Scenario Thinking by George Wright & George Cairns

Author:George Wright & George Cairns
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan

Having outlined the theoretical position in relation to the definition of “good” that underpins phronetic decision making, we acknowledge that human decision making, whether in organizations, politics or other groups, is rarely based upon consideration of what constitutes long-term good for all. This is where the fourth question comes into play: Who gains and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power?

In any complex problem situation, actual decision-making may be based upon short-term benefits, expediency, instrumentalism for personal gain, or any number of other factors. The key element of application of Flyvbjerg’s question framework is that it lifts the veil of secrecy from such approaches. It prompts and supports decision-making that is grounded in broad social and environmental benefit analysis, and makes it transparent if other criteria take precedence.

The application of the fourth question – on winners, losers and power – will generate a different set of answers within each of the scenarios. For many projects, the answers within a business-as-usual context will be that the winners are shareholders or stockholders, senior managers, major suppliers and the like. Losers might include workers in export processing zones in developing economies, communities who lose their land to resource exploitation, or workers who are retrenched or made redundant due to operational “efficiency” gains. The mechanisms of power might range from those of formal firm structures to country legislative frameworks and “structural adjustment” programs of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank.

Example 4.8

In the case of ship-breaking, let us consider one scenario. Say that, as a result of pressure by Greenpeace and other NGOs, there is a global ban on sending ships for breaking up on “third-world” beaches. Who might be winners? The NGOs would certainly declare themselves winners – and may consider the workers as “winners”, having had their health protected through their actions. High-tech ship-breaking yards in “developed world” countries would presumably win – new, high value business. Who might be losers? These might be ship owners who have to pay for the breaking, rather than selling the ships for millions of dollars. They would be current yard owners, losing their source of revenue and profit. They might be workers, if they have no other source of livelihood and see feeding their families tomorrow as more important than their own long-term health. The governments of affected countries might be either winners or losers – winners if they can “blame” NGOs for an economically damaging but environmentally beneficial change, losers if they cannot provide longer-term alternative industry and employment. The mechanisms of power here are presumably those of NGOs working at a global level with intergovernmental agencies to push through internationally agreed and recognized legislative frameworks.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.