To sum up: avoiding unsustainable futures

• Published in: Futures : the journal of policy, planning and futures studies Vol. 35; no. 1; pp. 89 - 97
• Main Authors: Herce, J.A, Duchin, F, Fontela, E, Lindh, T
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 01-02-2003
• Subjects: Europe; Forecasting; Futures (of Society); Government Spending; Policy Research; Social Services; Welfare Policy; Welfare Services
• ISSN: 0016-3287; 1873-6378
• DOI: 10.1016/S0016-3287(02)00053-8

An analytical summary of the discussions on the European Societal Bill follows that ‘unacceptable futures’ can be avoided.
The papers in this Special Issue of Futures have tried to unfold the many faces of the Societal Bill, that is the behaviours, and their financial counterpart, of the social groups more effected by expected demographic changes. We did so in particular by focusing on modelling strategies that translate parameterised behaviours into economic flows through the channel of institutional arrangements currently operating in European societies, i.e. eligibility conditions and tax and benefits formulae. As for the last point one must not forget that certain behaviours respond strategically to certain eligibility conditions.
Our aim in this paper is to conclude on the implications of the previous analysis. These implications are quite varied and they will be summarised at different levels. Despite a certain pessimistic stance occasionally used here in order to emphasise the consequences of doing nothing, we want to argue that prompt societal adaptation can be a way to avoid what we will latter call “unacceptable futures”.
In a way, what we do in this chapter is not a full futures analysis for we mainly explore the “trends” scenario rather than anticipate alternative, and more acceptable, futures. However, we will say something about alternatives latter on. For the time being, let us set the scenario of the “unacceptable futures” in order to ascertain the order of magnitude of the challenge ahead and the need for action.
Societal adaptation is obviously the key word for action. Individuals, by nature, will always try to counter those developments that hit them worst and institutional and administrative arrangements should facilitate this while assuring social compatibility. The fuel for the engine of change—individual action—will always be there but the engine itself must change so as to select the best behaviours by creating the right incentives. Welfare enhancing institutional innovation thus goes well beyond mere financial balancing of the Societal Bill. If well designed, it will also imply financial soundness. The latter however can be obtained without the former. But without institutional innovation and behavioural change the financial soundness of the Societal Bill would hardly make us better off.