Intergenerational Foresight 2026

RATIONALE Continuity as a design requirement The time-bound handover mandate intervenes at a critical leverage point: the moment an initiative is designed, funded and approved. Rather than treating exit and sustainability as downstream concerns, the time-bound handover mandate makes transition planning a condition of entry.120 Under this model, decision-makers require that every initiative specify from the outset how stakeholders will transfer assets, data, operational knowledge and decision-making authority to recognized community institutions within an agreed timeframe. This process transforms development from an open-ended delivery model into a planned succession process. The mandate also realigns incentives. External actors are rewarded for successful transition rather than prolonged presence. Communities are positioned as future governors rather than passive recipients. Public authorities gain clearer visibility into long-term responsibilities, while donors reduce the risk of repeatedly reinvesting in the same outcomes. Transparency mechanisms, such as public handover registries and dashboards tracking transition milestones, convert each project into a learning asset. Over time, these records enable peer-to-peer replication across districts and countries, thereby shifting expectations about what constitutes responsible intervention. The result is a governance architecture where trust, capital and authority reinforce one another rather than fragmenting at project close. In practice, the provocation is most effective when embedded within Philanthropy-Public-Community (PPC) partnerships. Philanthropic actors provide early-stage capital and technical support. Public institutions ensure regulatory continuity and accountability. Communities contribute contextual knowledge and long-term presence. The handover mandate aligns these roles by requiring that transition costs, training, governance formation and data transfer are funded and executed deliberately rather than improvised at exit. Capacity building begins at project inception, not at its conclusion. Safeguards are essential. Transitions are moments of contestation and without clear rules, informal power can override formal intent. Anchoring handovers within recognized and representative community bodies, such as panchayats, cooperatives and federations of self-help groups, while retaining state oversight, reduces elite capture and strengthens legitimacy. Gender-inclusive leadership requirements further protect gains, reflecting strong regional evidence that women- led institutions are more resilient to social and economic shocks.121 Over time, documented handovers and open reporting create a regional learning loop. Successful transitions become templates. Expectations shift. Planned exit becomes standard practice rather than an exception.ILLUSTRATIVE PATHWAYS GLOBAL RELEVANCE South Asia’s challenge mirrors a global governance dilemma. Systems designed to serve communities too often reinforce dependency, extract value, or collapse once external actors withdraw. The time- bound handover mandate provides a transferable corrective measure.122 It reframes development ethics from delivery to succession, from presence to preparedness and from short-term outputs to inheritable systems. In a world facing compounding climate risks, demographic pressures and fiscal constraints, this model positions South Asia not only as a site of vulnerability but also as a laboratory for intergenerational governance. By converting interventions into inheritances, the region offers global leaders a practical mechanism to rebuild legitimacy, strengthen local capacity and ensure that future generations inherit both assets and agency. Intergenerational Foresight: An Approach for Long-Term Responsibility in Governance 45