Intergenerational Foresight 2026

The region is experiencing a convergence of pressures that exposes the limits of credibility built solely on information. First, trust in institutions has declined across many contexts, including advanced economies in the region. Public confidence in government, media, business and civil society has eroded, reducing leaders’ room to manoeuvre during crises and amplifying contestation of policy decisions.102 Second, confidence in emerging technologies is uneven. Digital transformation is accelerating across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Oceania. Yet, public acceptance of algorithmic decision-making varies sharply, complicating governance of AI, surveillance and automated public services.103 Where trust is low, technology adoption can deepen scepticism rather than restore legitimacy. Third, climate impacts are escalating and often exceed current adaptive capacity.104 Large-scale environmental shocks place acute pressure on governance systems, forcing rapid decisions under uncertainty while exposing longer-term vulnerabilities in planning, infrastructure and institutional coordination.105 In these contexts, people assess credibility not only by whether institutions make efficient decisions but also by whether they perceive those decisions as fair, values-aligned and accountable to those affected. Participants described a further compounding factor: a persistent form of scientific solutionism. Institutions are treating technical innovation and data-driven optimization as sufficient responses to deeply social, cultural and ethical challenges. Scientific tools remain essential for anticipatory governance and risk management. Yet technical competence alone does not generate social cohesion, moral constraint, or intergenerational coherence.106 Overreliance on technical solutions can encourage reactive, risk- averse decision-making, thereby narrowing leaders’ perceptions of what is possible and weakening the foundations of long-term stewardship. Institutions create a credibility deficit that they cannot remedy with more information. What is needed instead are governance frameworks that embed ethical discernment, cultural coherence and intergenerational responsibility, as well as new epistemologies that provide the moral compass and long-term stewardship required for equitable intergenerational leadership.107REGIONAL CONTEXT The limits of technical authority SYSTEM DYNAMICS Governance coherence under pressure The regional group identified three reinforcing feedback loops that help explain why governance systems across the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Oceania struggle to sustain trust, coherence and long-term legitimacy under accelerating change. These dynamics are visible where rapid technological adoption, climate stress and cultural diversity intersect. 1. Crisis reactivity and ethical erosion When leadership relies primarily on data-driven optimization and technical expertise, decision-making tends to narrow under pressure. In moments of crisis, speed, control and short-term risk mitigation dominate, while ethical reflection and relational accountability receive less attention. Decisions may appear efficient yet disconnected from community values and long-term consequences. Over time, this produces ethical drift. Actions taken in an urgent context begin to conflict with public expectations of fairness, care and responsibility. Trust declines, reputational damage accumulates and leaders lose room to manoeuvre. Institutions double down on defensive and reactive approaches, reinforcing a cycle in which they meet each crisis with greater technical intensity and diminishing legitimacy.2. Cultural misalignment and declining policy ownership Governance across the region often relies on standardized frameworks designed for scalability and efficiency. When institutions apply these models without grounding them in local cultural, spiritual and relational contexts, they can achieve formal compliance while failing to resonate with lived realities. This misalignment reduces public connection to institutions. Communities experience policies as externally imposed rather than collectively owned, which weakens participation and long-term commitment. Implementation gaps widen and outcomes deteriorate, reinforcing perceptions that governance is distant, unresponsive, or illegitimate. In response, institutions may further centralize decision-making, deepening disconnection and accelerating the loss of legitimacy. 3. Short-term performance and systemic fragility Institutions frequently evaluate leadership performance through narrow, short-term metrics focused on delivery, growth and efficiency. These indicators can support accountability, yet they can crowd out attention to meaning, well-being and long-term system health. Intergenerational Foresight: An Approach for Long-Term Responsibility in Governance 39