Diffusion with distinction: The diffusion of household durables in the UK

Futures researchers have long been interested in studies that investigate the diffusion of innovations among consumers. Often this is simply as a basis for extrapolating future trends in access to technologies. But also this literature has been particularly useful in providing frameworks for understanding the processes by which new commodities come into circulation and spread across populations of adopters. In this paper we seek to deepen the analysis. We argue that many studies have oversimplified the issues by treating populations of potential adopters as being homogeneous. This, we believe, is inadequate for understanding the diffusion of products in consumer markets. Drawing on debates from cultural studies and the sociology of consumption, as well as emerging theories from evolutionary economics, and analysing household survey data, we show that there are discernible social groups that adopt products at different rates. These differential rates of adoption are attributable to the existence of groups with different tastes, and not simply a question of different income groups.     

Prospective for a new citizenship

Futures thinking does not involve simply bringing rigour to contemplation about the future by employing various methodological tools. It also questions our attitudes about the future and the future power relationships resulting from this. The prospective method is based on the belief that the path is open to a number of possible futures. Its primary purpose is to contribute to a better understanding of the contemporary world, and of the hidden potentialities and dangers. In this way we can identify the actions and choices required to nudge change in the direction of what is desirable. This responsibility cannot be left solely to scientists and politicians: the future is the freedom of all, and prospective is a way of exercising that freedom here and now in order to obtain a future that has been freely debated and chosen.     

A vision of futures studies

The article looks at futures studies from the point of view of the author who has spent over 30 years in the field, with special reference to the World Futures Studies Federation. It suggests that visions are essential for conducting futures studies and education in futures studies is vital for preparing future oriented new generations. The author points out that around the world women are developing silent alternatives to the present societies geared to conflict and violence; this may lead to non-violent changes of which many are not aware. Futures studies will also benefit from examining futures of cultures as we seem to be developing a new culture of peace.     

Futures research report card—quantity: A; quality: C; and impact: F

Futures research has at best only a slight influence on public and private sector decision-making. Bridging the wide gap between analysis and action means reexamining how we are looking and what we are looking at. The ability to deal with multiple, even conflicting, perspectives simultaneously and to focus on vital substantive problem areas should help. The traditional ‘rational actor’ approach must be augmented and balanced with organizational/societal and personal/individual perspectives. Priority attention should be placed on prevention of a nuclear holocaust, exploration of new social system alternatives, and probing of the next technological innovation cluster.     

WTI crude oil Futures in portfolio diversification: The time-to-maturity effect

The aim of the paper is to analyze the diversification effect brought by crude oil Futures contracts, the most liquid commodity Futures, into a portfolio of stocks. The studies that have documented the very low- and essentially negative-correlations between commodities and equities typically rely on normally distributed returns, which is not the case for crude oil Futures and stocks indexes. Moreover, the particular time-to-maturity chosen for the Future contract used as an investment vehicle is an important matter that needs to be addressed, in presence of forward curves switching between backwardation and contango shapes.Our goal in this paper is twofold: (a) we introduce copula functions to have a better representation of the dependence structure of oil Futures with equity indexes; (b) using this copula representation, we are able to analyze in a precise manner the “maturity effect” in the choice of crude oil Future contract with respect to its diversification benefits. Our finding is that, in the case of distant maturities Futures, e.g., 18 months, the negative correlation effect is more pronounced whether stock prices increase or decrease. This property has the merit to avoid the hurdles of a frequent roll over while being quite desirable in the current trendless equity markets. Empirical evidence is exhibited on a database comprising the NYMEX WTI crude oil Futures and S&P 500 index over a 15 year-time period.     

Solving the futures challenge - all you need is a 3LA

In this article, the author responds to a number of claims regarding the Integral Operating System, Causal Layered Analysis and the field of Futures. In particular, the author takes aim at those who claim that the reason the futures field has been lacking in influencing change towards more positive world is the result of not having an effective tool kit. To the contrary, the author suggests that the Futures community's failure at changing the existing ‘market driven paradigm’ has more to do with “… an unwillingness to get our hands dirty and to play in the same sandbox as our clients.” To that end the author targets in particular, a piece suggesting that making the Causal Layered Analysis more complex, exclusionary and ‘new and improved’ is the best way to make inroads into the economic liberalism model now in control. In counterpoint the author suggests that not only is this a flawed approach, it is unlikely to assist those with greatest need - the wider Futures Community.     

Prediction, explanation and the epistemology of future studies

This article is a contribution to the development of the epistemological foundations of Futures Studies. The article starts by presenting the conventional “covering-law” model asserting the symmetry between prediction and explanation, a model that continues to undermine the authority of Futures Studies as a discipline despite the fact that Logical Positivism, the epistemological paradigm that inspired it, is no longer dominant. Then the article outlines the fatal weaknesses of that model showing how out of its criticism emerges the prospect of a coherent and robust epistemology of prediction. Two major points are made: First that predictive argumentation is not demonstrative but merely evidential. Therefore formal logic argumentative structures of the “covering law” type are inadequate in giving a complete and accurate account of predictive argumentation and practice. If the nature of predictive arguments is evidential then the epistemology of prediction should be based not on mere formal logic but on a larger theory of argumentation. Second, the criticism illuminates the complex problem of the types of knowledge and information used in predictive arguments to build up evidence. Explicit and formalized knowledge and statistical evidence are not enough for a successful predictive procedure. Background information and personal, local and tacit knowledge play a surprisingly major role in predictive arguments and procedures and that has very important epistemological consequences.One of the most challenging difficulties Futures Studies had to face since its inception as a discipline has been the fact that in an era dominated by the legacy of Logical Positivism the Futures Studies project seemed epistemologically odd and not quite matching the rigid standards of scientific investigation imposed by the mainstream Positivist cannon. In spite of its impressive advances in theory, methodology and applications, the shadow cast on it by the fact that it was epistemologically suspicious to the philosophic mainstream undermined a good deal of its credibility and authority as a discipline. Even in the wake of the retreat of Positivism as a dominant paradigm the situation in this respect remained frustratingly dysfunctional. Thus there is no surprise that many preeminent scholars in the field argued that an epistemology of Futures Studies was long overdue and that given the current intellectual circumstances, the effort of developing it came to represent one of the major priorities of the field at this point [1, 9, 14 and 15]. Futures Studies had to establish its epistemological credentials in a clear and robust way and thus to claim its clout and legitimacy undermined by Logical Positivism in front of the scholarly community.Undoubtedly the main source of the damage done by Logical Positivism to the epistemological foundations of Futures Studies was neither the rigid methodology implied by it nor its ultra-empiricism but its widely accepted and influential theory of explanation. The crux of that theory is that explaining and predicting events are logically and methodologically identical. It is true that positivists were interested in developing a theory of explanation and not of prediction but due to the alleged logical symmetry between the two, a complete and analogous theory of prediction emerged in a natural way by implication from the theory of explanation. This model and the relationship between prediction and explanation implied by it have raised to dominance and become the backbone of epistemology and the theory of sciences for a couple of decades. The problem is that the account it has given to both explanation and prediction is incomplete and in many respects harmful to the explanatory and predictive practice. By tying the two too close together in a rigid conceptual framework it has arbitrarily constrained their domains and undermined the epistemological legitimacy of many of the methods, practices and approaches associated to them.In the case of explanation, the model, while adequate for many important types of scientific explanations is not at all applicable to all scientific domains. It is definitely not a complete account of explanation and the consequences of the straightjacket it has imposed to scientific inquiry are appreciable. Imposing prediction as a fundamental concept and criteria for explanation the positivist epistemological model sets standards that many disciplines could never achieve by their very nature. As such they were arbitrary relegated outside the proper domain of science. The result was an unnecessary long and painful debate in all the disciplines affected by that demarcation criterion, a sterile debate that rages to this day in, for instance, political science or sociology.But the impact of the model on prediction was even worse. The spread of the belief in the identity of predictive and explanatory scientific procedures undermined at a fundamental level the efforts to reflect on the nature and potentialities of predictive procedures different from those used for explanation. The legacy of this state of affairs continues to be felt very strongly in Futures Studies. Nevertheless it is interesting to stress that doesn’t happen due to the embrace of the positivist model by the discipline. Familiar with the complexities of future oriented thinking, Futures scholars never took the model seriously. But outside the sphere of its own theorists and practitioners, the Futures Studies field has been still perceived through the epistemological lenses shaped by the positivist model. The truth is that the legitimacy and status of Futures Studies rest with the position the field manages to validate for itself in the mainstream epistemological and scientific methodology forum. And the reality is that the epistemological asymmetry between explanation and prediction has not been adequately recognized and considered outside the field in epistemology or social theory, and that the Futures Studies scholars haven’t made and drawn that distinction convincingly enough.The discussion of the specific methodology of prediction—a theme that with very few exceptions has been neglected by the philosophers of science themselves—failed to enter the mainstream epistemological and philosophy of knowledge debates. And the crucial obstacle to that development continues to be the myth reigning in mainstream social sciences that explanation and prediction are or should be symmetrical processes. It is interesting to note that disentangling the models of predictions from those of explanation, and making the case for a solid epistemological argument remains today a priority for the futures research community as it was 30 years ago. In a path-breaking article written in 1964 Hellmer and Rescher wrote: “As long as one believes that explanation and prediction are strict methodological counterparts, it is reasonable to press further with solely the explanatory problems of a discipline, in the expectation that only the tools thus forged will then be usable for predictive purposes. But once this belief is rejected, the problem of a specifically predictive method arises, and it becomes pertinent to investigate the possibilities of predictive procedures autonomous of those used for explanation” [5].During the last decades Futures Studies made important progress in theory, methodology and applications. But it is still to make a convincing case to gain epistemological legitimacy outside its own field. The task is clear: translating into the mainstream’s epistemological terms the insights gained by the discipline and placing them within the ongoing debates in philosophy of science and theory of knowledge. That effort and the epistemological battle for the future and status of the field are even more urgent today when the place of logical positivism is filled by a number of scattered approaches that may lead to a broader and more realistic view of explanation but that continue to neglect the issue of prediction. Thus in spite of the change of the climate of philosophical opinion, the prediction issue is in danger of remaining strongly tied in its entanglement with explanation, and to unwittingly carry on the legacy of the positivist model.Therefore it is even more important today to disentangle the theory of prediction from the theory of explanation and thus to contribute to the elaboration of a strong case for an autonomous and specific epistemology for Futures Studies. This paper is a contribution to this effort of carving a firm epistemological ground for Futures Studies. As such it continues by presenting the classical model of the symmetry between prediction and explanation and then outlines its fatal weaknesses showing how out of its criticism emerges the possibility of a coherent, robust, original and very interesting epistemology of prediction. All these are done being aware of the fact that the epistemology of Futures Studies could not be reduced to a mere extension of a theory of prediction and that themes such as conditionals, counterfactuals and scenario-related analytic narratives that carry on their own epistemological load are as important as prediction is. However given he external perception of Futures Studies, a perception that is defined and shaped by the notion of prediction, the issue of prediction should be addressed with priority.     

The brain, the mind, and societal and cultural learning: the emergence of a new paradigm of futures research

Research reveals that historical episodes of societal and cultural change have always been mediated by out groups which seek direct experience of reality and the personal transformation it entrains. The strictly rationalist model of cultural change used in Futures Research is out of step with this fact. A new model of cultural change is proposed and its implications for Futures Research discussed. The main implications are: Futures Research should be layered, in the sense that the various levels of mental modality should be made explicit in any piece of research; the dynamics of interaction between these layers needs to be explored: a complete Futures program would combine analysis of the inner lives of humans with scientific and social scientific data.     

Design futures in action: Documenting experiential futures for participatory audiences

The futures field demonstrates a willing openness in embracing methodologies, approaches, and influences from a diversity of disciplines and perspectives. This plurality of practice is evidenced in a growing body of work that increasingly embodies futures thinking in the design of everyday material and networked experiences. The intersection of design and futures produces artifacts, applications and interactions created to provoke dialog in an accessible manner. As part of the Futures special issue on the Emerge: Artists and Scientists Redesign the Future event, this article describes the documentation and public representation of the creative outcomes from nine Emerge design futures workshops. These workshops provided a rich opportunity to study how designers and futurists collaboratively engage, implement and communicate alternative futures. The goal of the documentation effort described is to capture the experience of creating experiential futures and extend the capacity for developing social foresight through a participatory exhibit and online social platform.     

Learning ahead of time: how evaluation of foresight may add to increased trust,organizational learning and future oriented policy and strategy

Evaluation of futures research (foresight) consists of three elements: quality, success, and impact of a study. Futures research ought to be methodologically and professionally sound, should to a certain extent be accurate, and should have a degree of impact on strategic decision making and policy-making. However, in the case of futures studies, the one does not automatically lead to the other. Quality of method does not ensure success, just as quality and success do not guarantee impact. This article explores the new paths for understanding evaluating of futures studies that are provided by the various articles in this special issue and sets out an agenda for next steps with regard to evaluation of futures research. The more structural and systematic evaluation can result in an increased level of trust in futures research, which may in turn lead to more future oriented strategy, policy and decision making. Therefore, evaluation should be seen as more than a burden of accountability – albeit important as accountability is – but as an investment in the credibility and impact of the profession. It may set in motion a cycle of mutual learning that will not only improve the capacity of futures-researchers but will also enhance the capacity and likeliness of decision-makers to apply insight from futures research.     

Professional standards in futures work

The question of professional standards in the futures arena is a major, but unresolved issue. The paper begins with aspects of a rationale. It then seeks to briefly define Futures Studies (FS) and to answer two questions: what is a futurist, and how can one become a futurist? It summarises various proposals for establishing standards including Bell's for a code of ethics. A number of questions about professional capabilities and behaviour are posed and some provisional answers are given. Several implications are derived for the World Futures Studies Federation as a ‘peak body’. The paper concludes that for FS to fulfil its potential it must pursue quality in every area.     

Interday variations in volume,variance and participation of large speculators

We use data uniquely available from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) to document the intraweek trading patterns of large speculators in five futures markets. These markets include futures traded against the Standard and Poor's 500 stock index, Treasury Bonds, gold, corn, and soybeans. We also examine the influence of large speculator trades on the patterns of volume and volatility for the contracts in our sample. Though we detect the familiar U-shaped and inverted U-shaped patterns across weekdays for volatility and aggregate volume, the association between volume and volatility becomes stronger when we separate large speculator volume from volume associated with other traders. The coefficient on large speculator volume is much larger than the coefficient on other volume in these regressions. Compared with total volume, large speculator volume is greater on Mondays than on the other days of the week in all five markets.     

Monetary policy news and exchange rate responses: Do only surprises matter?

We use data from the Federal Funds Futures market to show that exchange rates respond to only the surprise component of an actual US monetary policy change and we illustrate that failure to disentangle the surprise component from the actual monetary policy change can lead to an underestimation of the impact of monetary policy, or even to a false rejection of the hypothesis that monetary policy impacts exchange rates. Unlike the recent contributions to the literature on exchange rates and monetary policy news, our testing method avoids the imposition of assumptions regarding exchange rate market efficiency. We also add to the debate on how quickly exchange rates respond to news by showing that the exchange rates under study absorb monetary policy surprises within the same day as the news are announced.     

The effect of downside risk reduction on UK equity portfolios included with Managed Futures Funds

The concept of asymmetric risk estimation has become more widely applied in risk management in recent years with the increased use of Value-at-risk (VaR) methodologies. This paper uses the n-degree lower partial moment (LPM) models, of which VaR is a special case, to empirically analyse the effect of downside risk reduction on UK portfolio diversification and returns. Data on Managed Futures Funds are used to replicate the increasingly popular preference of investors for including hedge funds and fund-of-funds type investments in the UK equity portfolios. The result indicates, however that the potential benefits of fund diversification may deteriorate following reductions in downside risk tolerance levels. These results appear to reinforce the importance of risk (tolerance) perception, particularly downside risk, when making decisions to include Managed Futures Funds in UK equity portfolios as the empirical analysis suggests that this could negatively affect portfolio returns.     

构建实现中部经济跨越式发展的金融支撑平台

中部指湖北、湖南、河南、安徽和江西五省,在我国总体经济发展格局中具有重要地位.本文通过对中部五省的金融资源状况进行省际与市际比较后认为,构建中部金融支撑平台是从金融途径取得跨越式发展的途径之一;同时指出,由于武汉在中部五省经济金融中具有特殊重要的地位,建立以武汉为中心的中部发展金融支撑平台具有现实意义.作者在对金融支撑平台建立的总体构思进行定性描述之后,从建立武汉为中心的区域金融控股体系,建立以郑州商品期货交易市场为依托的武汉股指期货交易平台,注重体外循环资金平台的利用,建立中部五省统一的网络化金融服务平台四个方面详细阐述了具体策略的实施.     

Foresight defined as a component of Strategic Management

This paper explores basic theoretical affinities between Foresight and Futures and Strategic Management, arguing that at this point in its development, Foresight can best be understood and deployed as an explicitly managerial discipline.The growth of Foresight and Futures Studies as a discipline has been less robust than the internal logic of the field would predict, potentially indicating an opportunity for theoretical renewal. Foresight is often justified on managerial grounds, with the argument that a discipline is needed to guide decision-making in a technologically aggressive, post-industrial society. Some within Foresight and Futures Studies have argued for the active development of alternatives to these managerial justifications. However, the links between Strategic Management and Futures Studies are robust and the embrace of cross-disciplinary dialogue has proven invigorating in some other disciplines. An evaluation of the goals and logic of Foresight from the standpoint of mainstream Strategic Management gives a novel perspective on the field, highlighting its importance to information processing. Finally, Foresight speaks to well-established normative problems with short-term biases in managerial contexts. For the purposes of this article, the terms “Foresight” and “Futures Studies” are used interchangeably to refer to the general study of futures.     

Improved method for detecting acquirer fixed effects

Large merger and acquisition (M&A) samples feature the pervasive presence of repetitive acquirers. They offer an attractive empirical context for revealing the presence of acquirer fixed effects (permanent abnormal performance). But panel data M&A are quite heterogeneous; just a few acquirers undertake many M&As. Does this feature affect statistical inference? To investigate the issue, our study relies on simulations based on real data sets. The results suggest the existence of a bias, confirming suspicions reported in the extant literature about the validity of fixed-effect regression based statistics (R- square, adjusted R- square and fixed effects Fisher tests) used to detect the presence and significance of acquirer fixed effects. We introduce a new resampling method to detect acquirer fixed effects with attractive statistical properties (size and power) for samples of acquirers that complete at least five acquisitions. The proposed method confirms the presence of acquirer fixed effects but only for a marginal fraction of the acquirer population. This result is robust to endogenous attrition and varying time periods between successive transactions.     

Evolutionary psychology, complexity theory, and quantitative social epistemology

The human brain is the instrument by which we observe the external world (correspondence), and by which we communicate our interpretations of it to each other (coherence). Only a small part of the brain's behaviour is amenable to introspection, and subsequent linguistic articulation to other people. The vast majority of our perception and behaviour is shaped by subconscious compartmentalised functions which are the result of 2 million years of human evolution prior to the last 10,000 years of ‘civilisation.’ Both individually and collectively this behaviour is complex—full of non-linearities, feedback, and emergent effects. There is thus an overlap between evolutionary psychology and complexity theory. However, it may be that our ideas about complexity are not an independent tool with which to appraise evolutionary psychology, because they are instead the products of it. This evolved subconscious brain, about which we know so little, has the greatest channel capacity for both correspondence and coherence. It has evolved as a survival strategy to match our long generational deadtime, but may not be appropriate for new challenges to survival. It is suggested that we need to re-instate mankind and his brain as the central element of study, so that we can learn who we are that threaten our own existence.     

The liquidity of automated exchanges: new evidence from German Bund futures

Previous literature has suggested that automated exchanges such as the Deutsche Terminborse (DTB) may be less liquid than their open-outcry counterparts such as the London International Financial Futures Exchange (LIFFE), although evidence provided on this issue has been mixed. This paper provides new evidence on the relative magnitudes of bid-ask spreads in the Bund contract traded on the DTB and LIFFE using intraday data from a period in which each exchanges share of total Bund trading was closer than previous research. The findings suggest that quoted bid-ask spreads are wider on the LIFFE than the DTB, even after controlling for their determinants. Furthermore, bid-ask spreads on the DTB increase more rapidly as price volatility increases relative to the LIFFE. Overall, this evidence implies that while automated exchanges are capable of providing more liquidity than floor traded exchanges, the relative performance of automated exchanges deteriorates during periods of higher volatility.     

The past and the possible futures of Futures Studies: Some thoughts on Ziauddin Sardar's ‘the namesake’

The need to explain the concepts and terms used in Futures Studies, as in other sciences, has existed for a long time. But the necessity to do so has increased since the Second World War and is clearly important in recent debates among different groups involved in the field. This article traces the historical timeline of some of these terms in relation to the social and cultural contexts in which they were coined and first used. It argues that concepts and terms used in Futures Studies are mainly of Western origin and suggests that research should be conducted in different social and cultural contexts for concepts and terms embedded, and possibly used, in cultures different from that of the West. The article also suggests that some sort of ‘liberation movement’ should be started in this direction.