By Umar Sheraz
At the 2019 meeting of the Asia Pacific Futures Network, I had the pleasure of interviewing Dr. Susann Roth, Principal Knowledge Sharing and Services Specialist at the Asian Development Bank (ADB). Below are some key insights.
Umar: New policies are often thought on the basis of current trends rather than future opportunities. The need to focus on short-term measures often prevents governments and businesses from orientating their policy choices toward future possibilities. Do you think that evidence-based policymaking and foresight can coexist?
Susann: Yes, absolutely. We need to look at the evidence and make policies based on that evidence. This is obviously important when we make investment decisions. Multilateral Development Banks are going through a renewal of a kind, becoming more concerned with evidence and aiming to learn faster from the implementation of projects. While we have to learn from the past, however, the problems of the future are different and more complex. I believe a balance is needed in decision making, combining evidence with foresight. The power of foresight, which is different from strategy and planning, is that with it we can consider multiple scenarios and not just one. Then you can prepare accordingly.
Umar: A common theme I have noticed in foresight and policy dialogues is the wariness of policymakers in the developing world of such initiatives. A comment usually heard is that policymaking and foresight are “a waste of time” and “a luxury which the developing world cannot afford.” How do you sensitize your partners in the developing world to the need for foresight in policymaking?
Susann: Your question is on point. I have observed this not only in foresight-related work but also in all sectors, and it seems that all kinds of development topics are often driven by development partners. There’s a lot of good discussion in meetings and conferences, but I feel we have to go to the next level and have a more bespoke engagement with policymakers and understand the context better. I call it the “process of co-creation”, where it’s not about talking at each other but talking with each other. I believe foresight has powerful tools to enable this dialogue. First, foresight helps make this kind of dialogue possible. Second, foresight enables people to use not only evidence and their understanding of the world, their context, but also their imagination and creativity. This is often missing in the highly bureaucratic public sectors with which we work.
Umar: International monetary agencies have been known to have a significant influence on their member states. When you talk about fantasizing about the future and looking beyond data, do you think agencies’ influence becomes an impediment? Foresight becomes suspect to the people you are trying to help. How do you tackle this phenomenon?
Susann: We engage through country-level champions. I learned a lot from a senior consultant and mentor, who had the amazing capability to work behind the scenes and empower local government champions. We try not to be visible but work through these government champions and then work with local partners. I fully agree with you that you do not want to have a development partner-driven foresight agenda. We also all agree that the problems we are facing are new to all of us. Nobody has the perfect solution because all solutions are compounded with vested interests in traditional economic growth models. As long as that isn’t tackled, problems will persist, and it doesn’t matter if you are developed or underdeveloped.
Umar: Working with a bank, monitoring and evaluation of any project or program are important. What sort of indicators does ADB use to monitor progress, especially in auditing a foresight program?
Susann: That’s a good question and one we are grappling with. How do we prove that our foresight engagement and foresight program add value? The program is one tool among many for engaging in policy dialogue on innovation. The program opens the mind. It looks at uncertainties. It uses creativity to grade these scenarios. Then you can innovate in backcasting policy decisions and the investments that need to follow. The program is one tool for engaging in dialogue on innovation—innovation policy, innovation investment, innovation in the private sector, and creation of an innovation ecosystem. For an organization like ADB, evidence that the program works is of the greatest importance. The program should result in, first, better policy dialogue and more sustainable and equitable policies. Second, the program should encourage positive engagement with our member countries so that they want to work with ADB as a knowledge partner on foresight and national policies. The partnership should shape investment decisions. And third, the foresight program should raise the quality of our projects and other programs and make them more efficient, effective, sustainable, and relevant.
What is relevant today is different, of course, from what will be relevant in 10 to 20 years. The success of foresight programs has to do with inspiring people. Yes, we are a multilateral development bank, but we have to set agendas and help people have the vision and inspire them to do the work. We want to be part of that change and we want to see that change for our children. I might sound like an activist but I believe that this is also a development bank’s role.
Umar: Those are beautiful thoughts. Let’s look at them from the point-of-view of the ADB. The bank still needs to monitor progress. For example, how many kilometers of roads have been financed or has GDP per capita improved? What are the new indicators for monitoring progress?
Susann: Our new corporate results framework looks also at all kinds of quality outputs, which go beyond kilometers of roads or transmission lines built. ADB has one of the best corporate results frameworks among multilateral development banks and we are proven to be among the best in development effectiveness.
As for alternatives to measuring GDP, for example, a highly interesting debate is taking place among the economists at ADB. Our economists are interested in social and sustainable development and in how you link that with GDP. There are discussions, of course, about circular economies and green economies and so on. How do you reduce poverty while reducing carbon dioxide emissions? This is the key question, and once we have the answer, then we also have the Holy Grail and a silver bullet. Everyone is struggling to solve this problem. Our Strategy 2030 makes it clear that innovation needs to happen. Our soon-to-be-published innovation framework anchors ADB’s innovation efforts in changing mindsets internally. We want to innovate and support innovation.
Umar: Let’s talk about the paradox of a used future. I noticed that you have done work in e-health. I was involved in an e-health project in Bangladesh some years ago. A big issue with e-health is that it represents a used future. It seems glitzy and appetizing but it has not served the audience it was initially touted to serve. How do you encourage your stakeholders not to pursue used futures?
Susann: When we developed the e-health or digital health agenda at ADB, we used foresight. We said that’s the future and we have to use digital tools to reach more people and improve the quality of care. That was the beginning of my foresight experience. At the same time, we were struggling with the development partner’s ideas of e-health. That was an interesting journey for me because I realized everyone has an agenda. The agenda of development partners is the aggregation of data to see if programs are making progress. When it comes to e-health—and here I’m talking about my own experience, having worked as a physician in various countries—it is only as good as the benefits to its users. If you are a doctor or nurse and you benefit from an e-health system, then you will use it and it will work and it won’t fail. I have done a lot of analyses and studies and developed an impact assessment framework for e-health. What is clear is that you need to put the foundations in place and then you can run certain solutions and applications. In the context of foresight, you can have various scenarios. You can have a vision of a certain future, but you have to understand what kind of foundations you need to put in place to get to that kind of future.
The challenge is in the mistake we sometimes make: let’s just leapfrog to stage seven and use new technologies. Although this is wonderful and well-meant, we forget the foundations that need to be in place. But you can’t measure them very well. They don’t come in kilometers of roads or transmission lines built. The foundations include good governance—IT in this case—and basic infrastructure, skills, capacity development, human capital development, and so on, which are difficult to measure. A lot depends on education to realize our vision for the future.
Umar: At ADB, do you have capacity-building programs to sensitize policymakers to the need for foresight?
Susann: A debate is going on about how we can develop capacity in a more structured and less ad hoc way. We have systems approaches, environmental and social safeguards, agendas, and so on. We work with the system at the policy level and build capacity. The question for me is not so much about capacity development but about how capacity is developed. First, you need to work with the various development partners. Second, you need to combine peer-to-peer learning with bespoke workshops and so on. I’m absolutely against any kind of PowerPoint presentation, seminars because I don’t think that’s capacity development. It has to be on-the-job learning. We have engaged in various countries on foresight and have started to build foresight literacy. We are looking for partners with whom we can continue this. And yes, we are looking at systematic capacity development for foresight.
Umar: Is there anything else you wish to convey to the JFS blog audience?
Susann: One point about foresight. Lots of people are saying that we do strategic planning anyway, so why should we do foresight? I believe the powerful thing about foresight, especially if you use causal layered analysis and Dr. Sohail Inayatullah’s process, is that you touch people’s emotions and feelings. You might say that you come from a bank and that we work in financing and policy and there should be no room for feelings and emotions. But feelings and mindsets, that’s what life is about, and this is what humans are about. There is no doubt that the way you feel influences the way you make decisions. This probably makes us different from any artificial intelligence or makes our decisions different from any computer-based decisions. And I do believe this is where we need to invest: in the emotions and feelings we use to make the right decisions. What is right? It comes back to sustainability and equitability and avoiding a situation where only certain people benefit from policies and investments.
Umar: Thank you very much for your wonderful insights and for your time.
Umar Sheraz is the blog editor of the Journal of Futures Studies and can be reached at umar_sheraz@yahoo.com.
