Knowing the Future : Theories of Time in Policy Analysis
to the present ”( Nowotny 1994 , 50 ). The temporal order of an extended present has large consequences for policymaking , resulting in a constant renewal , evaluation , and redesign of policy processes . Policy cycles are multiplied , repeated , paralleled ( Nowotny 1989 , 56 ). A direct expression of this cyclical character of the extended present is the new randomized controlled trials ( RCT ) movement ( Munro 2014 ; Pearce and Raman 2014 ). RCTs and experimental designs are seen as the “ gold standard ” of an evidence-based policy . With the multiplication of randomized experiments at institutes such as the Abdul LatifJameel Poverty Action Lab ( J-PAL ) at MIT , multiple policy interventions can be tested and retested at the same time all over the world , providing policymakers with direct information on causal relations that can be used as “ rule of thumb ” in the further development of behavior changing policies ( Berndt 2015 ; Straßheim and Korinek 2016 ). The extended present can therefore also be characterized by a dynamic that only seemingly creates a contradiction , namely the shrinking of time horizons “ that is , by the breaking down of series of actions and experiences into ever smaller sequences with shrinking windows of attention ” ( Rosa 2015 , 124 ). Extending and shrinking of time — it all happens in the name of better evidence and a better future .
C . Colonizing the future
The idea that the future is open to “ exploration and exploitation , calculation , and control ” forms the core of a third temporal order ( Adam and Groves 2007 , 2 ). It is both a counteraction to and a consequence of an extended present . With the shrinking of time horizons and the increasing pressure to provide solutions for problems yet to come , policymakers and experts alike seek to “ colonize the future ” ( Giddens 1995 , 5 ). The rise of scenario techniques and forecasts of foresight exercises and integrated assessments of possible futures can be interpreted differently . While some see it as new possibility to explore alternatives and new trajectories of action , others criticize it as a political quest to occupy temporal territory with the help of experts by defining “ global trends ” and determining the debates about the future ( Andersson and Rindzeviciute 2015 ; Schulz 2016 ). Indeed , the analysis of the German debate on the energy transformation (“ Energiewende ”) makes it clear that forecasts of the future are closely tied to the political , social , and economic constellations in the present . Scenarios represent the deep normative and cultural values as they are embedded in foresight practices and modeling techniques ( Aykut 2015 , 129 ). Evidence on future developments has become part of a political struggle on how to realign the collective “ space of experience ” with the “ horizon of expectations ” under the conditions of an extended present ( Koselleck 2004 ). This struggle is not yet decided . In the case of the German energy transformation , it changed the discourse on the future in an unexpected way : “ What some regretted as a progressive ‘ scientization ’ of the ecological movement through increasing reliance on expert knowledge has indeed led to an opening up of energy futures the West German energy debate . The future became political in the sense that social movements used the instrument of scenarios to engage in energy controversies . Alongside the
160