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

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