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

Reference list

• Amer, M., Daim, T. U., & Jetter, A. (2013). A review of scenario planning. Futures, 46, 23–40. doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2012.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aon (2019). Risk Maps 2019. Aońs guide to Political Risk, Terrorism & Political Violence. https://www.aon.com/2019-political-risk-terrorism-and-political-violence-maps/index.html
   Google Scholar
• Auswärtiges Amt. (2019). Krisenfrüherkennung, Konfliktanalyse und Strategische Vorausschau. https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/aussenpolitik/themen/krisenpraevention/8_Krisenfrueherkennung
   Google Scholar
• Azqueta-Gavaldón, A., et al. (2019). Sources of economic policy uncertainty in the euro area: a machine learning approach. ECB Economic Bulletin, https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/economic-bulletin/focus/2019/html/ecb.ebbox201905_04~6b149ccb66.en.html
   Google Scholar
• Babst, S. (2018). NATO’s strategic foresight: Navigating between Black Swans, Butterflies and Elephants [Statement]. https://securityconference.org/news/meldung/natos-strategic-foresight-navigating-between-black-swans-butterflies-and-elephants/
   Google Scholar
• Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2016). Measuring economic policy uncertainty. The Quartely Journal of Economics, 131, 4. doi.10.1093/qje/qjw024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barma, N. H., et al. (2016). “Imagine a world in which”: Using scenarios in political science. International Studies Perspectives, 17(2), 117–135. doi: 10.1093/isp/ekv005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barrie, D., et al. (2019). Defending Europe: Scenario-based capability requirements for NATO’s European members. London: The International Institute for Strategic Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Bell, W. (2002). A community of futurists and the state of the futures field. Futures, 34(3–4), 235–247. doi: 10.1016/S0016-3287(01)00041-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bentham, J. (2014). The scenario approach to possible futures for oil and natural gas. Energy Policy, 64, 87–92. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.08.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bernstein, S., Lebow, R. N., Gross Stein, J., et al. (2000). God gave Physics the easy problems: Adapting social science to an unpredictable world. European Journal of International Relations, 6(1), 43–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: An overview of techniques. Foresight, 9(1), 5–25. doi: 10.1108/14636680710727516
   Google Scholar
• Bouhalleb, A., & Smida, A. (2018). Scenario planning: An investigation of the construct and its measurement. Journal of Forecasting, 37(4), 489–505. doi: 10.1002/for.2515
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bousquet, A., & Curtis, S. (2011). Beyond models and metaphors: Complexity theory, systems thinking and international relations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 24(1), 43–62. doi: 10.1080/09557571.2011.558054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bradfield, R., et al. (2005). The origins and evolution of scenario techniques in long range business planning. Futures, 37, 796–811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brakman, S., Garretsen, H., & Kohl, T. (2018). Consequences of Brexit and options for a “Global Britain”. Papers in Regional Science, 97(1), 55–72. doi: 10.1111/pirs.12343
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brozus, L. (2016). Unexpected, Unforeseen, Unplanned. German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Brozus, L. (2018). Während wir planten. German Institute for International and Security Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Cairney, P., & Kwiatkowski, R. (2017). How to communicate effectively with policymakers: Combine insights from psychology and policy studies. Palgrave Communications, 3(1), doi: 10.1057/s41599-017-0046-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2019). Measuring Geopolitical risk (International Finance Discussion Papers, No. 1222). doi: 10.17016/ifdp.2018.1222
   Google Scholar
• Çelik, A. B., & Blum, A. (2007). Future uncertain: Using scenarios to understand Turkey’s geopolitical environment and its impact on the Kurdish question. Ethnopolitics, 6(4), 569–583. doi: 10.1080/17449050701233205
   Google Scholar
• Creutz, K., et al. (2019). The changing global order and its implications for the EU (FIIA Report, No. 59). Finnish Institute for International Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Cruz, S. O. (2015). Alternative futures of global governance: Scenarios and perspectives from the Global South. Foresight (Los Angeles, CA ), 17(2), 125–142. doi: 10.1108/FS-05-2014-0030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, J. W. (2005). Terms of inquiry: On the theory and practice of political science. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Desch, M. (2015). Technique Trumps relevance: The professionalization of political science and the marginalization of security studies. Perspectives on Politics, 13(2), 377–393. doi: 10.1017/S1537592714004022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dreyer, I., & Stang, G. (2013). Foresight in governments—practices and trends around the world. Yearbook of European Security, 7–32. https://www.iss.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2.1_Foresight_in_governments.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Estella, A. (2008). European Union Scenarios for 2017 (Working Paper, No. 39). Royal Elcano Institute.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament. (2013). Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in ‘Horizon 2020—the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020)’ and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1906/2006.
   Google Scholar
• Flockhart, T. (2016). The coming multi-order world. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(1), 3–30. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2016.1150053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flockhart, T. (2020). Is this the end? Resilience, ontological security, and the crisis of the liberal international order. Contemporary Security Policy. Online Preview, doi: 10.1080/13523260.2020.1723966
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Friedberg, A. L. (2005). The future of U.S.-China relations: Is conflict inevitable? ’. International Security, 30(2), 7–45. doi: 10.1162/016228805775124589
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gaddis, J. L. (1992). Theory and the end of the Cold War. International Security, 17(3), 5–58. doi: 10.2307/2539129
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerring, J. (2011). Social science methodology—a unified framework. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ham, P. V. (2016). Brexit: Strategic consequences for Europe – a scenario study (Clingendael Report). Netherlands Institute of International Relations.
   Google Scholar
• Han, D. (2011). Scenario construction and its implications for international relations research. The Korean Journal of International Studies, 9(1), 39–65. doi: 10.14731/kjis.2011.06.9.1.39
   Google Scholar
• Hett, F., Kellner, A. M., & Martin, B. (2014). The EU and the East in 2030 – four scenarios for relations between the EU, the Russian Federation, and the common neighbourhood. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id-moe/11088.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Heuer, R. J. (1999). Psychology of intelligence analysis. Washington, DC: Central Intelligence Agency.
   Google Scholar
• Hundley, L., Kenzer, B., & Peterson, S. (2015). What Pivot? International relations scholarship and the study of East Asia. International Studies Perspectives, 16(3), 286–301. doi: 10.1111/insp.12060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn, H., & Wiener, A. J. (1967). The Year 2000: A framework for Speculation on the next Thirty-three Years. New York: MacMillan.
   Google Scholar
• Katzenstein, P., & Okawara, N. (2001). Japan, Asian-Pacific security, and the case for analytical Eclecticism. International Security, 26(3), 153–185. doi: 10.1162/016228801753399754
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerbel, J. (2004). Thinking Straight: Cognitive bias in the US debate about China. Studies in Intelligence, 48(3), 27–35.
   Google Scholar
• Kratochwil, F., & Friedrichs, J. (2009). On acting and knowing: How pragmatism can advance international relations research and methodology. International Organization, 63(3), 701–731. doi: 10.1017/S0020818309990142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunstein, T., & Wessels, W. (2012). What we hope, what we fear, what we expect: Possible scenarios for the future of the Eurozone. European View, 11(1), 5–14. doi: 10.1007/s12290-012-0210-x
   Google Scholar
• Lehmann, J. (2016). What’s after the “Crisis”? Scenarios for EU Refugee Policy Post-2016. Global Public Policy Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Makridakis, S., Wheelwright, S. C., & Hyndman, R. J. (1996). Forecasting: Methods and applications. New York: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Martill, B., & Sus, M. (2018). Post-Brexit EU/UK security cooperation: NATO, CSDP+, or “French connection”? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 20(4), 846–863. doi: 10.1177/1369148118796979
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mcgann, J. G. (2019). 2018 Global Go to Think Tank Index Report. http://gotothinktank.com/dev1/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/GoToReport2013.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Mietzner, D., & Reger, G. (2005). Advantages and disadvantages of scenario approaches for strategic foresight. International Journal of Technology Intelligence and Planning, 1(2), 220. doi: 10.1504/ijtip.2005.006516
   Google Scholar
• Miles, I., Saritas, O. & Sokolov, A. (2016). Foresight for science, technology and innovation. Springer International. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-32574-3
   Google Scholar
• Musolff, A. (2017). Truths, lies and figurative scenarios. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(5), 641–657. doi: 10.1075/jlp.16033.mus
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. (2013). Strategic Foresight Analysis 2013 Report.
   Google Scholar
• North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2015). Framework for Future Alliance Operations Report.
   Google Scholar
• North Atlantic Treaty Organization (2017). Strategic Foresight Analysis Report. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-88827-7
   Google Scholar
• North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2018). Framework for Future Alliance Operations. 2018 Report.
   Google Scholar
• Nye, J. S. (2008). International relations: The relevance of theory to practice. In C. Reus-Smit & D. Snidal (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international relations (pp. 648–662). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Office of the Director of National Security. (2019). Global Trends. https://www.dni.gov/index.php/global-trends-home
   Google Scholar
• Phadnis, S., et al. (2014). Axiomatic foundation and a structured process for developing firm-specific intuitive logics scenarios. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 88, 122–139. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.06.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pherson, R. (2008). Handbook of analytic tools & techniques. Washington, DC: Pherson Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, R. (2008). Foresight methodology: An overview and more [Paper Presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Institute for Quality Assurance, Bonn. doi: 10.1038/455169a
   Google Scholar
• Porter, P. (2016). Taking uncertainty seriously: Classical realism and national security. European Journal of International Security, 1(02), 239–260. doi: 10.1017/eis.2016.4
   Google Scholar
• Pourezzat, A. A., et al. (2018). The future of governance in Iran. Foresight (Los Angeles, CA ), 20(2), 175–189. doi: 10.1108/FS-10-2017-0056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramírez, R., & Wilkinson, A. (2016). Strategic reframing: The Oxford scenario planning approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ritchie, H., et al. (2020). Terrorism. Our world in data. https://ourworldindata.org/terrorism
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, P. (1996). The art of the long view: Paths to strategic insight for yourself and your company. New York: Currency Doubleday.
   Google Scholar
• Sprinz, D. F., & Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y. (2002). Models, Numbers and cases – methods for studying international relations. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stein, J. G., et al. (1998). Five scenarios of the Israel-Palestinian relationship in 2002: Works in progress. Security Studies, 7(4), 195–208. doi: 10.1080/09636419808429362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stephen, M. D. (2018). Will international institutions fail again? International power shifts and the future of global cooperation, (FIIA Briefing Paper, No. 249). Finnish Institute for International Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Sus, M. (2017). Towards the European Union’s Foreign Policy 2025—taking stock of the Dahrendorf Foresight Project. Global Policy, 8, 115–125. doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sus, M. (2018). European Union in the World 2025 – scenarios for the EU relationships with neighbours and strategic partners. Futures. The Journal of Policy, Planning and Futures Studies, 97(Special issue), 1–72.
   Google Scholar
• Sus, M., & Hadeed, M. (2019). European Security 2030. The results of the Dahrendorf Foresight Project. September 2019. LSE Ideas Report. London.
   Google Scholar
• Sweijs, T., & Pronk, D. (2019). Interregnum—Strategic Monitor 2018-2019. The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies & The Netherlands Institute of International Relations.
   Google Scholar
• Taleb, N. N. (2007). The Black Swan: The impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Tira, R. (2016). The future Middle East strategic balance. Conventional and unconventional sources of instability, (Proliferation Papers, No. 56) French Institute of International Relations. https://www.ifri.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/prolif56_tira_oksl_v2.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Tomé, L., & Açıkalın, ŞN. (2019). Complexity theory as a new lens in IR: System and change. In ŞŞ Erçetin & N. P. Potas (Eds.), Chaos, complexity and leadership 2017—explorations of chaos and complexity theory (pp. 1–17). Cham: Springer International.
   Google Scholar
• Urry, J. (2003). Global complexity. Polity.
   Google Scholar
• Verschueren, H. (2017). Scenarios for Brexit and social security. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 24(3), 367–381. doi: 10.1177/1023263X17722485
   Google Scholar
• Vicente Oliva, S., & Martinez-Sanchez, A. (2018). Technology roadmapping in security and defence foresight. Foresight, 20(6), 635–647. doi: 10.1108/FS-12-2017-0074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Von der Leyen, U. (2019). Mission letter to Maroš Šefčovič Vice-President-designate for Interinstitutional Relations and Foresight [Mission Letter]. European Commission, 1–6. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/mission-letter-maros-sefcovic-2019_en.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, A. (2014). In the NIC of time? Changing our minds about global foresight. World Future Review, 5(4), 339–346. doi: 10.1177/1946756713510284
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, A. (2017). Strategic Foresight Primer. European Politicy Strategy Centre. doi: 10.2872/71492
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, A., & Kupers, R. (2013). Living in the futures. Harvard Business Review, 91(5), 1–11. https://hbr.org/2013/05/living-in-the-futures.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkinson, A., Kupers, R., & Mangalagiu, D. (2013). How plausibility-based scenario practices are grappling with complexity to appreciate and address 21st century challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80(4), 699–710. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2012.10.031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziv, G., et al. (2018). The potential impact of Brexit on the energy, water and food nexus in the UK: A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Applied Energy, 210, 487–498. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar