECD, 2019[34]).
Shifting culture from reactivity to proactivity, including reducing fear of mistakes and encouraging testing, could increase the potential for anticipatory governance in ministries. This underscores an added challenge to STRATA. Cultivating a culture of evidence-informed decision making involves not only conducting strategic foresight, as recommended by the OECD (2021[5]), but establishing foresight as a sustainable capability. The overall process will also need to integrate foresight into civil servants’ policy advisory skill set, enabling them to work with innovation and synthesise “a growing range of evidence-based scientific insights” (OECD, 2017[35]). As part of this organisational shift, the OECD (2017[35]) posits the importance of improving civil service capability, such as network management skills, to break down knowledge silos that can be a barrier to a culture of transformation in governments.
A recent civil service reform in Lithuania (see Box 2.7) aims to address a number of management deficiencies and Lithuania’s ability to train civil servants effectively (National Audit Office of Lithuania, 2022[36]).
The civil service reform, which was approved in June 2023 and came into force early 2024, is viewed as a central legal act for developing a strategic foresight ecosystem in Lithuania. Its goal is to facilitate organisational change in government agencies and ministries, setting up a more flexible management system, ensuring consistent development of civil servants’ competencies, and introducing innovations in the civil service (National Audit Office of Lithuania, 2022[36]). The reform aims not only to improve analytical capacity in the civil service but also to promote a learning culture in public management.
Source: (Republic of Lithuania, 2023[37]).
Results of the widely distributed survey on drivers of anticipatory capacity in Lithuania’s civil service offers insight on how to encourage long-term policy implementation and innovative approaches and on the effectiveness of central legal acts such as the civil service reform. In Figure 2.1, “Public sector reform agendas”, “Operational or financing models”, and “Recent or ongoing crises” emerge as primary factors perceived as discouraging consideration of long-term policy implementation and the adoption of innovative approaches. As (Lopata, Viliūnas and Augustinaitis, 2024[16]) observe, this may be attributed to doubts over ongoing reforms, reducing optimism in the future.
Note: N=4366.
Response to statement : “What enables or hinders you to consider long-term policy implications or make use of innovative approaches in your work?”.
Source: OECD.
6. Better communication with leadership on the value of strategic foresight tools and methods is necessary
Evidence of how strategic foresight can support policy development in Lithuania, and of which stages in the policy cycle it offers the greatest benefit, is not widespread. Political scepticism and reluctance to use foresight may be due to a lack of understanding of what strategic foresight is and the usefulness of its tools and methods for policy and strategy development (Calof and Colton, 2024[23]). Focus group participants expressed the need to learn why strategic foresight is important and how to interpret and communicate strategic foresight products and outputs to leadership.
One key communication factor among stakeholders is ensuring that scientists and academics understand the behaviour of policymakers and private sector representatives. This is essential to create common ground, build commitment, and spur action on generated foresight knowledge (Chauke Nehme et al., 2012[17]).
Communicating the value of strategic foresight to leadership also requires organisational wide confidence and knowledge to reveal the impact foresight tools can have on strategic planning, policy development, and decision-making processes. If civil servants trying to integrate foresight processes into their workstream have only limited knowledge of future studies, it becomes challenging to effectively communicate the benefits of foresight. This difficulty in bridging the gap between foresight practice and policy action (Tõnurist and Hanson, 2020[38]) can increase scepticism among leadership.
7. Civil servants have not yet been introduced in depth to strategic foresight
In Lithuania’s public administration, familiarity with strategic foresight methods is limited. Findings from the wide distribution survey sent to over 4 000 civil servants suggest that Lithuania is in the early stages of adopting anticipatory methods and practices (Figure 2.2). Nonetheless, some recognition of the importance of forward thinking is evident, with higher values attributed to “Visioning” and “Scenario Planning”. This is possibly due to the application of these methods in the LT2050 process and the creation of the Committee for the Future. The adoption of certain methods may not be as widespread, suggesting room for further integration, especially in exploring alternative futures and uncertainty. Survey results, however, indicate that familiarity with foresight methods and practices is positively associated with willingness to engage with forward-looking policymaking.
Note: N=4366.
Responses to the statement: “How familiar are you with these strategic foresight methods and practices?”.
Source: OECD.
The results underscore the importance of targeted intervention to increase participants’ understanding of strategic foresight, to bridge knowledge gaps between foresight producers and users, and to provide practical insights into its application in policy development and decision making.
8. Civil servants in Lithuania agree they play an important role and acknowledge the significance of their work in shaping the future
A predominantly positive sentiment prevails among respondents about the importance of their work in shaping the future. Only a combined 12% indicate disagreement with this assertion (Figure 2.3).
Note: N=4366.
Responses to the statement: “I believe my work plays a role in shaping the future”.
Source: OECD.
When the data was further analysed by hierarchical roles in Figure 2.4, top and middle managers, in addition to public policy professionals, show the highest positive association with belief in the transformative future impact of their work. This suggests a strong sense of responsibility and influence at leadership levels, emphasising their pivotal role in policy design. Of secretarial professionals, 32% express agreement. This highlights the need for targeted strategies to increase the awareness and engagement of support staff in the broader anticipatory goals of the civil service.
Note: N=4366.
Responses to the statement: “I believe my work plays a role in shaping the future”.
Source: OECD.
2.1.2. Italy
Italy is experiencing a growing demand for strategic foresight, driven by recent crises, such as COVID-19, and under the influence of the European Union and other international organisations, which have further promoted its use. This underscores the importance of futures thinking in improving strategic preparedness at both national and regional levels. The use of foresight research and practice in the Autonomous Province of Trento (Italy), for example, reflect broader recognition of its value. In this assessment, the OECD found that civil servants acknowledge the limitations of traditional approaches to policymaking and express openness to new and innovative methodologies to explore contextual disruptions and uncertainties.
Engagement with foresight is increasing among civil servants, and high-level support from policymakers would further legitimise this process. The development of strategic foresight and anticipatory governance practices and procedures in the Italian context is still at an early stage due to the traditional approach of the Italian system, which is more focused on legal procedures, despite some recent shifts towards innovation within the public administration, and a strategic planning process centred on economic and fiscal planning, influenced by the European constraints associated with the European Semester.
This section outlines 10 key levers and recent developments in Italy’s foresight landscape and explores both challenges and emerging opportunities in Italy’s public administration.
1. High-level engagement with anticipation does not yet promote or legitimise a growing demand for futures thinking
Interest in addressing future challenges and opportunities has been emerging in Italy. Recent crises have increased recognition of the value of foresight as a discipline to improve preparedness, both centrally and in the regions. In the Autonomous Province of Trento (Italy), futurists and academics were appointed to conduct scenario analysis to help navigate the COVID-19 crisis (OECD, 2021[39]). Interviewees reported that civil servants are beginning to recognise that existing approaches are insufficient to prepare for emerging trends and transformation and are open to adopting new approaches for exploring and addressing uncertainty. The demand for thinking more systematically about future change is reflected in the survey, and a substantial fraction of respondents acknowledge having been encouraged to consider how things might change in the future, with around 50% reporting that they feel often or always encouraged in this respect (Figure 2.5).
Note: N=686.
Responses to the statement: “When making decisions at work, I am encouraged to consider how things might change in the future”.
Source: OECD.
However, awareness of the value of foresight at senior levels is limited, resulting in a lack of engagement. Interviewees say politicians and senior civil servants do not systematically call for and legitimise strategic foresight. The vital role of leadership in providing an authorising environment for strategic foresight is evident in the survey of public servants, with 70% of respondents stating that leaders play a major role in considering long-term policy implications.
2. Italy’s institutional culture is shifting from a traditional legal/administrative approach to a leadership-oriented approach
The Italian administration has tended to adopt reactive and top-down approaches in policymaking, in which strategic planning plays a limited role (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2020[40]). Decision makers in Italy are attached to certainty, routine, and compliance and are not used to dealing with forward-looking exercises or anticipating solutions. This finding is suggested by the significant percentage of public officials surveyed who reported that “existing models used in policymaking” (44%) and “audit and accountability frameworks” (39%) were factors preventing the consideration of long-term policy implications or making use of innovative approaches.
However, there are indications that the culture may be shifting in ways that promote innovation. Interviewees noted that management in the Italian public administration is shifting from an implementation/administrative approach towards a leadership-oriented approach that could increase the development of innovative practices.
Oversight functions are being leveraged to promote futures orientation. The Parliamentary Studies Office offers support for oversight of increasingly long-term plans prompted by European initiatives.
3. Innovative stakeholder engagement and consultation practices are limited but increasing
Innovative practices for public and stakeholder participation create a precedent for participatory foresight. The Ministry of Environment and Energy Security (MASE) has been pioneering more co-creative approaches to policy and strategy development. Regionally, the Metropolitan Area of Reggio Calabria, supported by a Ministry for Ecological Transition (MiTE) grant, engaged diverse stakeholders for participatory long-term vision-building (OECD, 2021[39]).
However, consultation remains undeveloped as a source of legitimacy and intelligence for policymaking. Consultation is compulsory but often seen simply as a legal necessity. Where it occurs, it has limited impact on decision making (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2020[40]).
4. The engagement of academic and professional experts in government foresight is limited, and networks with external expertise remain underdeveloped or disconnected from the public administration
Academia and think tanks are recognised as a valuable resource for futures expertise. However, foresight capacities outside government remain fragmented. Existing initiatives include the Futura Network (created by the Italian Alliance for Sustainable Development), the Association of Italian Futurists, the University of Trento and Hey Futures, a network of graduates from the University of Trento’s Master of Social Foresight programme (OECD, 2021[39]).
These are limited in number and not systematically engaged. In general, there is no regular consultation of academics by the government and administration (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2020[40]). The limited number of foresight experts in Italy creates challenges in procuring services.
5. A lack of cross-sectoral and vertical co-ordination hinders the exploration of synergies, trade-offs, and preferred futures
Co-ordination has been identified as a key issue in previous studies of the Italian governance system. The evaluation of draft bills by the Department of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers (PCM) concerns the legal aspects and the impact on regulation, while the Treasury conducts a detailed scrutiny of the financial implications of each bill (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2020[40]). Recently, all ministries have created a “Unit for the analysis and evaluation of the expenditure”, in applying the spending review reform designed in the National Recovery and Resilience Plan (NRRP).
Recent developments indicate increased investment in co-ordination and coherence. The last few years have seen an improvement in co-ordination between line ministries and the PCM. A parallel improvement is noted in the work of inter-ministerial committees in increasing cross-sectoral collaboration, particularly in ensuring coherent implementation of the Italian National Strategy for Sustainable Development. In 2020, the Ministry of Environment and Energy Security (MASE) conducted an important policy coherence initiative, following the guidelines established by the European Semester (OECD, 2021[39]). Work on implementation of the National Resilience and Recovery Plan is also expected to affect co-ordination and coherence.
6. Processes for evidence collection, monitoring, and evaluation to adapt and adjust policies are gradually being developed
Policy monitoring, evaluation, and learning loops are gradually being developed and established. The monitoring of policies has shifted from a formal reporting activity to an instrument for adaptation and enhancement. While ex ante evaluation is common and aims to assess the impacts of policy, it is largely technical and is not informed by in-depth evaluation and public debate (Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2020[40]).
7. The influence of international engagement and the EU is likely to increase the need for futures capability
Participation in European projects and adoption of EU policies provides impetus and inspiration for futures thinking. European policies, for example Industry 4.0, energy transition, and the Better Regulation strategy, command an increasingly futures-oriented approach to policymaking, while participation in the Commission on the Future of Europe has raised awareness of the value of futures thinking. Legislation that could affect Italy, for example a legislative change in carbon emissions that could potentially affect Italy’s production of engines, has prompted an exploration of the future impact on the country. An important dimension of Italy’s futures analysis is related to the EC Next Generation programme, in which the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) is an important stakeholder due to its close relationship with the European Commission’s resources. Italy’s National Action Plan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, developed in a participative process with support from the OECD and European Commission, sets out two actions that explicitly demonstrate the need to develop and apply capacity for strategic foresight (OECD, 2021[39]).
International and EU influence is reflected in the survey responses, in which global challenge missions, international standards, and “EU influence” stand out as relative enablers of anticipatory capacity.
8. Public servants feel they have agency to shape the future but they are not well-versed in tools and methods for considering future change
The majority of public servants surveyed believe they play a role in shaping the future and are encouraged to consider how things might change. A majority, 72% of respondents, endorse the statement: “I believe that my work plays a role in shaping the future” (Figure 2.6). Hierarchical analysis reveals that officers, first- and second-level managers in the sample, report the highest estimation of the transformative impact of their work, with levels of agreement of between 70% and 90%. Interestingly, this perception appears to cut across the entire organisational structure, except for assistants/instructors, who display the lowest association with this belief (Figure 2.7).
Note: N= 686.
Responses to the statement: “I believe my work plays a role in shaping the future”.
Source: OECD.
Note: N= 686.
Responses to the statement: “I believe my work plays a role in shaping the future”.
Source: OECD.
Few public servants are familiar with common strategic foresight methods. Most survey respondents state that they have heard of the methods listed in Figure 2.8, but only 10% to 25% say they are used in their organisation. This represents a substantial “capability gap”, where officials feel they have agency to shape the future but do not have the tools to determine how they will do so.
Note: N=686.
Responses to the statement: “How familiar are you with these strategic foresight methods and practices?”.
Source: OECD.
9. Training and intake of new staff offer an opportunity to develop innovative skills in an ageing civil service
The predominance of public servants with a legal background does not favour innovation. This contributes to a generally low awareness of the value of foresight in the Italian public service. Interviewees stated that the kind of problem-solving skills that require creative thinking are in short supply. Nonetheless, the survey shows that half of respondents report that they spend between 10% to 30% of their time on innovative tasks such as finding new ways of working, exploring alternative options, and collaborating and sharing knowledge with colleagues. Over a quarter spend more than 30% of their time on these innovative tasks. One possible explanation for this is in line with a wider trend—that the skills of public servants and the tools available to them have become increasingly obsolete (OECD, 2021[41]), meaning that they are constantly forced to find new solutions to unexpected challenges.
Training and a newer intake of staff are potential drivers for the development of new skills. Almost half of central government employees in Italy were 55 years or older in 2020 (OECD, 2021[42]). Interviewees noted that younger staff are likely to be more open to new approaches and offer an opportunity to employ and train public officials with a broader range of skills.
The National School of Administration (Scuola Nazionale dell’Amministrazione, or SNA) and certain ministries are investing in developing skills in strategic foresight. Since 2020, the SNA has offered courses on foresight, megatrends, and future studies, also under Italy’s National Action Plan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development (OECD, 2022[43]). With a view towards supporting sustainability, the courses have been attended by more than 500 participants both from the central administration and local public authorities. The Centro Alti Studi Difesa (CASD) offers access to training on foresight for military staff, and the University of Trento offers a master’s degree in social foresight. The Ministry of Defence regularly organises strategic foresight exercises based on NATO’s approach and, in 2021, published Italy’s first foresight report titled Concetto Scenari Futuri: tendenze e implicazioni per la Sicurezza e la Difesa. The Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) trains some managers and officials in strategic foresight and is preparing to institutionalise the functions. It is also exploring the possibility of creating an internal strategic foresight unit. The Ministry of the Environment and Energy Security (MASE) has future competencies mainly at the sectoral level among researchers and experts in climate, ecology, and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MAECI) is slowly developing competencies, with some attempts to introduce strategic foresight practices on isolated topics.
10. Organisational capacities for futures-thinking approaches are in the early stages
Public bodies in Italy have some foundations for futures thinking, but they are fragmented and limited (see Box 2.8 for case study examples). Foresight capacities are used in the Parliamentary Studies Office, which produces policy research and analysis, mainly for decision makers. Studies Offices have evolved to include quantitative aspects and diverse approaches in policymaking, but the adoption of experimental and adaptive practices is limited. The Ministry of Environment and Energy Security (MASE) conducts some futures-thinking activities, such as strategic environmental assessment. The Ministry of Defense has an established foresight capacity within a dedicated futures studies unit. MAECI conducts qualitative analysis with a futures orientation to assess risks. MEF has begun to incorporate elements of scenarios practice into economic forecasting (OECD, 2021[39]), and the Italian National Institute of Statistics (Istat) has capabilities for long-term quantitative forecasting.
The National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work (INAIL)
Given the rapid pace of transformation in the workplace, senior management at INAIL identified a need for the organisation to anticipate changes in working environments. To stress-test its capabilities and its mandate against possible workplaces of the future, it has launched a project known as Anticipatory Competencies for INAIL (CAPI). INAIL is starting to integrate anticipatory governance competencies and tools and to work on creating a Strategic Foresight Unit (SFU).
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation (MAECI)
In 2023, MAECI conducted three pilot exercises to explore the application of futures methods and assess its potential to improve its anticipatory governance. The first focused on a country in the Middle East and the second on a Middle-power State in Asia, both of them applying strategic scenarios, while the third focused on a region in Africa and employed back-casting. The workshops’ participants included representatives from the ministry as well as major Italian companies, associations, NGOs, and research centres working in the respective areas.
MAECI also commissioned a report on the state of sanctions against Russia, as well as training courses on futures studies and the organisational, legal, and economic aspects of the politics of Western sanctions.
Centro Alti Studi per la Difesa (CASD), Ministry of Defense
The Centro Alti Studi per la Difesa (CASD) is Italy’s highest-level research body in the field of executive training, security, and defense studies.
CASD offers an annual inter-forces master’s degree for middle-ranking officers from Italy’s army, navy, air force, other military bodies and a group of foreign officers from friendly and allied nations. Since the 2019-2020 academic year, it has included a module based on Futures Studies, Anticipatory Risk Management and Systems Thinking. A substantial period is assigned to workshopping futures exercises on current geopolitical issues. Recent exercises involved about 150 officers over several days, divided into 12 subgroups. Each subgroup worked on a variant of the selected theme, designed to produce strategies for different future scenarios.
The National Civil Protection Service (Sistema Nazionale di Protezione Civile, or PC)
The National Civil Protection Service (PC) is required by law to take preventative measures for an increasingly complex range of events. The system is expected to prepare for risks in technology, climate change, social awareness, an ageing workforce, obsolete and innovative skills, and a changing political context.
PC has been participating in the TAGs (Towards Anticipatory Governance System) project. Starting from a process of understanding and awareness building at management level, the approach moves towards embedding strategic foresight knowledge and tools in the organisation’s institutional competence framework and towards defining enabling conditions for creating a strategic foresight unit at PC.
2.1.3. Malta
Malta faces increasingly complex challenges, including the climate crisis, an ageing population, and migration (Government of Malta, 2022[44]). Inter-ministerial co-ordination structures such as the Permanent Secretary Forum and the Inter-Ministerial Co-ordination body for European Affairs promote collaborative governance to tackle these challenges. However, they lack dedicated foresight capacity to help identify wide-ranging systemic impacts.
Despite various horizontal co-ordination mechanisms, a silo mentality persists, which limits proactive responses to emerging cross-sectoral issues. Some recognition of the importance of strategic foresight is evident, but the institutional processes, constrained by policy short-termism, restrict futures thinking. The potential of foresight for policy and strategy development is not yet fully appreciated, and lack of familiarity with specific methods limits its proper use in public administration.
Malta’s commitment to addressing long-term challenges is growing, influenced by EU policies that encourage long-term planning, particularly through mandates associated with the Recovery and Resilience Plan. Building foresight capacity could encourage policy and strategy resilience in Malta’s institutions, increase co-ordination, and increase resilience in the public sector. Building on existing stakeholder engagement practices, further training and evidence-generation efforts could help make strategic foresight a core component of Malta’s governance framework.
The following nine levers outline strategic opportunities for integrating foresight into a proactive, cohesive anticipatory governance approach.
1. Existing institutions for cross-sectoral co-ordination could be enhanced by the application of strategic foresight
A key use-case of strategic foresight is to explore complex, cross-sectoral challenges such as climate change and ageing, and the approaches for addressing them. Strategic foresight can establish a platform where experts from many disciplines and policy fields can consider the impact of future trends and changes and generate valuable intelligence for decision making. Frequent cross-sectoral co-ordination can help governments identify challenges of wide-ranging impact, and strategic foresight could help make sense of their effects.
Malta has some structures for inter-ministerial co-ordination, but they do not have a sufficiently developed anticipatory governance capacity. Inter-ministerial committees and co-ordination bodies such as the Permanent Secretary Forum, the technical committee for cross-cutting issues, the Inter-ministerial Co-ordination body for European Affairs (IMC), the DCS Forum, CIO Forum, the Digital Committee, and the Implementation and Co-ordination Division are not regularly used to identify cross-cutting issues and challenges that require a better understanding of future impacts, as well as making sense of futures knowledge to inform decision making.
Despite the structures for horizontal co-ordination, interviewees reported that a silo mentality persists. Limited co-ordination between ministries and authorities means that potential challenges are often not identified or acted upon. This is reflected in the survey, in which 36% of respondents cited “relationships between internal units or policy areas” as an obstacle to considering long-term policy implications (see Figure 2.9).
Note: N=944 to 1 017.
Refers to the question: “What enables or hinders you to consider long-term policy implications or make use of innovative approaches in your work?”.
Source OECD.
2. Expanding mechanisms for continuity across policy cycles would help promote long-term exploration, futures-thinking, and learning
Time horizons for strategies and finances in Malta are largely determined by institutional logic rather than subject-matter needs. A majority of visions, strategies, and plans have time horizons from five to ten years. Short political cycles mean that most policies have a four-year time horizon to produce results and are likely to prioritise economic growth over other objectives, such as the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The survey revealed that “political agendas”, “recent or ongoing crises”, and “operational or financing models” are perceived as the greatest obstacles to long-term thinking.
Agencies and authorities that operate at arm’s length from government play a key role in developing longer-term strategies, such as the National Transport Strategy 2050. Alongside these institutions, the Guardian of Future Generations, a body tasked with safeguarding intergenerational sustainability, could additionally be leveraged to integrate long-term thinking into policymaking. This has political legitimacy. In the OECD’s “Institutional scan of the existing sustainable development framework” (2022), almost all the 15 ministries consulted supported the existence of a body to advocate for the interests and needs of future generations, while over 57% of survey respondents agreed that the Guardian contributed to achieving this aim (OECD, 2021[45]). Discussions with the Office of the Prime Minister suggested that a government agency or authority would be integral to the institutionalisation of strategic foresight in Malta’s public sector.
3. Existing stakeholder participation could be adapted to collect future signals and build trust in future visions
Engaging a diverse spectrum of stakeholders in foresight helps to ensure that futures knowledge is more robust and that policy goals are relevant and legitimate. Wider participation helps to enrich insights about the future, make sense of future signals, and establish visions of possible, plausible, and desirable futures.
The public administration in Malta has actively engaged stakeholders in policymaking. But although Malta ranks in the top half of EU countries for societal consultation (European Commission, 2021[46]), this has not been used to develop robust futures knowledge. The Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD) represents various stakeholders and plays an important advisory role. Online public consultation for draft strategies, policies, and legislation is typically open for 30 to 90 days and managed by the Office of the Prime Minister. Such venues for stakeholder participation have not been used to collect future signals and build trust in future visions, possibly because long-term objectives and strategic foresight have not been integrated into the working processes. This might be explained by a lack of know-how and capacity in strategic foresight.
Nonetheless, examples of innovation in stakeholder participation stand out, such as “pre-consultation” and engagement (in focus groups, working groups, and business breakfasts etc.). Interviewees reported that these have been pioneered in the Social Vision for Malta 2035, National Education Strategy 2024-2030, National Autism Strategy, National Disability Strategy and Gozo Regional Development Strategy. They explained that this had increased legitimacy and established valuable networks of actors to advise on policies. The establishment of the Autism Advisory Council (which oversees the National Autism Strategy) demonstrates how institutional bodies can be established to ensure that affected citizens are represented in decision making.
Established and innovative approaches to engaging stakeholders and the public could be adapted and enhanced through the application of strategic foresight approaches, from setting the vision for policy goals to stress-testing policies and strategies against plausible future changes.
4. Leveraging and enhancing established practices for evidence generation and use would ensure that futures knowledge is perceived as robust and legitimate
Capacity and a strong culture for evidence use, monitoring, and evaluation provide a sound foundation for anticipatory governance. They ensure that exploration of the future through strategic foresight is grounded in evidence and that policies may be adjusted based on feedback on their impact.
Recognition of the importance of data collection and evidence use in Malta is widespread, with ministries and authorities investing in skills and capacities for research and analysis to inform policy. The Ministry of Social Policy and Children’s Rights (MSPC), for example, has a dedicated research unit to inform policy. The Ministry for Education, Sport, Youth, Research and Innovation (MEYR) has a Policy Monitoring and Evaluation Directorate and has set up a dedicated planning and foresight unit. Also, the Malta Tourism Authority has established a new observatory to gather and analyse data on futures trends. Impact Assessment Forms (IAF) are required for new legislation, and a wide range of data and evidence is applied to assess the feasibility and impact of policies (OECD, 2021[45]). Training in evidence-based decision making and evidence-based management has been co-ordinated and sponsored by the Institute of Public Service. However, the use of strategic foresight in these assessments has been limited so far.
Despite efforts to increase the capability for evidence use and analysis, limited capacity in Malta means that the data available can be limited and research is often contracted out to external researchers, often not from Malta. Insights are often collected through international organisations and with reference to other small island nations. As a result, analysis is not always tailored to Malta’s specific context.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are often included in policy documents and can provide a basis for monitoring and evaluation. However, a number of stakeholders have said that these are not sufficiently clear or relevant to the measures being undertaken.
5. Demand for futures thinking is growing but not consistent across the public sector
Malta’s small size means that there is little redundancy in infrastructure and resources. As a result, crises can have wide-ranging and potentially catastrophic impacts. Recent challenges, such as COVID-19 and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, have prompted a recognition of the need to prepare for future risks and changes in Malta. This is reflected in current government projects, such as the update of a critical risk assessment initially developed in 2016 (European Commission, 2016[47]), the development of contingency plans for food security, and through participation in EU working groups.
A substantial portion of survey respondents report that they feel encouraged to consider future changes when making decisions at work, but not necessarily across the workforce (Figure 2.10). Top managers stand out as the group most strongly associated with this encouraging environment, with 80% stating that they are often or always encouraged to think about how things may change in the future. Middle managers, policy professionals, secretarial professionals, and service delivery professionals are slightly less encouraged, with policy professionals consistently expressing this statement more frequently than other professional groups. It is notable that in these less senior roles, 40%-50% report that they are never or rarely encouraged to think about how things may change in the future. While this may reflect the focus of their roles, this finding implies that the authorising environment for anticipatory governance is not consistent.
Note: N= 914.
Responses to the statement: “When making decisions at work, I am encouraged to consider how things might change in the future”.
Source: OECD.
6. The influence of the EU on Malta could promote futures thinking, directly and indirectly
The European Commission is encouraging the authorising environment for anticipatory governance by promoting longer-term policies that have influence in Malta, as well as greater consideration of the future through planning and reporting requirements. For operational and maintenance plans of investments, the European Commission increasingly demands that Malta conduct obligatory long-term planning. For the Recovery and Resilience Plan, an assessment is required on long-term impacts of investment under “Do No Significant Harm.” EU funds often provide the resources for action to achieve longer-term priorities.
EU influence was considered by survey respondents as one of the most powerful drivers for considering long-term policy implications and introducing innovative approaches. Given the perceived disruption of political agendas, it may be that influences from EU institutions are viewed as providing a more stable, long-term perspective for policy work.
A mismatch between Malta’s specific context and EU initiatives could promote exploration of alternative futures. Stakeholders explained that many EU policies are not feasible given Malta’s small size, or could even, such as green regulation on flights, have a detrimental impact. Applying approaches from strategic foresight could help Malta explore the possible impacts of these policies or “back-cast” from objectives to develop realistic action plans.
7. Policy professionals and top managers are conscious of how their work shapes the future
Most respondents to the survey believe in their work’s significance in shaping the future, a key element of agency for anticipatory governance (Figure 2.11). Top managers and policy professionals exhibit the highest positive association with this belief, followed by middle managers and service delivery professionals. In contrast, secretarial professionals demonstrate the lowest association with the belief in the transformative future impact of their work.
One plausible explanation for this observation could be the existing organisational design, which encourages an environment where top managers and policy professionals actively engage in decision making and strategic responsibilities. Their involvement in setting long-term goals, formulating policies and programmes, and envisioning future scenarios naturally encourages belief in the transformative future impact of their work. While middle managers and service delivery professionals still exhibit a positive inclination, their roles are typically more associated with operational and administrative activities, which might challenge their belief that their work plays a role in shaping the future.
Note: N=914.
Responses to the statement: “I believe my work plays a role in shaping the future”.
Source: OECD.
8. Leaders play a key role in promoting skills in the public sector to help Malta to anticipate and deal with change as it unfolds
In interviews, leaders in the Maltese public sector clearly recognised the need for a new set of public sector skills to address contemporary challenges, indicating the importance of creating new roles for change management and strategic direction. They explained that demanding projects and uncertain environments require “horizontal thinkers”, proactivity, determination, leadership skills, and integrity. A considerable proportion of respondents to the survey identified recognition from leadership as a common reward for pursuing new or alternative approaches.
In this context, identifying skills needs and suitable training by and for leaders is a priority. In some ministries, directors are required to create a training plan for each officer. In the appointment process for senior officials, skills gaps are identified to identify the need for tailored training. The Institute of Public Service is understood to be an effective and accessible partner and provider of training and is working with several ministries to develop specialised training. In addition, brokered access to courses on foresight and horizon scanning with King’s College London is available. Leaders are proactive in identifying external training where required and can therefore be a significant driver of building anticipatory capacity.
9. A broader, more consistent understanding of the approaches of strategic foresight is needed to ensure that they are applied appropriately
Despite the interest in foresight, misconceptions and a lack of skills mean that stakeholders in Malta are not using futures thinking to its full potential. Many government stakeholders consider that the main application of foresight is for strategic planning; in reality, strategic foresight complements and counteracts some of the limitations of planning by revealing a wider range of changes that may disrupt plans. Forecasting has been used to develop scenarios and strategies that explore a narrow range of future possibilities, but they do not take into account uncertainty or stress-test strategies against a wide range of future changes and scenarios.
The survey results show that respondents have greater familiarity with quantitative approaches such as forecasting (see Figure 2.12). The greatest familiarity is with “development of scenarios or scenario planning” and “quantitative modeling”, suggesting a culture of evidence use and reflecting the provision of training modules by the Institute of Public Service that focus on quantitative approaches to forecasting and prediction. However, few respondents have knowledge or experience of more explorative methods, such as “visioning”, “horizon scanning”, “wind-tunnelling/stress-testing”, and “back-casting”. Differences in familiarity among groups may be attributed to the type of methods (intuitive, technical), their perceived complexity (time, data availability, usability), historical usage in the organisation (previous experiences, proved benefits), and the specific skills and expertise required. One possible cause is that analysis of future changes that could impact Malta is often outsourced to external experts, precluding the development of such skills in the public service.
Note: N=1 100 to 1 125.
Responses to the question: “How familiar are you with these strategic foresight methods and practices?”.
Source: OECD.
2.2.1. Lithuania
From an anticipatory innovation governance perspective, the authorising environment in Lithuania has evolved significantly. Governance progress includes the creation of the Committee for the Future, the mandate given to STRATA to develop and apply strategic foresight work and analysis, and the approval of LT2050 in Parliament in late 2023, which replaces the previous State Progress Strategy LT2030. The adoption of the Law on Strategic Governance, in 2020, is the source of this mandate and the foundation of foresight practice in Lithuania. Additionally, the White Book provides guidance and further legitimacy for the initial phases of the strategic foresight ecosystem in Lithuania. Nevertheless, while Lithuania aims to increase cross-sectoral and functional capability, some governance mechanisms still require attention, such as consolidating foresight networks and partnerships.
In terms of agency, most deficiencies were identified, and the government aims to address these in the coming years. Lithuania has recognised that organisational foresight capacity across the public administration is still limited. Surveys and this assessment have noted the need for significant improvement in disseminating a foresight culture and embedding foresight practices in the workstreams of civil servants.
Considering the contextual analysis of the assessment, the OECD proposes that Lithuania can focus on developing the following levers. Each consideration presented below is categorised under the Anticipatory Innovation Governance (AIG) model and its mechanisms:
Authorising Environment
Learning loops: Implementing mechanisms to ensure the continuity of ministerial strategies across political cycles could strengthen Lithuania’s capacity for long-term exploration, futures thinking, and learning. Strengthening learning loops and streamlining strategic and planning documents will anchor the mechanisms for policy and strategy review and adaptation.
Legitimacy: Lithuania’s strategic foresight ecosystem, still in development, would benefit from intensified high-level discussions in Parliament to increase its legitimacy. An organic, phased implementation approach to the institutionalisation of strategic foresight can be considered, leveraging existing structures and competencies. This topic of discussion is presented in the White Book. It is important to ensure a clear communication strategy for the dissemination of the White Book among key players and idea champions, to stimulate momentum in Parliament and across government institutions.
Networks and partnerships: Enhancing networks and partnerships is crucial to break down knowledge silos and disseminate futures knowledge, capability, and skills through the government. Building practice and learning communities with the National Library and continuing STRATA’s role in generating foresight practice and knowledge (as demonstrated by the Lithuania 2050 process and strategic foresight governance reports), will support these goals. Such efforts will encourage a government-wide foresight learning network and community of practice.
Public interest and participation: Continuous, rather than one-time, efforts are called for in collaborative policymaking that incorporates foresight. The government should encourage cross-sectoral partnerships and improve forward-looking capability outside the public sector.
Agency
Institutional structures: Addressing the institutional culture in Lithuania is essential to promote proactivity and adaptability. As the survey results suggest, the positive association of top managers in encouraging futures thinking can help boost intentional efforts to cultivate a supportive atmosphere at all levels of the civil service. It also underscores the crucial role of top managers in encouraging a futures-thinking culture in their teams. By actively promoting a mindset that embraces change and anticipation, top managers can serve as catalysts for innovation and adaptation throughout the organisation.
Organisational capacity: Surveys indicate a strong acknowledgement among Lithuanian civil servants of their role in shaping the future, with varying degrees of engagement across different hierarchical roles. Strategies to raise awareness and engagement in foresight activity should also be targeted towards support staff and those at lower levels in the hierarchy.
Experimentation and exploration of alternatives: It is significant that a portion of Lithuanian civil servants report spending less than 20% of their time on innovative activity. Enhancing the emphasis on innovation, particularly among top managers and public policy professionals, could help build a more dynamic and futures-oriented civil service.
2.2.2. Italy
Earlier OECD recommendations on policy coherence for implementing SDGs (OECD, 2021[39]), highlighted challenges in developing an authorising environment for strategic foresight in Italy. While there was limited leadership support from bottom-up foresight initiatives, recent developments suggest an increasing recognition of its value and indicate progress. Efforts to enhance cross-sectoral co-ordination, leverage external expertise, and integrate evidence into policymaking have strengthened since 2021, signalling a shift towards a more structured foresight ecosystem.
In terms of agency, civil servants in Italy recognise that their work plays a role in shaping the future. However, a low level of familiarity with the tools and methods of foresight indicates that they are likely to lack the capabilities to anticipate and address future opportunities and challenges. There is investment in training in strategic foresight, and organisational capacity is being developed in some ministries, agencies, and regional administrations. The gap between the authorising environment and agency will be important to address if Italy is to ensure that capacity for anticipatory governance is embedded and effective.
The overall picture of strategic foresight capacity in Italy is of emerging but disconnected practices driven by demand in the regions and ministries and supported piecemeal by capability outside government. A centralised capacity to support capability building, offer methodological support, and provide intelligence would help to generate legitimacy and more consistent demand. In addition, it could co-ordinate the fragmented but developing network of practitioners of strategic foresight in government and promote peer-learning and capacity development, e.g. with the recently created SNA Community of Practice on Strategic Foresight.
Italy should focus on developing the following levers:
Authorising environment
Support from leadership: While there is a growing demand for futures thinking, strategic foresight is not recognised as a valuable approach at the highest levels of government. Building leaders’ understanding and support is important to create demand for anticipatory capacity.
Stakeholder participation: Building capacity in innovative stakeholder engagement and consultation practices can increase the effectiveness of anticipatory approaches and benefit from the insights and legitimacy that key stakeholders can offer.
Networks of expertise: The knowledge and capability of academics and consultancies remain relatively modest and not regularly applied to public sector challenges. A more systematic engagement with academia could leverage Italy’s existing strengths in research and higher education.
Horizontal and vertical co-ordination: Cross-sectoral and vertical co-ordination to explore synergies, trade-offs, and preferred futures is limited but increasing. Strategic foresight approaches that engage stakeholders across ministries and regions could be effective at promoting policy coherence.
Evidence use: Processes for evidence collection, monitoring, and evaluation to adapt and adjust policies are not sufficiently developed. Improving these would allow the government to better anticipate the range of possible impact of future change as well as monitor the effectiveness of policies that are informed by futures thinking.
International influence: The influence of international engagement and the EU is a driver for futures thinking. By developing capacities in strategic foresight, Italy can improve its ability to deliver on EU objectives, in addition to developing a more proactive civil service.
Agency
Personal agency: Officials feel they have agency to shape the future but have a low level of familiarity with tools and methods for considering future change. They are likely to be motivated to address this capability gap.
Recruitment and training: Training and the intake of new staff offer an opportunity to develop more innovative skills in an ageing civil service. Given the current age profile of the Italian civil service, acting quickly to establish strategic foresight as a key competence for new recruits could have a major impact on Italy’s capacity for effective anticipation.
Organisational capacity: Organisational capacity for futures-thinking approaches is being developed across ministries and agencies, but it is fragmented. The Italian National School of Administration (Scuola Nazionale dell’Amministrazione, or SNA) plays a key role in supporting strategic foresight practitioners across government. Its role in facilitating knowledge sharing is likely to act as a catalyst for anticipatory capacity in Italy. A centralised capacity to support capability building, offer methodological support, and provide intelligence would help to generate legitimacy and more consistent demand. In addition, it could co-ordinate the disparate but developing network of practitioners of strategic foresight in government and promote peer-learning and capacity development.
2.2.3. Malta
The assessment undertaken in this study identifies key levers for the institutionalisation of strategic foresight in Malta. The multiple-stage process in the development of the report has allowed for the synthesis of key strengths and areas for development, based on the feedback of key stakeholders and broader validation through a survey shared with all public servants in Malta.
The authorising environment for strategic foresight in Malta is developing, with a growing demand for futures thinking supported by institutions and practices for cross-sectoral co-ordination, evidence use, and stakeholder participation. Government silos and short-term time horizons present the greatest challenges for institutionalising strategic foresight capacity effectively.
In terms of agency, there is a recognition among policy professionals and top management that their work plays a role in shaping the future and that new skills are necessary to design and implement policy effectively in a complex and changing environment. However, knowledge of which tools and methods are valuable is limited. Given leaders’ central role in identifying relevant skills for public servants, it will be important to engage them. Increasing their understanding of strategic foresight and supporting them in communicating its value will help establish capacity for anticipation.
A centralised system is considered most appropriate for establishing strategic foresight as a core capacity in the Maltese public sector. A team in the centre of government could be established to promote the uptake of strategic foresight and the development of skills, while an agency with suitable capabilities could provide methodological support and analysis to stakeholders across government. A network of policymakers working with strategic foresight in different ministries (such as the Policy Development and Programme Implementation Directorate in the Office of the Prime Minister, or PDPI) would be beneficial, to share good practices and intelligence generated through the application of strategic foresight. The Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD), which plays an important consultative role in government, should be upskilled to build understanding and acceptance of strategic foresight approaches.
Considering the contextual analysis of this assessment, the OECD proposes that Malta should focus on developing the following levers:
Authorising Environment
Cross-sectoral co-ordination: Existing institutions for cross-sectoral co-ordination could be enhanced through the application of strategic foresight, but government silos present a challenge to co-ordinated action.
Institutions to facilitate continuity: Short-term time horizons for policy based on political cycles and institutional logic have limited thinking about longer-term trends and impacts. More autonomous institutions could be used to explore and articulate future visions and challenges.
Stakeholder participation: Established and innovative approaches for stakeholder participation are common and could be adapted to collect future signals and build trust in future visions. The Malta Council for Economic and Social Development (MCESD) should be upskilled to build its understanding and acceptance of strategic foresight approaches.
Evidence use: Leveraging practices for evidence generation and use would ensure that futures knowledge is perceived as robust and legitimate. Enhancing internal capacity for analysis and evaluation in the public sector, rather than outsourcing, would help embed these practices in the policy process. Building this capacity internally would ensure that more precise and reliable data for Malta is generated.
Demand for futures thinking: Many public sector workers recognise the value of thinking systematically about the future, but encouragement for this is not consistent across the public sector. Building awareness of the value of strategic foresight at all levels is likely to be important to stimulate futures thinking and proactively address organisational barriers.
External influences: Long-term policies, reporting, and evaluation criteria from the EU have resulted in a more future-oriented outlook in Malta. This provides an incentive and the legitimacy to develop strategic foresight capacity.
Agency
Personal agency: Policy professionals and top managers are conscious of their work’s influence in shaping the future. This can be leveraged as a motivating factor to encourage the integration of strategic foresight into their work practices. Further justification and incentives for futures thinking will be necessary for those in secretarial and service delivery roles.
Promotion of skills innovation: Leaders play a key role in promoting skills in the public sector to help Malta to anticipate and deal with change as it unfolds. Ensuring recognition and understanding of the value of strategic foresight among leaders is critical to its integration into policy processes. Further incentives will be needed to reward the development and application of innovative skills and practices.
Tools and methods: Public servants in Malta are exploring the future through some established methods, but their tools are limited. A broader and more consistent understanding of the approaches of strategic foresight is necessary to ensure that they are applied appropriately. Training should aim to expand officials’ awareness of the breadth of approaches for exploring the future.
References
[40] Bertelsmann Stiftung (2020), Sustainable Governance Indicators: Italy, https://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2020/country/SGI2020_Italy.pdf (accessed on 29 March 2024).
[9] Butland, B. et al. (2007), Tackling Obesities: Future Choices – Project report, UK Government Office for Science, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a759da7e5274a4368298a4f/07-1184x-tackling-obesities-future-choices-report.pdf.
[23] Calof, J. and B. Colton (2024), “Developing foresight that impacts senior management decisions”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 198, p. 123036, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123036.
[17] Chauke Nehme, C. et al. (2012), “Challenges in communicating the outcomes of a foresight study to advise decision-makers on policy and strategy”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 39/2, pp. 245-257, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs015.
[32] Dal Borgo, R. and P. Sasia (2022), “Toward a Diagnostic Tool for Organizational Ethical Culture With Futures Thinking and Scenario Planning”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 69/2, pp. 524-536, https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.2020.3018309.
[20] de France, O. and N. Witney (2012), Étude comparative des livres blancs des 27 états membres de l’Union européenne : pour la définition d’un cadre européen, No. 18, IRSEM, Institut de Recherche Stratégique de l’École Militaire, https://archives.defense.gouv.fr/content/download/185008/2037037/file/Etude%2018-2012.pdf.
[31] Deckert, C. and R. Schomaker (2022), “Cultural tightness–looseness and national innovativeness: impacts of tolerance and diversity of opinion”, Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 11/1, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-022-00219-2.
[46] European Commission (2021), Public administration and governance: Malta, Directorate General for Structural Reform Support, European Commission Publications Office, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2887/877557.
[47] European Commission (2016), Peer Review Risk Assessment: Malta 2016, https://civil-protection-humanitarian-aid.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2017-07/malta_peer_review_report_-_en.pdf.
[22] European Parliament (2008), The future of the European Security Strategy: Towards a White Book on European Defence, European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EXPO-SEDE_DV(2008)388965.
[21] European Union (2018), EU Defence: The White Book implementation process, European Parliament, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2018/603871/EXPO_STU(2018)603871_EN.pdf.
[18] European Union (n.d.), “White paper”, Publications Office of the European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/glossary/white-paper.html (accessed on 13 February 2025).
[44] Government of Malta (2022), Malta’s Sustainable Development Strategy for 2050.
[10] Government of Norway (2024), Foresight in Policy Development - The Digital Norway of the Future, Norwegian Ministry of Digitalisation and Public Governance, https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/the-digital-norway-of-the-future/id3054645/.
[3] Ko, B. and J. Yang (2024), “Developments and challenges of foresight evaluation: Review of the past 30 years of research”, Futures, Vol. 155, p. 103291, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103291.
[27] Kononenko, V. (2021), Participatory foresight: Preventing an impact gap in the EU’s approach to sustainability and resilience, Scientific Foresight Unit, European Parliamentary Research Serviced, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/690048/EPRS_BRI(2021)690048_EN.pdf.
[7] Lehr, T. et al. (2017), “Scenario-based strategizing: Advancing the applicability in strategists’ teams”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 124, pp. 214-224, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.06.026.
[16] Lopata, R., G. Viliūnas and A. Augustinaitis (2024), Anticipatory Governance: Opportunities for public sector strategic foresight: Assessment report, Lithuania, Final report, https://lrv.lt/public/canonical/1737465969/426158/LIMinal_Lithuania%20Assessment%20and%20Actions%20November2024%20-%20DG%20REFORM%20website.pdf?__cf_chl_rt_tk=7__97BU9brarNU3XggizrNoqldxsy4Ea60kwjgOiERs-1743195565-1.0.1.1-7kHqNKTKbcflLo4zZpD0JORp9oMx1THXN.
[25] Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania (2021), Strategic Orientations and Priorities 2021–2023, Lithuania, Vilnius.
[2] Monteiro, B. and R. Dal Borgo (2023), “Supporting decision making with strategic foresight: An emerging framework for proactive and prospective governments.”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 63, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1d78c791-en.
[24] National Audit Office of Finland (2022), Monitoring of the operating environment and foresight activities to support strategic decision-making, Finland, Helsinki, https://www.vtv.fi/en/publications/monitoring-of-the-operating-environment-and-foresight-activities-to-support-strategic-decision-making/.
[36] National Audit Office of Lithuania (2022), Assessment of the proposed reform of the civil service system, National Audit Office, Vilnius, https://www.valstybeskontrole.lt/EN/Product/24139/assessment-of-the-proposed-reform-of-the-civil-service-system.
[11] Nazarko, J. et al. (2017), “Application of Enhanced SWOT Analysis in the Future-oriented Public Management of Technology”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 182, pp. 482-490, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.140.
[6] O’Brien, F. and M. Meadows (2013), “Scenario orientation and use to support strategy development”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 80/4, pp. 643-656, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.06.006.
[14] OECD (2024), “Framework for Anticipatory Governance of Emerging Technologies”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 165, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/0248ead5-en.
[29] OECD (2023), The Public Governance of Anticipatory Innovation Ecosystems in Latvia: Exploring Applications in Key Sectors, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/83170d2e-en.
[1] OECD (2022), Anticipatory Innovation Governance Model in Finland: Towards a New Way of Governing, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a31e7a9a-en.
[43] OECD (2022), Italy’s National Action Plan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/54226722-en.
[41] OECD (2021), Government at a Glance 2021, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1c258f55-en.
[39] OECD (2021), Italy Governance Scan for Policy Coherence for Sustainable Development, OECD, Paris, https://reform-support.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-10/Italy%20Governance%20Scan%20for%20Policy%20Coherence%20%20for%20Sustainable%20Development.pdf.
[45] OECD (2021), Malta Institutional Scan of the Existing Sustainable Development Governance Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[5] OECD (2021), Mobilising Evidence at the Centre of Government in Lithuania: Strengthening Decision Making and Policy Evaluation for Long-term Development, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/323e3500-en.
[42] OECD (2021), Public Employment and Management 2021: The Future of the Public Service, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/938f0d65-en.
[34] OECD (2019), “Declaration on Public Sector Innovation”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0450, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0450.
[35] OECD (2017), Skills for a High Performing Civil Service, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264280724-en.
[30] OPSI-OECD (2022), “Dialogue between the city & its people: Guide to civic participation in public space projects”, https://oecd-opsi.org/innovations/public-space-dialogue/ (accessed on 13 February 2025).
[15] Paliokaitė, A. and A. Sadauskaitė (2023), “Institutionalisation of participative and collaborative governance: Case studies of Lithuania 2030 and Finland 2030”, Futures, Vol. 150, p. 103174, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2023.103174.
[4] Parliament of Lithuania (2020), Strateginio valdymo įstatymas Nr. XIII-3096 (Law on Strategic Governance), https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/90386d20bab711ea9a12d0dada3ca61b.
[13] Phaal, R. (2020), Roadmapping for Strategy and Innovation, Centre for Technology Management, Institute for Manufacturing, Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, https://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/uploads/Resources/roadmapping_overview.pdf.
[12] Phaal, R., C. Farrukh and D. Probert (2004), “Technology roadmapping—A planning framework for evolution and revolution”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 71/1-2, pp. 5-26, https://doi.org/10.1016/s0040-1625(03)00072-6.
[37] Republic of Lithuania (2023), Sixth session: the Seimas approves the civil service reform and commits to further supporting Ukraine and strengthening national security, Press release, 4 July 2023, Office of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania, https://www.lrs.lt/sip/portal.show?p_r=35403&p_k=2&p_t=285663&p_kade_id=10.
[28] Sriebaliūtė et al. (2021), The design challenges of the Republic of Lithuania for the future: Analysis of ecosystems for the future of other countries and initial proposals to Lithuania, Government Centre for Strategic Analysis, Vilnius.
[33] State Progress Council (n.d.), “Lithuania’s Progress Strategy “Lithuania 2030”, State Progress Council, https://lrv.lt/uploads/main/documents/files/EN_version/Useful_information/lithuania2030.pdf.
[38] 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.
[8] UK Government Office for Science (2017), The Futures Toolkit: Tools for Futures Thinking and Foresight Across UK Government, GO-Science by Waverley Consultants, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/futures-toolkit-for-policy-makers-and-analysts.
[19] UK Parliament (n.d.), “White Papers”, UK Parliament, https://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/white-paper/ (accessed on 13 February 2025).
[26] Vilnius University (2022), Strategy Lithuania 2050 Developed Using Foresight Methodology: What Is It and Why Is It Used?, Vilnius University, https://www.vu.lt/en/news-events/news/strategy-lithuania-2050-developed-using-foresight-methodology-what-is-it-and-why-is-it-used.
Cassingena Harper, J. and L. Georghiou (2005), “The targeted and unforeseen impacts of foresight on innovation policy: The eFORESEE Malta case study”, International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJFIP.2005.007597.
Central Bank of Malta (2022), Malta’s Governance Framework: Insights from International Governance Indicators, retrieved from https://www.centralbankmalta.org/site/Reports-Articles/2022/Malta-Governance Framework.pdf?revcount=6845.
CSF (2023), Conversations for the Future Vol. 3: The Evolving Foresight Ecosystem in Singapore, Prime Minister’s Office, Centre for Strategic Futures, retrieved from https://www.csf.gov.sg/media-centre/publications/convo-for-future/.
European Commission (2022), Recommendation for a COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION on the 2022 National Reform Programme of Malta, retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-05/2022-european-semester-country-report-malta_en.pdf.
European Commission, (2021), Public administration and governance: Italy, Directorate General for Structural Reform Support, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2887/030625.
Government of Malta (2022), A Social Vision for Malta 2035: Shaping the Future of our Society.
Government of Malta (2021), A Future-Proof Malta: Malta’s Economic Vision 2021-2031 (Public Consultation Document).
Hagin, J. et al. (2014), United States Secret Service Protective Mission Panel (USSSMP), United States Secret Service, retrieved from https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1218_usss_pmp%281%29.pdf.
OECD (2020), “Governance for Youth, Trust and Intergenerational Justice: Fit for All Generations?” OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3e5cb8a-en.
OECD (2019), Foresight for Better Policies: Building Effective Governance in the Face of Uncertain Futures, OECD, Paris, retrieved from https://www.oecd.org/strategic-foresight/ourwork/Strategic%20Foresight%20for%20Better%20Policies.pdf.
← 1. The vision document “Lithuania 2050” was approved on 23 December 2023 by 81 Members of the Seimas (Parliament) representing all parliamentary groups to replace the State Progress Strategy “Lithuania 2030”. Fifteen parliamentarians abstained. Source: https://atvirasseimas.lrs.lt/processes/iniciatyvos-vizija-LT2050.
← 2. This is implemented within the framework of a project initiated by the Ministry of Education and Science. Project duration: May 1, 2023 – April 30, 2026.
← 3. The Ministry of Transport and Communications stands out as the sole government entity acknowledged for having a dedicated “foresight unit” that has years of experience in the field of foresight analysis and research.
← 4. See GPRA MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2010 at: https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ352/PLAW-111publ352.pdf.