See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/265186494

"An overview of futures studies."

Chapter · September 1996

CITATIONS READS

16 345

1 author:

Wendell Bell
Yale University
123 PUBLICATIONS 4,375 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Political and social change in the Caribbean: The transition to independence. View project

Imaging and creating the future. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Wendell Bell on 16 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

An Overview of Futures Studies

Wendell Bell

Introduction

Today, 'spaceship Earth' has become a compelling and familiar metaphor, conjuring a picture of the
Earth and its people hurtling through space, dependent on each other and the planet's limited resources.
But there is another equally compelling metaphor needed to make the story complete: the image of 'time
machine earth' seen as an inexorable movement through time from the past into the future. Thus, not
only are all people on Earth space travellers; they are also time travellers. Their tickets through time,
however, are only good for a one-way trip - they can only travel forward toward the future.

The future, of course, is still being made: it is what people can shape and design through their own
actions. To act intelligently, people need to know the consequences of these actions, of others' actions
and reactions, and of forces beyond their control. These consequences can only occur in the future.
Thus, people try to know not only what is happening now, but also what might happen, what could
happen or what will happen in the future given certain conditions. Using such conjectural knowledge,
people orientate themselves in the present and navigate through time, physical space and social space.

A new field of social inquiry has been created whose purpose is the systematic study of the future. It is
sometimes called 'futures studies', 'the futures field', 'futures research', 'futuristics', 'prospective', or
'prognostics', and its practitioners are known as 'futurists'. Futurists aim to discover or invent, propose,
examine and evaluate possible, probable, and preferable futures. They explore alternative futures in
order to assist people in choosing and creating their most desirable future. My purpose in this essay is to
describe some fundamental features of this new field.

The universality of time perspectives

Conceptions of time and the future exist in every known society. They can be seen, for example, in the
practice of divination, which is aimed at discovering the unknown. Divination has been carried out by a
variety of methods, from watching cheese coagulate, to observing animal shoulder blades cracking in a
fire, to examining the entrails of small animals.

References to the future can also be seen in rites de passage in which ceremonial activities recognise
transitions to future social roles, such as those involved at birth, coming of age, marriage, and death.
They can be seen in religious rituals that are aimed at controlling the future, such as appeals for plentiful
supplies of game, large crop yields, or the fertility of tribeswomen. They can also be seen in the
individual development of each person. The ability to anticipate the future begins soon after birth as
children learn that their behaviour brings reactions from other people. As children get older, they expand
their time horizon, both into the past and into the future. As they learn language, they also learn the time
perspectives that are dominant in their culture.

Finally, conceptions of the future can be seen in the history of the development of calendars and clocks.
For example, the Gregorian calendar (constructed in 1582) was a culmination of a long human concern
with the movement of astral bodies, which have long been used as a universal measurement of time. The
calendar is still in use (with an error rate of only half a minute a year) while today advances in the
measurement of time have led to the development of extraordinarily precise instruments such as the
atomic clock (based on radiation of the caesium-133 atom) and, beyond that, to the even more accurate
sapphire-crystal technology that loses only one-100 000 millionths of a second per year. This is not to
say that there are no variations in the meaning and importance of time (and its precise measurement) in
everyday life. They may vary among societies and sometimes between one section of the same society
and another. Nevertheless, conceptions of time and the future exist and have always existed in human
consciousness.

The shift from space to time in utopian thought

Although there were precursors, Thomas More's Utopia, published in 1516, was a watershed.1 By the
end of the sixteenth century, the term 'utopia' (coined by More and literally meaning 'no place') referred
both to an entire genre of fiction and a conception of an ideal place. Until the end of the eighteenth
century, utopias tended to be located geographically distant from, but contemporaneously with, existing
societies. For example, More's utopia was situated in the present, but well beyond the farthest known
place from Europe.

The typical plot in utopian writings is based upon a fictional traveller who arrives, often by shipwreck,
at a distant place inhabited by strange people. He lives there for a time, and then returns to Europe to tell
his fellow countrymen about the people, society, and culture.2 In so doing, the traveller critically
evaluates his own society by contrasting the inadequate 'what is' of contemporary life with the perfect
'what might be' or 'what could be' of the utopian society.

At the end of the eighteenth century, a significant shift from space to time took place in utopian writing.
The typical setting of the ideal society (or its opposite, dystopia) radically changed from a different place
at the same time to the same place at a different time, for example, Condorcet, aristocrat and supporter of
the French Revolution, accurately described many aspects of the coming future society using the social
science of his day. Sebastien Mercier placed his fictional utopia in the year 2440. Thousands of writers
have since followed their examples and placed the 'other', preferable or undesirable society, in the
future.3

Along with this shift from space to time as the location of the 'other' came additional changes in utopian
thought. One was that the perfect world could actually occur within a real society in this life on Earth.
Another was that change toward a perfect world could be designed and directly brought about by
human action. For More, only God could create perfection, and therefore it was not an earthly
possibility. For Condorcet, humans could create a better world by their own actions here and now on
Earth.

Recent origins of Futures Studies

Emergence of the modern futures field

The modern futures field was clearly visible by the 1960s. The translation and publication of The Image
of the Future by F L Polak in English in 1961 was a major signpost, and The Art of Conjecture by
Bertrand de Jouvenel was another.4 Polak used the concept of 'image of the future' to analyse the rise
and fall of civilisations, while de Jouvenel brought many of the principles of futures studies together in
the same work for the first time.

Other signs of the new field included the creation of professional societies. In 1966, for example, the
World Future Society was established by E Cornish and others. It has since become one of the largest of
the many futures organisations in the world today. In 1967, an international group that was to become
the World Futures Studies Federation held its first meeting in Oslo, Norway. By 1977, when the World
Future Society published The Study of the Future, Cornish was able to report on a considerable amount
of futures research and to identify a growing community of futurists.5

Trends and technology assessment

Many different paths of development have led to contemporary futures studies. One path is found in the
work of W F Ogburn and his associates which analyses social trends and the role of technology in social
change.6 Among other things, Ogburn was a co-founder and the first president of the Society for the
Study of Technology, a precursor to the modern-day profession of 'technology assessment'. Ogburn's
theory of social change emphasised the role of invention. For him, change in the modern world typically
followed a causal sequence beginning with some technological invention or innovation. The new
technology, in turn, produced changes in economic organisation, which then transformed social
institutions such as the family or government. Finally, according to Ogburn, changing social institutions
affected people's social philosophy, ie. their beliefs, attitudes, and values. In some cases the process was
more circular, with social philosophies altering the demand for certain types of inventions, thus leading
to technological change and starting the causal sequence again. Ogburn's idea that a society should
produce a quantitative picture of itself as a way of knowing where it had been, where it was going, and
how to make sound decisions about social policy grew into the social indicators movement! of the
1960s. The idea has never died, but during World War II it was largely suspended as nearly all activities
were mobilised for the war effort. After the war, the idea that the state of society needs to be monitored
using a variety of social indicators " from population, labor force participation, and technological change
to crime, education, and health - took hold again.7

S C GilFillan, a disciple of Ogburn, should receive some mention as well because he also made some
contributions of his own. GilFillan wrote an essay for his Master!s degree at Columbia University in
1920 which evaluated the predictions of four writers from the eighteenth century, and concluded that
they were reasonably accurate. Condorcet, for example, got the highest score for accuracy: 76.4 percent.
GilFillan aimed to show that social prophecy 'has already been proved possible by its successes in the
past'.8 He also proposed the term, 'mellontologist', for a student of the future. GilFillan continued his
interest in the future and social change throughout his career and, among other things, wrote The
Sociology of Invention: An Essay in the Social Causes of Technic Invention and Some of its Social
Results.9

National planning

Another path to the modern futures movement was through national planning. Beginning with the
national mobilisations of World War I, the ad hoc nature of planning at the time was replaced by full-
time bureaucracies charged with planning for the future. Futures thinking through national planning
continued during the Great Depression of the 1930s; was promoted by Communist Russia, Fascist Italy,
and Nazi Germany; expanded with the military and economic mobilisations of World War II; spread to
Eastern Europe after the war; and finally, diffused to Third World countries.

Of course, like futures thinking, planning itself is as old as human society. Even tribal groups engage in
some community projects, both ceremonial and utilitarian; some hunting and fishing activities are
cooperative, requiring the coordination of future human effort; and both agriculture and herding require
that some things be done in the present with the intention of reaping future benefits. As the complexity
of society increased (or sometimes decreased), so did the potential for an increase in the scope of the
flow and ebb of planning. Collecting taxes, managing estates, irrigating the land, and waging wars
required futures thinking.

Before 1914, organisations or groups drawing up large-scale, comprehensive, collective social goals and
ways of achieving them were most likely to be military general staffs. They planned the character and
movement of armed forces; however, by then warfare depended on an industrial base for material,
supplies, transportation and communication. Consequently, the military was also obliged to plan for key
aspects of the entire economy and society. The national mobilisations of World War I also brought
nonmilitary national leaders into the picture. Among other things, the war demonstrated that the means
available to the nation-state were insufficient to deal with the national emergency produced by the war.
National levels of health and education, for example, were below what many leaders thought were
needed. It was also thought that economic and social reforms should be introduced.10 Furthermore,
mass mobilisation required complex planning for the future by civilian as well as military leaders, from
the allocation of material and personnel in industry, to the distribution of food and clothing to the civilian
population. Thus, the mobilisation brought on by World War I enlarged the organisational capabilities of
the nation-state, and was a fillip to the establishment of futures thinking in the institutional structures of
modern societies.

During the inter-war years, the Great Depression contributed to the belief that something had gone
wrong with the economy, and that something should be done about it through governmental
intervention. Then current socialist thinking, along with the economic ideas involved in national
accounting and Keynesian theory, encouraged the idea that the economy should be regulated or
controlled, at least to alleviate such negative effects as unemployment, high inflation, and lack of capital
investment.11 In the United States under Franklin D Roosevelt, the New Deal ushered in a period of
economic and social engineering by the federal government, including the massive planned
development of the Tennessee Valley.

Responses to the Great Depression called forth many of the elements that are now commonly
understood to be part of modern futures studies: analysis and interpretation of the recent past and the
present; projections of future developments; description of possible alternative actions and the different
futures each will lead to; evaluation of alternative futures; and selection of specific policies to achieve a
given desirable future.

Communist Russia was, in part, another experiment in futures thinking and action. The Bolshevik
visions of the future began taking shape in concrete plans and actions from 1917 onwards. Amid war
and civil war, an invasion by Poland, the chaos of rapid change and bloody turmoil, and boundless
revolutionary hope, the Bolsheviks seized the state bank and nationalised nearly all industry and land.
By March 1920, they had created one of the first planning organisations, GOELRO (State Commission
for the Electrification of Russia). In February 1921, they formed the State Planning Commission, or
'Gosplan'.12 By 1926, the new ruling group was politically committed to planning. Their goal was to
create a self-sufficient industrial economy ! a project with a long gestation period. Before the end of
1928, Gosplan had presented two versions of the first five-year plan which was to run for the period
1928!33. In April 1929, the Sixteenth Party Congress unrealistically accepted the most optimistic variant
of the plan, 'the maximum possible achievement'.13

Drafting the first five-year plan took four years (almost as long as the plan was intended to cover) and,
of course, there were changes in midstream. The authorities worked out the 'principles of planning ... by
trial and error. There was no theory; practice came first'. For them, planning 'was a complex and
pioneering experiment'.14 During the early years, their views changed from the idea of planning as
preparing actions necessary to cope with immediate situations, to the idea of planning as setting future
goals beyond the horizon of the present, and specifying the means for achieving these goals.15
Eventually, they developed a system of long-range planning (ten or more years), medium-range
planning (five years), and short-range, operational planning (yearly or quarterly). They also had to give
up the idea that revolution would soon occur in more economically advanced countries, and that the
working classes there would help them solve Russia"s economic problems.

Both the voluntarist elements of Marxism stressed by Lenin and the idea of the divorce of the future
from the past through action permeated Bolshevik thinking. Lenin developed the notion that a conscious
socialist minority could seize power: revolutionaries did not have to wait for the time when the
economic and social situation was, according to Marxist theory, ripe for revolution.16 Furthermore, in
drawing up the first five-year plan, the planners shifted away from the 'genetical' school that based
planning on past data projected into the future (ie. extrapolation). Rather, they shifted toward a
'teleological' school which argued that 'the Russian proletariat had, with the Social Revolution, already
'teleological' school which argued that 'the Russian proletariat had, with the Social Revolution, already
leapt from the bondage of necessity into freedom ... It was not necessary to pay much attention to the
past. They should set themselves a great purpose and then seek the means to accomplish it'.17

Considering the first and second five-year plans together (1928-37), we see the creation of a command
economy, centralised and enforced with state power. The Soviet Union transformed itself into an
industrial nation and a great power, nearly catching up with the advanced capitalist economies. These
astonishing achievements captivated the imagination of foreign observers. For others, the generally low
standard of living, the squalor experienced by the majority of the peasantry, the large and inefficient
agricultural sector and, most of all, the use of terror as an economic weapon, destroyed any possibility of
enchantment.18 Every school child now knows ! or ought to know ! that this experiment failed.

The Fascists came to power in Italy in 1922 and ruled until 1945. During this time, Italy became, at least
on paper, a state-controlled society. The Institute for Industrial Reconstruction (begun in 1931 as an
attempt to turn around the economy) became the central agency controlling major financial institutions
and most heavy industry. A central governmental bureaucracy exercised control 'over both labor unions
and employers associations'. The Fascists pursued images of future national military and economic
power, territorial expansion, and brave, new centralised controls over national resources. One basic
Fascist tenet, the supremacy of the technical expert over the politician, foreshadowed what was to
become a main feature of the societies many futurists were later to envision developing near the end of
the twentieth century: the pre-eminence of the professional and technical class, with a technology base
focused on information and knowledge.

In Germany, the National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) party came to power in March 1933, under
the leadership of Adolf Hitler. The lightning territorial expansion of the Nazi state is well known:
Germany held most of the European continent before the end of 1940. At the same time, the economic
crisis that helped bring the National Socialists to power was overcome. Almost the entire nation was
mobilised into a unified, dynamic, spiritual community (not quite the entire nation, of course, because
dissenters, recalcitrants, Jews and others who did not fit the image of the blond Aryan, or who were not
enthusiastic believers of the Nazi ideology, were intimidated into silent conformity, forced to flee,
imprisoned or murdered). Yet for the great bulk of the population, the early years of National Socialism
brought the promise of national power and international respect, full employment, increased
productivity, new roads and buildings, consumer goods, and an end to hyper-inflation (in November
1923, one US dollar equalled 4.2 billion marks).19 The early years also introduced the process of
Gleichschaltung, by which all German political, economic, and social life was to be brought 'in step
with Nazi thought'.20

Although it 'would be misleading to speak of the economic policies of the Third Reich as a smoothly
functioning system of planning and controls', as Bracher says, it would be equally misleading not to
recognise the important lessons of planning and futures thinking that the rest of the world learned ! and
often feared ! as they watched the rise of Nazi Germany.21 The Nazis created a complicated and
dynamic system of 'super-agencies' and planning councils, as well as other control and guidance
mechanisms for the economy and the society. Contrary to the view of some admirers at the time,
however, these controls did not prevent 'waste, jurisdictional conflict, corruption, or faulty planning'.22
But they did create a largely unified, mobilised society in which, for a brief period, the total energies of
the people were multiplied and focused on collective goals. This occurred despite the fact that these
goals sometimes seemed impossible, given the economic and social chaos of post-World War I
Germany out of which the Third Reich had grown. It is no accident that Albert Speer (an architect
skilled in creating plans and building small-scale models in the present for what often became life-sized
realities in the future) ended up running most of the German economy. Yet it was not until after the
German defeat at Stalingrad in 1943 that the German economy was totally nationalised.23 By then, the
beginning of the end had been reached. In 1945, the adventure was over: Germany surrendered,
unconditionally.

In sum, futures thinking and acting with foresight, like any other type of thinking and acting, can serve
many purposes and values. Regrettably, in Communist Russia, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, they
many purposes and values. Regrettably, in Communist Russia, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, they
ended up serving the values of national power and social exclusion, while violating other values such as
justice, freedom and human dignity. Perhaps if their leaders had foreseen the future consequences of
their actions more accurately, they would have behaved differently.

During World War II, on the military and home fronts and on both sides of the conflict, the requirements
of massive planned change toward the greater organisation of economic and social life forced leaders
and their functionaries to make both short- and long-term plans. Imagine the magnitude of the
managerial tasks involved in inducting, training, transporting, clothing, housing and feeding millions of
men and women as they poured into the various military services. Imagine reorganising entire industries
for the war effort; predicting how much of what material and equipment, manpower and food should be
produced, and when and where such things should be transported. Imagine even a relatively minor task
of planning a gasoline rationing system to get enough fuel when and where it was needed for industrial
and military purposes, while keeping enough fuel available to allow the national workforce to get to and
from work. Such tasks characterised the conduct of the war, the economy, and even much recreation
and entertainment. In the United States, for example, planning for economic recovery from the
Depression gave way to planning for war.

Beyond that, there were larger questions that the war forced leaders to face, even while the war was
raging; questions that probed farther into the future, and farther into socioeconomic and political issues
that were to shape the coming postwar world. The Marshall Plan for the recovery of Europe, for
example, was one important result, as was the political and social transformation of Japan under the
command of General Douglas MacArthur. Rebuilding countries, rebuilding cities, rebuilding political,
economic, and social institutions after the mass destruction in Europe, and after nuclear annihilation in
Japan, raised the question of what kind of country, city, or institutions ought to be built. Both the war
effort and demobilising for peace (eg. switching from planes and tanks to automobiles and refrigerators)
required futures thinking on a scale seldom, if ever, demanded before in human history.

World War II helped shape many of the men and women who were to become the pioneers of the new
field of futures studies. They learned the lessons of destruction and rebirth, as well as the lessons of
death and the dreams of future human unity. They were to remember the past while they laid the
foundations of the futures field, organising for the future and preparing for its inevitable contradictions
and uncertainties.

After World War II, national planning blossomed nearly everywhere. Wartime economic controls over
such things as consumer goods, raw materials, and foreign exchange gave a new respectability to the
idea of planning in private enterprise-driven economies. Now, public expenditures were reviewed and
policies formulated several years ahead, usually to raise the rate of economic growth. The plan was not
only to set goals concerning the desirable direction and amount of economic development for a
particular country, but also to create specified policies for achieving them and a standard of appraising
actual performance (by comparing later results with earlier goals) sometime in the future.24 Britain had
begun national planning during the war. Norway and the Netherlands soon followed with France
joining the bandwagon in 1946.25

France is of particular interest, both because 'it has given attention to long-term planning to a greater
extent than has the rest of western Europe', and also because futures research and planning appear to
have developed more conjointly there than anywhere else.26 Additionally, joint roots can be readily
found in the positivism of Auguste Comte, and before that in the École Polytechnique established in
Paris after the French Revolution.27 The French philosophe, Condorcet, may be an even better
candidate than Comte for the title of 'the father of futures studies'. The utopian socialist ideas of Henri
Saint Simon, for whom the young Auguste Comte at one time worked as a secretary, remain influential
in the grandes écoles where many of France's top civil servants are educated.

By the 1950s, France was clearly an incubator of the modern futures movement. In 1957, for example,
Gaston Berger, acting on his growing interest in the study of the future, founded the Centre International
de Prospective in Paris. In the following year he published a journal dealing with the future entitled
de Prospective in Paris. In the following year he published a journal dealing with the future entitled
Prospective. Sadly, Berger was killed in an automobile accident in 1960.28 Berger's work and the
Prospectives group were continued with Pierre Masse, then general commissioner of the French plan,
playing a large role. Masse as High Commissioner of the Plan, among others, promoted interaction and
integration of the growing futurist ideas with the practical planning concerns faced by the technocrats.
For example, in 1963, Masse appointed a committee to consider the future French economy and society
in the year 1985.29

Also in France, Bertrand de Jouvenel had long been concerned with the future consequences of present
action. He published a book entitled L'economie dirigee: le programme de la nouvelle generation ('The
planned economy: The program for the new generation') as early as 1928 in which he proposed a
'directed' economy.30 In 1960, he and his wife, Helene, founded the Association Internationale de
Futuribles, which still functions today as an international futures studies clearing house. It also publishes
a journal, Futuribles, under the editorship of de Jouvenel's son, Hughes de Jouvenel.

Nationalisation of large-scale industry, banking, and foreign trade occurred rapidly after World War II in
Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Yugoslavia. By 1946, it was largely completed. In East Germany,
Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria, nationalisation occurred in 1947 and 1948. Local industry and retail
trade moved under state management between 1949 and 1951, followed by the farming sector in the late
1950s. In contrast, the Yugoslavian administration was considerably decentralised through such
institutions as Workers Councils. Nevertheless, the principal problem faced by their central planners
concerned 'preparing an internally coherent set of balanced estimates for materials and equipment'.31 In
a planned economy, the tasks of predicting future needs (where everything must be coordinated with
everything else and is to some extent dependent on everything else) are enormous. Although the
laboriousness has been reduced with the use of computers, dealing with the complex uncertainties and
interrelationships of various parts of an emergent future remains a formidable intellectual task, yet it is
indispensable if informed decisions are to be made.

Thus, national planners, both in Western capitalist and Eastern communist countries, became involved in
the nuts and bolts of forecasting and, more generally, in futures thinking seen as a necessary part of the
planning and decision-making process. Setting goals, making projections into the future, selecting
policies, monitoring results, making new projections, altering policies, and re-assessing goals became
part of national planning. Even though the Western democracies had less direct control over the
economy and society than the Eastern dictatorships (and often had to negotiate or induce cooperative
relations with private investors, owners, and managers rather than enforcing control), the intellectual
tasks of national planning in both cases encouraged the rise of futures studies.

Nation-founding and nation-building

Another path of futures studies development was in the more than 100 new states that have been formed
since the mid-1940s, mostly within the former European colonial territories in Africa, Asia, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific, and most recently from the territories of the former Soviet Union and
Yugoslavia. In each of these new states, new national citizenries were formed and new national leaders
came to power. They faced the decisions of nationhood: those choices that had to be made in order to
create a politically independent nation-state. At the most mundane level, flags had to be designed,
national anthems written, and national trees, flowers, birds, and even national heroes chosen. More
important, geographical boundaries often had to be drawn, and sometimes fought over (eg. between
India and Pakistan); forms of government had to be decided upon, and constitutions had to be written
and promulgated. New national histories were prepared in which the past was re-interpreted in order to
construct an historical record worthy of the new nation-states. At the most subtle level, within each of
the new states the psychological character, the economy, the society, and the culture of the newly
independent people were often debated in terms of what they ought to become and why. These debates
were both part of the struggle to be free of the past (colonial domination), and a search for distinctive
nationalist images of tomorrow on which the future itself could be constructed.

In these new states, some aspects of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World became reality.32 In both
In these new states, some aspects of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World became reality.32 In both
democratic and authoritarian states, in capitalist, socialist and mixed economies, in Asia, Africa, the
Caribbean, and the Pacific ! and then in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia ! the future had become
a realm for which self-conscious designs were made and deliberate historical actions were taken. Images
of the future increasingly came to cause present action.

Operations research and think-tanks

Another strand in the development of futures studies was the growth of operations research and think-
tanks. Near the beginning of World War II, a team of British scientists incorporated the then-new
technology of radar into a system of air defence. In September 1938, the first British radar system called
the 'Chain Home' went into full-time operation. Its tremendous success, along with other such military
projects, led to the formation of other scientific teams to deal with the problems of war management. In
1945, General H H Arnold arranged for a Research and Development Unit to continue operating to
keep such capabilities available to the US Army Air Corps. The RAND Corporation became one of the
most influential of the many institutes, centres, and other 'thought research' organisations, which later
became known as 'think-tanks'.33

Most of what RAND produced was related to futures thinking in some way and included policy
alternatives, designs, suggestions, warnings, long-range plans, predictions, and new ideas. By 1970,
RAND had added nonmilitary projects to its agenda, and they accounted for about a third of its
activities. RAND workers developed scenario-writing, computer simulations, technological forecasting,
the Delphi technique, program budgeting, cost-effectiveness, and systems analysis. It was a school for
futurists, including T J Gordon, Olaf Helmer, and Hermann Kahn. The corporation also spawned a
number of other organisations, including the Institute for the Future, Kahn's Hudson Institute and
Gordon's The Futures Group.

RAND also aided the development of the new futures field unintentionally. The negative reactions to
the Corporation motivated some futurists to try to counter its presumed pernicious influence by moving
into peace research and deliberately banning military topics and funding from their own work.34 In
1967, Johan Galtung of the International Peace Research Institute (Oslo, Norway) among others,
organised the 'First International Future Research Conference' in Oslo. Under the continuing leadership
of people including Galtung, I Bestuzhev-Lada, de Jouvenel, Robert Jungk, and John McHale, and after
other meetings in Kyoto in 1970 and Bucharest in 1972, the Oslo Conference eventually led to the
official founding of the World Futures Studies Federation in Paris in 1973. Aware of the fact that almost
all of the think-tank industry's work up to that time had been 'financed ... directly or indirectly by the
armament effort' and therefore, 'served military and related industrial goals', the organisers dedicated the
conference to peace and development. Participants focused their futures research efforts on 'such
enemies as urban sprawl, hunger, lack of education and growing alienation'.35

The Commission on the Year 2000

The Commission on the Year 2000 of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences was another strand
in the development of futures studies. Chaired by D Bell, it met in 1965 and 1966. Although the
Commission itself did not continue in operation, it gave an impetus to futures studies resulting in the
publication of a special issue of Daedalus, 'Toward the year 2000: Work in progress', Kahn and
Wiener's The Year 2000, and other futures work by its own members and others.36 The Commission's
work helped produce a network of people interested in futures thinking that went well beyond the
concerns of US military researchers. Moreover, because Bell and other participants had ties with other
futurists both in the United States and elsewhere (eg. de Jouvenel"s Futuribles group in France), by the
mid-1960s it was accurate to speak of an 'international futures research movement'.

The Commission's activities significantly contributed to the respectability of futures studies as a

professional activity. The participants were a sample of influential, mainstream, establishment
intellectuals. Prestigious US universities such as Brown, Chicago, Columbia, Harvard, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Rockefeller, and Yale were represented. Foundations such as the Carnegie
Institute of Technology, Rockefeller, and Yale were represented. Foundations such as the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, Ford, and Russell Sage were also represented; so too, were Bell Telephone
Laboratories, IBM, and Time, Inc. from the private sector; and the Department of State, the Department
of Health, Education and Welfare, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development from the
public sector. Additionally, several Commission participants went on to write their own futures articles
and books, including D Bell himself whose The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social
Forecasting (first published in 1973) was to become one of the most influential books ever published.37

The limits to growth and the club of Rome

Although Bell's The Coming of Post-Industrial Society became well-known and often cited, it never
reached the worldwide fame that The Limits to Growth had already achieved, nor did it create the same
public furore.38 Even before Limits was published, media reports about its findings and
recommendations had already stirred up public reaction.39 After publication, it became a locus of
international controversy and debate, selling over nine million copies in twenty-nine languages.40 It was
both acclaimed and condemned throughout the world, making its authors, D H Meadows, D L
Meadows, J Randers, and W W Behrens III, instantly both famous and infamous. The sensational public
exposure must have been not only a surprising experience, but also an awesome and unforgettable one
for this group of academics.

The basic model used in Limits was an expanded version of the world model constructed by J W
Forrester of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.41 Using computer simulations and Forrester's
system-dynamics perspective, the authors made a startling prediction for the time: 'We can thus say with
some confidence that, under the assumption of no major change in the present system, population and
industrial growth will certainly stop with the next century, at the latest'.42

Despite the authors' later protests that they were not predicting, they obviously were. Some critics did
not ! or chose not to ! understand that these predictions were clearly both contingent and corrigible: they
were contingent or conditional upon the assumptions that 'there will be in the future no great changes in
human values nor in the functioning of the global population-capital system as it has operated for the last
one hundred years'.43 It was also contingent, as are other predictions in Limits, on the assumptions that
there will be no war, strikes, corruption or trade barriers. These assumptions may have made the results
reported in Limits more optimistic than they otherwise would have been, since such problems can be
expected to occur for some time into the future. Additionally, their prediction was corrigible in that more
accurate and comprehensive data could have resulted in different, more accurate results.

Limits was the first commissioned study and, perhaps, the most influential single product of the Club of
Rome, which is another important element in the recent development of futures studies. As intended,
Limits affected the hearts and minds of millions of people.44 The Club was founded in 1968 by the late
A Peccei, an Italian industrialist, and some of his associates. The purpose of the Club was to alert the
world to what they termed the 'global problematique' ! a cluster of interrelated world problems including
hunger, environmental degradation, violence, overpopulation, and increasing alienation of the working
classes. Their endeavours were pervaded by a sense of fear and urgency about such problems, and
underlined the need to deal with them holistically over the long term. Industrialisation itself was
considered to be part of the problem.45 The founders of the Club intended Limits to be an intellectual
catalyst, sparking interest and concern among other people and organisations, and thereby contributing
to a worldwide effort to solve these problems.

Despite, or perhaps because of, some of the negative reactions to Limits, the Club of Rome influenced
futures studies in many ways. Its emphasis on a holistic, global, and multidisciplinary approach has
become characteristic of the field. It advanced environmental thinking and activism and gave both an
intellectual grounding. It also advanced the methodology of simulation and modelling, and their use in
futures studies. Its research and conception of the global problematique, including images of future
overshoot and world collapse, were important correctives to the rosy views of the future put forward by
cornucopian technocrats such as H Kahn.46 Moreover, the 'private diplomacy of the Club worked much
better after the publicity generated by Limits'.47 People throughout the world, even top national leaders,
better after the publicity generated by Limits'.47 People throughout the world, even top national leaders,
began paying attention.

H D Lasswell and the policy sciences

The late US political scientist, Harold D Lasswell, deserves to be listed among the pioneers of futures
studies. For more than four decades beginning in the 1930s, Lasswell struggled to create what we now
call futures studies. He contributed important insights, concepts, methodologies, and exemplars.
Unfortunately, Lasswell did not live long enough to synthesise his futures studies work; this was partly
left to others.48 Also, his concerns with social policy and the possible indifference of most of his
colleagues to his appeals for a new futures orientation to political science led him to merge his work on
futures thinking with his efforts to invent the policy sciences.

Lasswell, D Lerner and others proposed the formation of the policy sciences in 1951. Their purposes
were to study policy and decision-making processes, and to provide information to assist decision-
makers. Lasswell was among the first scholars to see that decision-making and policy-making
necessarily rely on future anticipations. He formulated the idea of the 'developmental construct', which is
somewhat similar to the concept of an 'image of the future' or 'vision'. He called his method of futures
research, developmental analysis!. He used it to analyse social trends and future possibilities, including,
for example, the rise of what he called 'the garrison state'.

Writing several years before George Orwell published his chilling image of 'Big Brother' in Nineteen
Eighty-Four, Lasswell envisioned the erosion of democracy and the rise of dictatorship in the garrison
state.49 He saw the end of competitive elections and the coming of government by plebiscite; the spread
of one-party or no-party states; the elimination of free speech and other civil liberties; the suppression of
political opposition; the end of majority rule; the abandonment of legislative assemblies (except as a
means for the ceremonial ratification of the decisions of a supreme authority), and the control of
production by the state with priority given to military manufacturing as in the yet-to-be-written Nineteen
Eighty-Four, the symbol, but not the substance, of democracy would be retained.

After a slow start, the policy sciences are now flourishing. Since the 1960s, they have progressed with
dizzying speed, and they are now full-fledged professional activities. Policy analysts became part of the
decision-making process in a wide variety of programs, including those dealing with promoting
economic opportunity and combating poverty, fiscal policy, civil rights, crime and violence, education,
national defence, population, energy, the environment, urban affairs, welfare and social security.50 By
the mid-1970s, the policy sciences were represented in university and institute centres, PhD degree
programs (eg. at the RAND Corporation, Duke University, the University of Michigan, and Harvard
University), as well as in professional journals and textbooks. The policy sciences also had access to
new sources of funding such as the Ford and Alfred P Sloan Foundations. In 1983, G D Brewer and P
deLeon published The Foundations of Policy Analysis.51 This work gave direction to the development
of the policy sciences, and also confirmed that it had 'arrived' as a professional activity.

In the preface to his 1971 summary of the major ideas within the policy sciences, Lasswell said that in
the twenty years since 'the term "policy sciences" was introduced [the] social sciences have "turned
around" far enough to look toward the future. Physicists, biologists and their colleagues are concerned
about the social consequences and policy implications of knowledge'. 52 Lasswell's view that scientists
look toward the future and are concerned about social consequences and policy implications was " and
still is " overly optimistic. While this view exaggerates the facts, it also highlights the connections that
exist between the policy sciences and futures studies.

Before leaving this discussion on the policy sciences, I must mention a related development: evaluation
research. Today, evaluation research has become a part of the policy sciences. This form of research
attempts to assess the consequences of various organised social actions. The origins of evaluation
research date back to the 1930s, and especially to the evaluation of programs designed to deal with
economic downturn. Today, it is a gigantic industry. The psychologist, D T Campbell, has likened the
evaluation researcher to a person sitting on the stern of a ship looking backward and reporting to the
evaluation researcher to a person sitting on the stern of a ship looking backward and reporting to the
captain where he has been.

Evaluation research has been becoming more future oriented. The reason is that the 'evaluation of any
particular project has its greatest implications for projects that will be put in place in the future'.53 In the
new view, program development is seen as a series of interactive cycles composed of: planning,
implementation, evaluation with feedback to planners, more planning, changes in implementation, re-
evaluation with more feedback, and so on. Thus, the evaluation researcher is becoming, contrary to
Campbell's early view, more like a person sitting on the bow of a ship looking forward and reporting to
the captain where he is going.

The policy sciences and futures studies

Until 1970, there remained considerable overlap between the policy sciences and futures studies. For
example, as Marien points out, when the first issue of the journal, Policy Sciences, appeared in 1970,
there were twenty-one people listed as editors or advisers, six of whom were prominent futurists.54 By
1990, however, the two fields had grown apart.

Future historians will settle the question of whether futures studies will simply become a part of the
policy sciences, or whether it will be able to carve out an intellectual niche of its own. In my judgment,
there are good reasons for maintaining a distinct futures field. The principles of futures thinking
emphasised by the policy sciences tend to be applied in governmental and civil sectors. This may be an
arbitrary limitation that is not inherent to either field, since detailed and rigorous futures thinking is
equally helpful to the private sector, both to large corporations and small businesses, and even to
individuals in their everyday lives, however, it is a limiting tendency of policy sciences. One should also
remember that some images of the future call for major changes in the distant future that seem politically
impractical in the present. If so, then Rossi and Whyte believe that they are 'unlikely to be of interest to
policy makers'.55

DeLeon, after pointing out some similarities between policy research and futures studies, goes on to say
that most policy studies are focused on the short term with some immediate policy in mind, while futures
studies typically has a longer timeframe.56 Another difference, he believes, is that policy scientists must
concern themselves with implementation analysis, while futurists do not.

Also, the overriding concern with the present-focused decision-making of the policy scientist tends to
focus attention on the details of particular cases and on practical solutions to the problems they present.
Minutiae, which of course have their rightful place in decision-making, may get in the way of 'big'
futures thinking on a grand, imaginative scale. What may be shoved aside, against the exhortations of
Lasswell, Brewer and deLeon, are the sweeping, large-scale, idealistic images of the future that have the
power to change the course of entire civilisations.57

Finally, there is a possible source of conflict in orientation between policy scientists and futurists on one
crucial point. Futurists aim to open up the future; ie. to make a virtue out of uncertainty in order to
empower people to achieve a future that is better than the past and present. Futurists aim to teach people
that the future is an open horizon that can be creatively explored. This means that for an active person,
the future is actually another dimension of freedom. In contrast, policy scientists often aim to de-futurize!
the future by increasing security. Policy scientists hope to secure the future through technology, law,
policy and insurance, thus annulling our feelings of uncertainty. This may partially explain why the
policy sciences have prospered more than the futures field. Security is comforting. Change, even
desirable change, has its costs because it often causes both uncertainty and stress.

A new field of inquiry

The above review of some of the origins of the modern futures field is by no means complete. Many
other precursors or sources of influence could be mentioned, such as the science fiction of Jules Verne
and various writings of H G Wells; the counter-culture, the anti-Vietnam War movement and the Black
Power protests of the 1960s; the environmental movement of the 1970s; and hundreds of individual
authors, such as H Kato and Y Hayashi of Japan, H B Lee and T Kim of Korea, L Qin of China, R
Thapar and A Nandy of India, E B Masini and F Ferrarotti of Italy, A Sicinski of Poland, and R
Henshel of Canada who has done pioneering work on self-altering prophecies, to name only a few.58
Soon after 1970, of course, when A Toffler's best-selling Future Shock was published, concern with the
future became fashionable.59

The futures field is still young and developing, and some writers fear that it is too fragmented even to be
called a 'field' at all.60 Admittedly, it is diverse in terms of its subject matter and in the background of its
various practitioners. The latter ranges from aeronautical engineering and physics, to journalism and
management consulting, and increasingly to political science, sociology, and other social sciences.
Calling futures studies a 'multi-field', perhaps, or a field with a 'transdisciplinary matrix' might be more
appropriate.61

Yet today, futurists have formed themselves into loose communities of full-time scholars and
professionals. Their activities have been institutionalised within hundreds of organisations such as
companies, government agencies, centres, institutes, universities, and professional societies. There are
many of such societies throughout the world, from the Association Internationale Futuribles (France)
and the Instituto Neuvas Alternatives (Mexico), to the Japan Society of Futurology and the Chinese
Future Society.

Abstracts of nearly 10 000 futures-related books, reports, and articles appeared in the volumes of Future
Survey Annual between 1979 and 1989 ! and this does not include futures materials in languages other
than English. Of the 324 futures-relevant journals published in 1986, ninety-one percent were started
after the end of World War II, and seventy percent were started after 1970.62 This is not to say that
growth of the field has been steady. Rather, there have been ups and downs, as illustrated by the
membership of the World Future Society: it grew rapidly from its inception in 1966, reaching a peak of
nearly 60 000 members in 1979, sliding to 22 500 in 1985, and rebounding again to about 30 000 in
1994. In 1980, over 5 500 people from more than thirty countries attended the 'First Global Conference
on the Future' in Toronto amid a sense of excitement and ascendancy. But by 1986, the futures field had
entered a new phase in the United States. According to some futurists, this phase was one of reflection,
decline and a search for more solid foundations.63 Even so, there were signs of the continued spread
and development of futures studies in China, Japan, Eastern Europe, Russia and other territories of the
former Soviet Union.

Because it is new and has diverse origins, the boundaries of futures studies remain unclear. The field has
a core of full-time professional futurists, and a relatively distant periphery of planners, economic
forecasters, evaluation researchers, policy analysts, special interest activists, and others who may not
fully identify themselves as futurists. Yet, taking all of the evidence of professional growth into account,
we can have little doubt today that futures studies has become a new field of inquiry.64

Purposes of futures studies

The major purpose of futurists is to maintain or improve the welfare of humankind and the life-
sustaining capacities of the Earth itself. Futurists carry out this purpose by systematically exploring
alternative futures. They engage in prospective thinking. They try to create 'new, alternative images of
the future ! visionary explorations of the possible, systematic investigation of the probable, and moral
evaluation of the preferable'.65 The possible, the probable and the preferable ! these are what futurists
seek to know. Moreover, futurists' distinctive obligation to the future invites them to speak for the
freedom and wellbeing of future generations ! the as-yet-unborn people of the future who have no voice
of their own in the present.66

To meet these goals, futurists also seek to know what causes change, ie. the nature of the dynamic
processes that underlie technological developments on the one hand, and changes in the political,
economic, social, and cultural realms, on the other. Futurists seek to determine what anticipated
economic, social, and cultural realms, on the other. Futurists seek to determine what anticipated
developments may have to be accepted because they are beyond human control, and what can be
brought under human control. Also, they seek to discover the unanticipated, unintended, and
unrecognised consequences of social action.67 Thus, futurists attempt to clarify goals and values,
describe trends, explain conditions, formulate alternative images of the future, and invent, evaluate, and
select policy alternatives.68 They also study images of the future held by various groups such as
national leaders or slum dwellers.69 Finally, they analyse the dominant societal images of the future and
their implications for the rise and fall of entire civilisations.70

Of course, there is a division of labor among futurists, just as in any other profession. Some futurists are
primarily analysts, focusing their efforts on methods, theories, and other scholarly issues. Other futurists
are primarily activists, dedicating their efforts to shaping the future itself. An example of the latter is the
late Robert Jungk who was often actively involved at the grassroots level, working to increase the
participation of ordinary people in the decisions affecting their lives.71

Other activists work to disseminate alternative images of the future or even to advocate an image of
some particular future. A successful example of disseminating such images (underpinned by the desire
to increase popular participation in shaping them) took place in Honolulu in 1982. Professors J Dator
and T Becker of the University of Hawaii organised the first Honolulu Electronic Town Meeting
(ETM). It was composed of several different parts. There was a scientific information-gathering part
through the Hawaii Televote in which seven hundred persons (selected by random digit dialling) were
invited to be interviewed about economic and social policies affecting the future of Hawaii. There was
also a dissemination and discussion part. Two daily newspapers, three commercial radio stations, public
radio, a commercial and public television station, and the island's largest cable television station all
participated. Most of this activity was in the form of phone-in programs, so that the public was both
informed about the issues and able to participate in the discussion. Finally, there was the judgment part.
Before the end of the ETM, ballots were published in a major newspaper and everyone was invited to
vote on the issues discussed. The culmination of the exercise was a final hour-long television program
with Dator, Becker, and the Lt governor of Hawaii in which viewers called in to ask questions or make
comments.72

Other purposes of futures studies involve the present. First, the action that takes place in the present is
what shapes the future. Thus, present conditions must be studied, because futures thinking is largely
about what to do now, ie. what action to take to create a future that will be as desirable as possible,
given present conditions and hopes for the future. Second, futures thinking plays an orientational role by
informing people where they are in the present. Often, the rapidity of change results in confusion about
what is happening in the present, and what has happened in the immediate past. Unless people have
some perspective on where they have been, where they are going, and where they want to go, the
present itself is largely unintelligible. For example, if you want to know if a glass is half full or half
empty, it helps to know that it was full a week ago, two-thirds full yesterday, half empty today, and
possibly will be totally empty the day after tomorrow.

Third, the results of futures research help people to balance the demands of the present against those of
the future. For example, people can deprive themselves in the present so as to profit from future payoffs
that may never come. But the opposite is also possible: people can borrow from the future to the extent
that they mortgage it beyond its limits. If they do, then when the future arrives, it may be hell, like a
Faustian pact with the devil coming due.73

Futurists' assumptions

In every field of inquiry, many assumptions are made so that investigation can continue. Some of these
assumptions are explicitly stated, but many are not. Most are simply taken for granted. Yet it is important
that every field examines its core assumptions from time to time to re-evaluate their cogency. There are
many assumptions underlying futures studies, some of the most central of which I will try to outline
here.
First, there are some general assumptions, at least partially shared by members of many other fields.
Two examples are provided below.

1 People are project-pursuers. They are acting, purposeful and goal-directed beings. They create projects
for themselves and set about trying to implement them.

2 Society consists of persistent patterns of repetitive social interaction. It is also composed of emergent
routines of human behaviour that are organised by time, space, memories, decisions, expectations, hopes
and fears for the future. Society is constructed and reconstructed on a daily basis as people act, react,
and interact.

Second, there are a number of specific futures assumptions that, although some may be shared by other
fields, are, taken together, a distinctive part of the futures perspective, as below.

1. Time moves unidirectionally and irreversibly from the past (seen in terms of a continuous
momentary present) toward the future. There are a number of different arguments that support this
assumption, such as: the second law of thermodynamics (entropy always goes in one direction);
biological development (people grow older with time, never younger); wave motion (radio waves,
for example, are never received before they are sent); the history of the universe (residual black-
body radiation supports the idea that time has a beginning, sequence, duration, and direction); and
traces of the past ('footprints in the sand' remain in the present as evidence of the past).
2. Not everything that will exist has existed before or does exist now. Thus, the future may contain
things that have never existed before. These may invite new thoughts, new understandings, and
new reactions.
3. Futures thinking is essential for human action. Reaction might be possible without futures
thinking, but not action, because to act requires anticipation. Thus, images of the future (goals,
objectives, intentions, hopes, fears, aspirations) are part of the causes of present action.
4. The future is not totally predetermined.74 This assumption explicitly recognises the fact that the
future does not already exist: ie. the future is 'open'.
5. To some extent, future outcomes can be influenced by individual and collective action, and by the
choices people make.
6. Global interdependence invites a holistic perspective and a multidisciplinary approach. Futurists
view the world as so interrelated that no system or unit can be viewed as totally isolated. Rather,
they argue that every unit that is the focus of futures research should be considered to be an open
system.

Further, some futures are better than others. This is obvious, and is often simply taken for granted in
other fields, although such lack of scrutiny has resulted in a mish-mash of implicit and unjustified value
judgments. For futurists, this is a salient assumption because they explicitly explore preferable futures as
well as possible and probable futures. People judge the consequences of their own and others' acts as
more or less desirable. Values are part of the steering mechanisms used by both individuals and groups
as they make their way in the world. Thus, part of the futurist's job is to study, explicate, evaluate, and
even formulate the criteria people use to evaluate alternative futures.

In addition, when they describe, criticise, or propose preferable futures, futurists need some methods by
which to assess the values they use to make such judgements, and to justify them to other people.75
Futurists have appealed to values such as the quantity and quality of human life (both considerations of
freedom and wellbeing), perceived life satisfaction, and happiness on the individual level, social
harmony, sustainability, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and the life-sustaining capacities of the Earth
itself. Other candidates for worthy (and possibly universal) values include the desirability of sufficient
wealth, knowledge, affection, opportunities for sex and family life, respect for authority, loyalty,
courage, perseverance, cooperation, honesty, generosity, helpfulness, friendliness, trust and self-
realisation.76

In making one's way in the world, the only really useful knowledge is knowledge of the future. This
In making one's way in the world, the only really useful knowledge is knowledge of the future. This
assumption follows from the fact that the past no longer exists: it is closed. Although we can learn more
about the past as we dig up more facts, and although we can reinterpret the past and change our
thoughts about it, we cannot change the past itself. But the future is different, because it has not yet
happened. The future might still be bent to human will. Even imminent events beyond human control
may be adapted to successfully, if they can be anticipated.

People must speculate about the future in order to manage their daily lives intelligently and effectively.
Consciously or subconsciously, they make contingent and corrigible predictions and act on them: in
general, the better their predictions, the more effective their actions will be. They organise their lives by
train, bus, and aeroplane schedules; by the ebb and flow of the tide; by when a football game or
newscast is scheduled on radio or television; by the opening and closing times of business
establishments; by the schedules of schools and universities; and by the announced timing of civic
events such as concerts or parades.

People act on their expectations about the future behaviour of the weather, the stock market, the cost of
housing, and interest rates. They organise their own actions according to their anticipations of the day
the garbage gets picked up, when church services will be held, and the chances of getting into medical
or law school after college. For sensible action, even driving a car requires predictions about other
vehicles. Hopes and fears, expectations for the future, estimates of future consequences of present
behaviour, and predictions of the behaviour of other people and phenomena beyond human control help
govern our perceptions of the options for action and the choices that may be made among them.

Under some circumstances, lessons of the past can be used to help guide the future: ie. knowledge of the
past is one way to learn something about future possibilities, but this learning must be creatively
transformed if it is to be useful. This transformation seems natural to people because they casually
change their knowledge of the past into expectations in their daily lives. This transformation also
involves a speculative leap that may or may not be warranted. The past cannot be accepted uncritically,
in its raw and unadulterated form, as a reliable guide to the future because, contrary to the well-known
aphorism, history seldom ! if ever ! repeats itself. A lesson of history must be relevant and appropriate to
the new present and the coming future. The criteria used to assess its relevance need to be examined.
The speculative leap involved in transforming hindsight to foresight must be made explicit and
questioned in terms of cogency. To fail to project past knowledge adequately into the future results in
preparing for yesterday rather than tomorrow.

There is no knowledge of the future: this is the paradox of futures research.77 Although there are past
facts, present options, and future possibilities, there are no past possibilities and no future facts. It is this
paradox that futurists aim to resolve: the need to know before the fact what is, in some sense, largely
unknowable until after the fact. It is this gap that futurists attempt to fill with conjectural or surrogate
knowledge. Futurists make contingent, corrigible, and approximate assertions about the future: eg. 'This
may happen if you do nothing' or 'That might happen if you do x, y, or z'. Futurists attempt to ground
such assertions in fact and logic in an attempt to make them 'presumptively true'.

But futurists know that such assertions may not turn out to be 'terminally true' when the future becomes
the present, because the future is uncertain. It cannot be observed. Reichenbach expresses an extreme
version of this view: 'A statement about the future cannot be uttered with the claim that it is true; we can
always imagine that the contrary will happen, and we have no guarantee that future experience will not
present to us as real what is imagination today'.78 Thus, futurists must face the paradox of the need for
information about the future to provide people with the tools to act intelligently, and the impossibility of
obtaining certain future knowledge.

But all is not lost. At the level of knowledge theory, Musgrave has shown that conjectural knowledge
(ie. justified belief in a proposition) is possible.79 Moreover, within what he calls a 'critical realist theory
of knowledge', justifying beliefs about the past and the present is not fundamentally different from
justifying beliefs about the future. Everything depends on making serious efforts to refute propositions,
and then tentatively accepting those that are not refuted. In sum, we can objectively and rationally justify
and then tentatively accepting those that are not refuted. In sum, we can objectively and rationally justify
our belief in a proposition, even if we cannot justify the truth of the proposition itself. If such a justified
belief in a proposition about the past, present or future turns out to be wrong, we say, 'Yes, the
proposition is wrong, but we weren't wrong to believe it.'

At the level of practical techniques, futurists have adapted or invented a variety of methods to justify the
reasons for their belief in particular assertions about the future. People can act on such justified beliefs as
if they were true, even though they are provisional, contingent and conditional. Therefore, the futurist's
task is to assess clearly just how warranted such assertions are. Many standard methods of research are
used in futures studies, from sampling techniques and statistical analysis to data-gathering, surveys and
participant observation. It is important to have an accurate and detailed description and analysis of past
trends and initial conditions of the present to use as a basis for both forecasting and designing the future.
All such methods may be of use in specifying 'what was' and 'what is' in preparation for proposing 'what
will be', 'what might be', 'what could be', or 'what ought to be'.

Moreover, there are many aspects of past and present realities that have some bearing on the future and
these, too, can be studied using the standard methods of science and social science. They include
people's:

1. present images of alternative possible futures;

2. expectations of the most probable future;
3. goals, values, attitudes and preferences among perceived alternative futures;
4. present intentions to act in particular ways, such as how they intend to vote, to invest, or to buy;
5. obligations and commitments to others (because they define expected behaviour and are often
reinforced by social norms);
6. history, traditions, and experience, including past decisions on given phenomena (not only
because they are baselines, but also because they contain prescriptions and proscriptions for future
behaviour); and they include
7. trend analysis of time series data; and
8. present possibilities for the future.

In the last case, such possibilities are real and can be studied. Science, for instance, is full of examples of
the study of possibilities, or 'dispositionals' as they have been termed.80 For example, a fragile glass
may never be broken, but there is a real (present) possibility that it could be broken: it really is
breakable. Studying such possibilities results in an empirical basis for warranted assertions about
possible futures.

Also, futurists use the technique of restating explanations as predictions. Futurists can make predictions
based upon explicit assumptions which are then critically examined for their plausibility. Then, by
restating causal knowledge based on past evidence, they are able to make contingent predictions. A
scientific explanation has the same logical structure as a scientific prediction, except for one feature: the
time perspective. Statements such as 'If, and only if, x, then y with some probability p under certain
conditions c' summarising past evidence can be used to make assertions about the future through
changing the time orientation from past to future. This requires that such statements be evaluated for
their appropriateness, just as any knowledge of the past must be so evaluated if it is used to make
assertions about the future.81 Thus, futurists have developed their methods, either by adapting existing
methods or creating new ones to achieve their special purposes.82

Conclusion

Futurists and others pursuing futures-related research have created a diverse and extensive literature.
Taken as a whole, it contains discussions and evaluations of the dominant images of the future for our
time. Whether they are likely or unlikely, desirable or undesirable, small- or large-scale, these images
constitute a rich tapestry of possibilities, probabilities, and preferences. These are then used to inform the
thinking, choosing, and acting, both of ordinary people and leaders, as they attempt to steer themselves
and their groups, organisations, and even entire societies toward what they regard as the best possible
and their groups, organisations, and even entire societies toward what they regard as the best possible
future.

Futurists have many different substantive concerns, and each one carries implications for alternative and
competing images of the future. There is, for example, the important topic of population growth.
Already, the Earth's population has reached six billion. Are we headed for an Earth of ten or eleven
billion people before the end of the twenty-first century? Can all those additional people be
accommodated without violent conflict? If not, can population growth be slowed? What is the optimal
total human population for the Earth that will maximise the chances of a long and satisfying life for
every living person? How can such a target population and the means to achieve it be agreed upon
among the diverse peoples of the Earth?

Population growth is related to several possible future dualities such as abundant food for all or mass
starvation, depletion or preservation of natural resources, environmental damage or protection (from air
pollution and acid rain to ozone depletion, the Greenhouse Effect and the flooding of coastal areas), a
thriving and prosperous economy versus a depressed economy, and a world spending its wealth on
weapons or on human wellbeing.83 The question is: Can we create sustainable human societies?

What will the future bring? Futurists claim that it largely depends on the choices that people make and
the actions that they take today. Futurists try to contribute to informed and wise choices by
systematically studying possible, probable and preferable futures. This activity is buttressed by
information dissemination, planning, and participation in public discussions on what constitutes the most
desirable future, and the best ways to create it. Futurists aim to challenge popular thinking by
encouraging a critical examination of people!s current behavioural routines; considering alternatives;
searching for overlooked possibilities; analysing goals and values; becoming more conscious of the
future and the control they may have over it; as well as caring about the freedom and the wellbeing of
future generations. Clearly, futures education is needed to make people aware of alternative images of
the future.84

Whether or not the futurist's message will be heeded in the years to come remains to be seen. What is
without doubt is that the future is now being prepared, largely by human actions that have already been
taken, that are being taken, and that will be taken. Although we do not know our destiny, some kind of
future is coming, whether we like it or not. Spaceship and Time Machine Earth travels inexorably on
and on, and we humans will share a common fate of our own making. Will the human experiment end
in the hate, violence and destruction that now threaten us, or can we seize our opportunities and write a
chapter of compassion, peace, cooperation and justice in the book of time?

Notes

1. Thomas More 1994 (1516), Utopia: A Reading Text and an English Translation, G M Logan, R
M Adams and C H Miller (eds), Cambridge University Press, New York.
2. See F E Manuel and F P Manuel 1979, Utopian Thought in the Western World. Belknap Press,
Cambridge, MA.
3. ibid.
4. F L Polak 1961 (1955), The Image of the Future, vols 1 and H, (trans. E Boulding), Oceana,
New York;. B de Jouvenel 1967 (1964), The Art of Conjecture, Basic Books, New York.
5. E Cornish with members of the World Future Society staff 1977, The Study of the Future, World
Future Society, Washington DC.
6. President's Research Committee on Social Trends 1933, Recent Social Trends in the United
States, vols 1 and 2, McGraw-Hill, New York.
7. J E Innes 1990 (1975), Knowledge and Public Policy: The Search for Meaningful Indicators, 2nd
edn, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.
8. S C GilFillan 1920, Successful social prophecy in the past, an essay submitted in partial fulfilment
of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, Columbia University (Faculty of Political
Science, Department of Sociology), New York, p. 3. S C GilFillan 1935, The Sociology of
Invention: An Essay in the Social Causes of Technic Invention and Some of Its Social Results,
 Invention: An Essay in the Social Causes of Technic Invention and Some of Its Social Results,
Follet, Chicago, Illinois.
9. C Madge C 1968, 'Planning, social. Introduction' in D L Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of
the Social Sciences, vol. 12, Macmillan, New York.
10. J Tinbergen 1968, 'Planning, economic' in ibid, p. 102.
11. R Munting 1982, The Economic Development of the USSR, Croom Helm, London, pp. 45-6.
12. ibid., p. 70, 73.
13. ibid., p. 85, 87.
14. A Nove 1977, The Soviet Economic System, George Allen & Unwin, London,p.31
15. A Nove 1969. An Economic History of the USSR, Penguin, London.
16. ibid., p. 37.
17. R Munting 1982, The Economic Development of the USSR, Croom Helm, London, pp. 104-6.
18. E J Passant 1966, A Short History of Germany 1815-1945, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
19. M Broszat 1966 (1960), German National Socialism, 1919-1945, (trans. by K Rosenbaum and 1
P Bochm), Clio, Santa Barbara, CA, p. 142.
20. K D Bracher 1971 (1969), The German Dictatorship, (trans. by J Steinberg), Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, London, p. 334.
21. ibid., pp. 333-4.
22. R Grunberger 197 1, A Social History of the Third Reich, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, p.
180.
23. J Tinbergen 1968, 'Planning, economic.' in D L Sills (ed.),1968 op cit., p. 103.
24. ibid., p. 102.
25. ibid., p. 106.
26. C Madge C 1968, 'Planning, social. Introduction' in D L Sills (ed.), 1968, op cit, p. 126.
27. E Cornish with members of the World Future Society staff 1977, op cit.
28. ibid., pp. 78-83.
29. B de Jouvenel 1928, L'economie dirigee: le programme de la nouvelle generatio, Librarie Valois,
Paris.
30. J M Montias 1968, 'Planning, economic. Eastern Europe' in D L Sills, op cit, 1968 p. 112.
31. A Huxley 1969 (1946), Brave New World, Harper & Row, New York.
32. P Dickson 1972 (197 1), Think Tanks, Atheneum, New York.
33. R Jungk and J Galtung (eds) 1971 (1969), Mankind 2000, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
34. R Jungk 1971 (1969), 'Preface' ibid p. 10.
35. Commission on the Year 2000 of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 1967, 'Toward
the year 2000: Work in progress', Daedalus, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 639-994; Kahn, H and Wiener, A
J 1967, The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation on the Next Thirty-Three Years,
Macrriillan, New York.
36. D Bell 1976, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, Basic Books, New York.
37. D H Meadows, D L Meadows, J Randers and W W Behrens III, 1972, The Limits to Growth,
Universe Books, New York.
38. P Moll 1991, From Scarcity to Sustainability: Futures Studies and the Environment, Peter Lang,
Frankfurt am Main.
39. S Cole 1993, 'Learning to love Limits', Futures, vol. 25, no. 7, p. 814.
40. J W Forrester 1971, World Dynamics, Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, MA.
41. D Meadows et al. 1972, op. cit., p. 126.
42. ibid., p. 123.
43. S Cole 1983, 'Models, metaphors and the state of knowledge' in M Batty and B Hutchinson (eds)
Systems Analysis in Urban Policy- Making and Planning, Plenum Press, New York, p. 4 1 0.
44. P Moll 1991, op cit, p. 26, 65.
45. ibid., p. 25 1.
46. P Moll 1993, 'The discreet charm of the Club of Rome', Futures, vol. 25,no.7,p.804.
47. H Eulau 1958, 'H D Lasswell's developmental analysis', The Western Political Quarterly, vol. XI,
no. 2, June, pp. 229-42.
48. G Orwell G 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four, Secker & Warburg, London.
48. G Orwell G 1949. Nineteen Eighty-Four, Secker & Warburg, London.
49. Y Dror 1971, Ventures in Policy Sciences: Concepts and Applications, Elsevier, New York; T R
Dye 1978, Understanding Public Policy, 3rd edn, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p. xii.
50. G D Brewer and P deleon 1983, The Foundations of Policy Analysis, Dorsey Press, Homewood,
IL, pp. 6-8.
51. H D Lasswell 1971, A Pre-View of Policy Sciences, Elsevier, New York, p. xiii.
52. L J Cronbach, S R Ambron, S M Dombusch, R D Hess, R C Homik, D C Phillips, D F Walker,
and S S Weiner 1981 (1980), Toward Reform of Program Evaluation, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, p. 7.
53. M Marien 1992, 'The scope of policy studies: Reclaiming Lasswell's lost vision' in W N Dunn
and R M Kelly (eds), Advances in Policy Studies Since 1950, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.
54. P H Rossi and W F Whyte 1983, 'The applied side of sociology' in H E Freeman, R R Dynes, P
H Rossi, and W F Whyte (eds), Applied Sociology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, p. 17.
55. P deleon 1984, 'Futures studies and the policy sciences', Futures, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 586-93.
56. As analysed, for example, by F L Polak 1961 (1955), The Image of the Future, vols 1 and 11,
(trans. E Boulding), Oceana, New York.
57. J A Dator 1979, 'The futures of culture or cultures of the future' in A J Marsella, R G Tharp and T
J Ciborowski (eds), Perspectives on Cross-Cultural Psychology, Academic Press, New York; R
L Henshel 1976, On the Future of Social Prediction, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, IN; R L
Henshel and W Johnston 1987, 'The emergence of bandwagon effects: A theory', The
Sociological Quarterly, vol. 28, no.4, pp. 493-511.
58. A Toffler 1970, Future Shock, Random House, New York.
59. M Marien and L Jennings 1987a, 'Introduction' in M Marien and L Jennings (eds), What I Have
Learned.. Thinking About the Future Then and Now, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
60. W Bell 1987 (1973), 'Is the futures field an art form or can it become a science?', Futures
Research Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 27-44.
61. M Marien with L Jennings (eds) 1987b, Future Survey Annual 1986, vol. 7, Bethesda, MD
World Future Society, p. 187.
62. A Toffier 1986, Remarks at the open plenary session, meetings of the World Future Society, New
York, 14-17 July.
63. J Dator 1986, 'The futures of futures studies - the view from Hawaii', Futures, vol. 18, no. 3, pp.
440-5.
64. A Toffler 1978 'Foreword' in M Maruyama and A M Harkins (eds), Cultures of the Future,
Mouton, The Hague, p. x.
65. W Bell 1996, Foundations of Futures Studies: Human Science for a New Era, vol. 1, 'History,
purposes and knowledge' and vol. 2, 'Values, objectivity and the good society', Transaction Pubs,
New Brunswick, NJ.
66. W Bell and J A Mau (eds) 1971, The Sociology of the Future, Russell Sage Foundation, New
York.
67. H D Lasswell 1967, Projecting the future, mimeographed paper prepared for the Yale
'Colloquium on the Future' seminar, Yale University, 25 September; E B Masini 1993, Why
Futures Studies?, Grey Seal Books, London.
68. J A Mau 1968, Social Change and Images of the Future, Schenkman, Cambridge, MA.
69. F L Polak 1961 (1955), op cit.
70. R Jungk 1976 (1973), The Everyman Project, Liveright, New York; R Jungk and N Mullert
1987, Future Workshops: How to Create Desirable Futures, Institute for Social Inventions,
London.
71. J Dator 1983a, 'The 1982 Honolulu electronic town meeting' in W Page (ed.), The Future of
Politics, Frances Pinter in association with the World Futures Studies Federation, London.
72. J McHale, J 1978, 'The emergence of futures research' in J Fowles (ed.), Handbook of Futures
Research, Greenwood, Westport, CT.
73. R Amara 1981, 'The futures field: Searching for definitions and boundaries', The Futurist, vol. 15,
no. 1, pp. 25-9.
74. W Bell 1993, 'Bringing the good back in: Values, objectivity and the future', International Social
Science Journal, vol. XLV, no. 136, pp. 333-47; K Lee 1985, A New Basis for Moral
 Science Journal, vol. XLV, no. 136, pp. 333-47; K Lee 1985, A New Basis for Moral
Philosophy, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
75. W Bell 1994, 'The world as a moral community', Society, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 15-22; R M Kidder
1994, Shared Values for a Troubled World, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
76. R D Riner 1987, 'Doing futures research - anthropologically', Futures, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 311-28.
77. H Reichenbach 195 1, The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, University of California Press, Berkeley,
CA, p. 241.
78. A Musgrave 1993, Common Sense, Science and Scepticism, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
79. R S Rudner 1966, Philosophy of Social Science, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
80. W Bell (1973), 'Is the futures field an art form or can it become a science?', Futures Research
Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 27-44; W Bell and J K Olick 1989, 'An epistemology for the futures
field: Problems and possibilities of prediction', Futures, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 115-35.
81. T J Gordon 1992, 'The methods of futures research', The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, vol. 522, pp. 25-35.
82. M Marien with L Jennings (eds) 1988, Future Survey Annual 1987, vol. 8, Bethesda, MD, World
Future Society.
83. R D Riner 1991, 'Anthropology about the future: Limits and potentials', Human Organisation,
vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 297-31 1.

Bibliography

Amara, R 1981, 'The futures field: Searching for definitions and boundaries', The Futurist, vol.
15, no. 1, pp. 25-9.
Bell, D 1976, The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, Basic Books, New York.
Bell, W 1987 (1973), 'Is the futures field an art form or can it become a science?', Futures
Research Quarterly, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 27-44.
- 1993, 'Bringing the good back in: Values, objectivity and the future', International Social
Science Journal, vol. XLV, no. 136, pp. 333-47.
- 1994, 'The world as a moral community', Society, vol. 3 1, no. 5,pp.15-22.
- 1996, Foundations of Futures Studies: Human Science for a New Era, vol. 1, 'History, purposes
and knowledge' and vol. 2, 'Values, objectivity and the good society', Transaction Pubs, New
Brunswick, NJ.
Bell, W and Mau, J A (eds) 1971, The Sociology of the Future, Russell Sage Foundation, New
York.
Bell, W and Olick, J K 1989, 'An epistemology for the futures field: Problems and possibilities of
prediction', Futures, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 115-35.
Bracher, K D 1971 (1969), The German Dictatorship, (trans. by J Steinberg), Weidenfeld &
Nicolson, London.
Brewer, G D and P deLeon 1983, The Foundations of Policy Analysis, Dorsey Press,
Homewood, IL.
Broszat, M 1966 (1960), German National Socialism, 1919-1945, (trans. by K Rosenbaum and 1
P Boehm), Clio, Santa Barbara, CA.
Cole, S 1983, 'Models, metaphors and the state of knowledge' in M Batty and B Hutchinson (eds)
Systems Analysis in Urban Policy- Making and Planning, Plenum Press, New York.
- 1993, 'Learning to love Limits', Futures, vol. 25, no. 7, pp. 814-8.
Commission on the Year 2000 of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 1967, 'Toward
the year 2000: Work in progress', Daedalus, vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 639-994.
Cornish, E with members of the World Future Society staff 1977, The Study of the Future, World
Future Society, Washington DC.
Cronbach, L J Ambron, S R Dombusch, S M Hess, R D Homik, R C Phillips, D C Walker, D F
and Weiner, S S 1981 (1980), Toward Reform of Program Evaluation, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Dator, J A 1979, 'The futures of culture or cultures of the future' in A J Marsella, R G Tharp and
T J Ciborowski (eds), Perspectives on Cross-Cultural Psychology, Academic Press, New York.
T J Ciborowski (eds), Perspectives on Cross-Cultural Psychology, Academic Press, New York.

- 1983a, 'The 1982 Honolulu electronic town meeting' in W Page (ed.), The Future of Politics,
Frances Pinter in association with the World Futures Studies Federation, London.
- 1983b, 'Loose connections: A vision of a transformational society' in E Masini (ed.), Visions of
Desirable Societies, Pergamon, Oxford.
- 1986, 'The futures of futures studies - the view from Hawaii', Futures, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 440-5.
de Jouvenel, B 1967 (1964), The Art of Conjecture, Basic Books, New York.
- 1928, L'economie dirigee: le programme de la nouvelle generation, Librarie Valois, Paris
deLeon, P 1984, 'Futures studies and the policy sciences', Futures, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 586-93.
Dickson, P 1972 (1971), Think Tanks, Atheneum, New York.
Dror, Y 1971, Ventures in Policy Sciences: Concepts and Applications, Elsevier, New York.
Dye, T R,1978, Understanding Public Policy, 3rd edn, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Eulau, H 1958, 'H D Lasswell's developmental analysis', The Western Political Quarterly, vol.
XI, no. 2, June, pp. 229-42.
Forrester, J W 1971, World Dynamics, Wright-Allen Press, Cambridge, MA.
GilFillan, S C 1920, Successful social prophecy in the past, an essay submitted in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, Columbia University (Faculty of
Political Science, Department of Sociology), New York.
- 1935, The Sociology of Invention: An Essay in the Social Causes of Technic Invention and
Some of Its Social Results. Follet, Chicago, IIL.
Gordon, T J 1992, 'The methods of futures research', The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, vol. 522, pp. 25-35.
Grunberger, R 197 1, A Social History of the Third Reich, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London.
Henshel, R L 1976, On the Future of Social Prediction, Bobbs- Merrill, Indianapolis, IN.
Henshel, R L and Johnston, W 1987, 'The emergence of bandwagon effects: A theory', The
Sociological Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 493-511.
Huxley, A 1969 (1946), Brave New World, Harper & Row, New York.
Innes, J E 1990 (1975), Knowledge and Public Policy: The Search for Meaningful Indicators,
2nd edn, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.
Jungk, R 1971 (1969), 'Preface' in R Jungk and J Galtung (eds), Mankind 2000, 2nd edn,
Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
- 1976 (1973), The Everyman Project, Liveright, New York.
Jungk, R and Galtung, J (eds) 1971 (1969), Mankind 2000, Universitetsforlaget, Oslo.
Jungk, R and Mijllert, N 1987, Future Workshops: How to Create Desirable Futures, Institute for
Social Inventions, London.
Kahn, H and Wiener, A J 1967, The Year 2000: A Framework for Speculation on the Next
Thirty-Three Years, Macmillan, New York.
Kidder, R M 1994, Shared Values for a Troubled World, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lasswell, H D 1967, Projecting the future, mimeographed paper prepared for the Yale
'Colloquium on the Future' seminar, Yale University, 25 September.
- 1971, A Pre- View of Policy Sciences, Elsevier, New York.
Lee, K 1985, A New Basis for Moral Philosophy, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Lerner, D and Lasswell, H D (eds) 1951, The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope
and Method, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.
McHale, J 1978, 'The emergence of futures research' in J Fowles (ed.), Handbook of Futures
Research, Greenwood, Westport, CT.
Madge, C 1968, 'Planning, social. Introduction' in D L Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of
the Social Sciences, vol. 12, Macmillan, New York.
Manuel, F E and Manuel, F P 1979, Utopian Thought in the Western World, Belknap Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Marien, M 1992, 'The scope of policy studies: Reclaiming Lasswell's lost vision' in W N Dunn
and R M Kelly (eds), Advances in Policy Studies Since 1950, Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.
Marien, M and Jennings, L 1987a, 'Introduction' in M Marien and L Jennings (eds), What I Have
Learned: Thinking About the Future Then and Now, Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
Marien, M with Jennings, L (eds) 1987b, Future Survey Annual 1986, vol. 7, Bethesda, MD
 Marien, M with Jennings, L (eds) 1987b, Future Survey Annual 1986, vol. 7, Bethesda, MD
World Future Society.
Marien, M with Jennings, L (eds) 1988, Future Survey Annual 1987, vol. 8, Bethesda, MD
World Future Society.
Masini, E B 1993, Why Futures Studies?, Grey Seal Books, London.
Mau, J A 1968, Social Change and Images of the Future, Schenkman, Cambridge, MA.
Meadows, D H, Meadows, D L, Randers, J and Behrens HI, W W 1972, The Limits to Growth,
Universe Books, New York.
Moll, P 1991, From Scarcity to Sustainability: Futures Studies and the Environment, Peter Lang,
Frankfurt am Main.
- 1993, 'The discreet charm of the Club of Rome', Futures, vol. 25, no.7, pp.801-5.
Montias, J M 1968, 'Planning, economic. Eastern Europe' in D L Sills (ed.) International
Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, vol. 12, Macrnillan, New York.
More, T 1994 (1516), Utopia: A Reading Text and an English Translation, G M Logan, R M
Adams and C H Miller (eds), Cambridge University Press, New York.
Munting, R 1982. The Economic Development of the USSR, Croom Helm, London.
Musgrave, A 1993, Common Sense, Science and Scepticism, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Nove, A 1969, An Economic History of the USSR, Penguin, London.
- 1977, The Soviet Economic System, George Allen & Unwin, London.
Orwell, G 1949, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Secker & Warburg, London.
Passant, E J 1966, A Short History of Germany 1815-1945, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Polak, F L 1961 (1955), The Image of the Future, vols 1 and H, (trans. E Boulding), Oceana,
New York.
President's Research Conunittee on Social Trends 1933, Recent Social Trends in the United
States, vols 1 and 2, MeGraw-Hill, New York.
Reichenbach, H 195 1, The Rise of Scientific Philosophy, University of California Press,
Berkeley, CA.
Riner, R D 1987, 'Doing futures research - anthropologically', Futures, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 311-28.
- 1991, 'Anthropology about the future: Limits and potentials', Human Organisation, vol. 50, no.
3, pp. 297-31 1.
Rossi, P H and Whyte, W F 1983, 'The applied side of sociology' in H E Freeman, R R Dynes, P
H Rossi, and W F Whyte (eds), Applied Sociology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Rudner, R S 1966, Philosophy of Social Science, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Tinbergen, J 1968, 'Planning, economic.' in D L Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences, vol. 12, Macmillan, New York.
Toffler, A 1970, Future Shock, Random House, New York.
- 1978 'Foreword' in M Maruyama and A M Harkins (eds), Cultures of the Future, Mouton, The
Hague.
- 1986, Remarks at the open plenary session, meetings of the World Future Society, New York,
14-17 July.

About the author

Wendell Bell, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Yale University, has been a futurist since about 1960.
He introduced futures studies courses at Yale beginning in 1967. Soon after, he completed co-authoring
The Sociology of the Future. He is the author of many papers on FS and two classic works of futures
scholarship: Foundations of Futures Studies: Human Science for a New Era vols 1 & 2 2003/4 (1996),
Transaction Pubs, New Brunswick, USA.

Back to top
Back to top

Click here to go back to KBFS Volume 1 Page

Click here to go back to the KBFS main page

Click here to go back to the main page

View publication stats