Theory-infused and policy-relevant: On the usefulness of scenario analysis for international relations

ABSTRACT

Foresight exercises are increasingly popular among different actors across the globe. Particularly in the context of uncertainties in world affairs, decision-makers are increasingly relying on forward-reasoning to inform their policy. Yet international relations (IR) scholarship is still hesitant to adopt a scenario-based approach. We argue for the use of scenario analysis as a complementary method that is both disciplined and creative. Through scenario analysis, IR scholars simultaneously remain rigorous and provide policy-relevant input that grasps the dynamics of unpredictability of real-world issues. The article discusses the Multiple Scenario Generation method as an unconventional but useful tool, elaborates on its theoretical considerations and concludes with four innovations that scenario analysis can provide for IR scholarship.

KEYWORDS:

• Scenario analysis
• foresight
• international relations
• methodology
• multiple scenario Generation

Acknowledgements

For their helpful comments, the authors would like to thank the reviewers as well as Sophie Vanhoonacker, Anna-Lena Kirch, and Benjamin Martill.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributors

Monika Sus is an assistant professor at the Polish Academy of Sciences and a fellow at the Center for International Security at the Hertie School. Between 2015 and 2019 she was Dahrendorf Postdoctoral Fellow at the Hertie School and leader of the Dahrendorf Foresight Project. In 2016–2017 she was also a Jean Monnet Fellow at the Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies at the European University Institute in Florence. She has been granted scholarships several scholarships and has been a visiting fellow at the University of Leipzig, University of Montreal, and European Union Centre of Excellence at the University in Pittsburgh. She published five books and several papers that appeared in Journal of Common Market Studies, Geopolitics, Global Policy, International Politics, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations as well as Futures: The journal of policy, planning and futures studies.

Marcel Hadeed was a research associate at the Dahrendorf Forum between 2017 and 2019. Between 2016 and 2018, he was program director at the Berlin-based grassroots think tank Polis180 e.V. In his previous position at the German Federal Ministry for Labour and Social Affairs, he worked on European social- and employment policy. Hadeed holds a BA in International Relations from the University of Groningen and a Master of Public Policy from the Hertie School.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 Dahrendorf Foresight Project took place between 2018 and 2019 within the framework of the Dahrendorf Forum – Debating Europe, which is a joint initiative by the foresight exercises by the Hertie School, London School of Economics, and Stiftung Mercator. For more, see: https://www.dahrendorf-forum.eu/

2 See, for example, the following calls: “Trends and forward-looking scenarios in global governance,” or “Past, present and future of differentiation in European governance.”

3 See: GPPi and IAI at https://www.eu-listco.net; IAI at http://www.medreset.eu/project; CIDOB at http://www.menaraproject.eu/.

4 Dahrendorf Foresight Project was a scenario exercise centered around a two-day workshop in Berlin in October 2018. 21 experts–IR scholars, practitioners from international institutions, the private sector and think tanks–from 12 countries participated in the exercise. For more, see: https://www.dahrendorf-forum.eu/research-2017-2019-governance-institutions-and-policy-foresight-project/

5 The STEMPLE+ framework is a frame of reference to sort suggested drivers into distinct categories. This allows for a structured conversation along the process.

6 In reference to the Oxford Scenario Planning Approach, Ramírez and Wilkinson (2016) situate “scenario planning epistemologically as a pragmatic perspective that emphasizes improved strategy making as the outcome of inquiry rather than testable knowledge production” (p. 57).

7 Although Barma et al. (2016, p. 5) argue that scenario analysis can be applied to counterfactual analysis.

8 However, this is does not mean that results are not contestable. Wilkinson (2014), for example, convincingly assessed the foresight activities of the National Intelligence Council, pointing out missed observations and questionable assumptions.

9 For more about forecasting, see: Makridakis, Wheelwright, and Hyndman (1996).

10 The authors thank Benjamin Martill for this thought.

11 For more, see: https://www.bureau-fz.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Aspen_Insight_ENG.pdf.

Additional information

Funding

The research for this project was funded by Stiftung Mercator through the Dahrendorf Forum, a joint initiative of the London School of Economics and the Hertie School.