Our era is one of ‘hyperprojectivity’ (Mische, 2014) involving intense debates over possible futures. The study of strategic anticipation involves the analysis of how anticipatory strategies bring the future into the present by translating uncertainties into tangible risks and legitimising particular practices, as well as the wider ramifications of anticipatory strategies, including changing modes of governance and standards of expertise (Berten and Kranke, 2022; Nowotny, 2016; Tavory and Eliasoph, 2013). While strategic anticipation often harnesses ideas about education as a driver for development and confronting crises, scholarship about the implications of anticipatory strategies for education policy remains limited (Robertson, 2005, 2022; Robertson and Beech 2023).

Serving the objective to theorise the implications between strategic anticipation and education governance, this paper provides an explorative study (Swedberg, 2020) comparing three distinctive sites: i) The Futures Forum established in 2005 under the Scottish Parliament, the devolved legislature of Scotland; ii) the US Center for Strategic Foresight, created in 2018 as part of the Government Accountability Office, forming part of the executive branch of the US federal government; and iii) the OECD Future of Education and Skills 2030 project.

These major initiatives of strategic anticipation are in the paper understood as distinctive ‘sites’ in an increasingly globalized political field (Riofrancos, 2021). Combining analysis of publicly available information, review of relevant research literature, and extensive desk research, the paper seeks with thick descriptions of the three sites to produce comparative insights about their imaginaries concerning education futures, and the policy processes and multidirectional relations between actors operating at multiple scales involved. In doing so, the paper is guided by the following research questions: i) Which education futures are projected by the three sites?; ii) Which epistemologies underpin the production of policy knowledge associated with the anticipatory strategies?; and iii) How do the three sites represent different modes of governance in terms of policy diffusion, policy learning, and democratic representation (Dobbin, Simmons and Garrett, 2007; Dunlop and Radaelli, 2013; Koskimaa and Raunio, 2022).

In the paper, we focus on the spatial dichotomies of lifelong learning (LLL) policy programmes. Departing from the observation that “space itself is both constituted by, and constitutive of social relations and structures” (Robertson & Dale, 2017, p. 863) and as such is central for the analysis of education policies, we problematize the dynamic relation between space and education and its impact on socially inclusive and cohesive policymaking (Weckroth & Moisio, 2020). In line with the conference’s central topic, we understand LLL policy programmes as significant instruments for combating social inequalities and contributing to more just and democratic societies. In this regard, following questions will guide our exploration: What is the relationship between space and education? How does it affect LLL policymaking at various governance levels? Are spatial and temporal factors accounted for in the design and implementation of LLL policies? What do spatial dichotomies operating at the intersection of space and education reveal about the structure and quality of educational landscapes? Before proceeding with the structure of the paper, we briefly conceptualise our two core terms.

First, the concept of lifelong learning has multidimensional and ambivalent meaning that implies a continuous process of learning in formal, informal and non-formal settings. In Europe, the LLL programmes have been designed to secure social inclusion of young people, particularly those in vulnerable positions, by applying targeted measures able to enhance individual autonomy and employability (Jarvis, 2008). These interventions encounter several challenges during their implementation, not least due to the lack of contextual and spatial sensibility (Parreira do Amaral & Zelinka, 2019).

Second, in reference to Doreen Massey, we conceptualise space as interactive, heterogeneous, and open-ended construct of social and physical worlds, which can be modified, re-defined, contested and re-arranged in multiple, even, yet unknown ways (Massey, 2005). Spaces exercise power and are effects of power relations (Soja, 2010). This spatiality of places differs across the territories, which are divided by political and administrative borders. The role of the policymaking is to assure that all citizens within a given territory or region are given the same opportunities, irrespectively of their spatial or other origin. It is the spatially unjust distribution of rights and opportunities that has spurred the debates over spatial justice (Soja, 2009), particularly relevant for the (national, transnational, global) education governance and its role in enhancing democratic participation and social justice.

With regard to the structure of the paper, we proceed as follows: First, we frame our understanding of spaces and spatiality and embed the concept of spatial justice in education. Second, we present the results of a short analytical exercise on the relation between education and spaces developed in form of so-called spatial dichotomies. Third, we contextualise our results within various levels of LLL policymaking and offer concluding remarks on how LLL can be further theorized. Our paper cuts across several panel themes, as it explores the dynamics between various levels of policymaking and their implications for European and global education governance.

Contemporary privatization is part of a broader redesign of the public sector. This redesign involves private companies, non-profit entities, non-governmental organizations, social enterprises inside the public sector. In this scenario, the social policy explanation of welfare state transformation intersects with the governance narrative that sees the change as brought about by the new realities of globalization and rising neo-liberal economic pressures. In his book “Modernity and Self-Identity”, Giddens (1991) argues that the fabric of societies has transformed as old solidarities of class, community, family and nation have deteriorated and people have become more consumerist, producing new models of social risks, needs and demands. Moreover, as explained by Ong (2017), neoliberalism is a governing technology of “free subjects” that co-exists with other political rationalities. In advanced liberal nations, neoliberalism has also been defined as a mode of “governing through freedom”, requiring people to be free and self-managing in different areas of daily life, such as education.

The recent processes of globalization have led the nation-state going through various restructuring, often supported by the neo-liberal economic ideology which, in its ideal typic form, aims privatization and marketization of everything. In the latest years, the bureaucracy has also been restructured according to New Public Management and new forms of network governance (Ball & Junemann, 2012), which combine vertical hierarchies with more horizontal networks.

In this scenario, the rise of private-public assemblages forming around and beyond the states is also challenging the ways of thinking about educational policy-making. Here, the notion of “soft privatisation” explores the growth of private sector services within the European Union as a phenomenon deeply embedded in particular national modes of governance (Cone & Brøgger, 2020).

Drawing from my doctoral research and focusing on Italian case studies, in this contribution I will discuss how new philanthropies are integrated into educational policy networks and are encouraged to work with government or agencies or partnerships of various kinds in an effort to solve “wicked” social and educational problems. Hence, participation in these policy networks structures and enables the circulation of new policy ideas, moving towards an interactive and multi-dimensional form of policy-making involving the participation of a new mix of state and non-state actors (Ball & Junemann, 2012).

Finally, a newly emerging set of policy relationships between the state, philanthropy, think tanks and companies are increasingly complex and favour the development of heterarchical structures within which philanthropy and business are tightly intertwined. A variety of direct and indirect, commercial, financial and ideological interests are now able to “voice” their concerns in contexts of policy influence and in contexts of practice. Set over and against the “failure” of the state to provide schooling for all children and the poor quality of many state schools, this is beginning to change the landscape of state schooling, bringing an increasing number of private providers and creating opportunities for business in all sectors of education (Ball, 2010).