by This question emerged in a working session on the future of US and Mexico relations. In good Framework Foresight fashion, we first attempted to set the baseline in order to explore alternative futures. The si
mple definition of the baseline is the current system or the current way of doing things within a domain (or topic). So, what is the current system or way of doing things vis-à-vis US-Mexico relations? Hmmm. If we were doing this work a couple of years ago, per-Trump, it would have been easy to characterize the baseline as dominated by NAFTA. But we’re doing it today, and certainly President Trump has strongly suggested that the NAFTA approach and almost anything associated with that system is in question. So, Trump Populism, for lack of a better term, is the new baseline, right? But not so fast. Trump Populism is not actually in place yet. Should we assume it will be? Or is Trump Populism still an alternative future? Of course, it is acknowledged that the issue is more complex than this.
While we occasionally enjoy these kinds of geeky challenging questions, we recognize the need for practicality. Which means, pick one as the baseline, and set the other as an alternative. So, if we shift to Trump Populism as the Baseline, Return to NAFTA could be an alternative future. Another suggestion emerged of having two baselines. I would position this as one baseline with two branches, Baseline A and Baseline B.
As we often say, it’s useful to think about this stuff, but not too long. As long as we have both potential futures being considered, we’re covered. I suppose if I had to answer the question in the post title — Has Trump Shifted the Baseline — for US-Mexico, I would be conservative about the baseline and choose NAFTA and set Trump Populism as an alternative. For me, the baseline should be grounded and documented, thus we should only declare it over when it’s really over. That said, each topic or domain has its own baseline. I would say that Trump Populism certainly has not shifted the baseline of Neoliberal Capitalism as we’ve been discussing in our After Capitalism work.
We still have lots of work to do in sharpening up our concept of the baseline and other frequently used archetypes. They are very handy and useful concepts, but our understanding of them is still very superficial – it’s enough for practice, but from an academic or research perspective, we’re on shaky ground. — Andy Hines
What makes this type of baseline analysis really difficult is factoring in the reactions of other primary stakeholders. Canada and Mexico are independent actors with their own potentially shifting baselines in this situation. Both are pursuing the TPP, from which the US withdrew and China picked up leadership (ironic since TPP was meant to be a check on China’s influence).
What this means is that their is a dependency relationship between the Canada/Mexico baseline and the US baseline. Even if Trump doesn’t withdraw the US from NAFTA, it may be a longer term advantage for Canada & Mexico to make the deals they need via TPP instead of NAFTA. In which case, our baseline shifts if Canada & Mexico’s baselines shift.
Perhaps in such uncertain and fluctuating situations, we call the question of baseline into doubt, or qualify them with “weakened” or “strengthened”. At a minimum we should contrast the stakeholder’s baselines to clarify a larger picture which will influence all of the stakeholders’ probable futures.
Good points. Definitely agree on strong and weak qualifiers. The baseline describes the topic, so to your point it’s really critical how you craft the topic, i.e., the baseline of what?