Is this what is needed to understand the politics of green transformations? In a
way, yes. Of course, the above is at best a condensed sketch and a more detailed
account is needed. My key point is that testing our insights more systematically
for those countries which have made the greatest strides forward (Denmark,
Germany and China) is essential for answering the fast-track question. If this question
has a clear answer, one would expect to find it here.
In the meantime, we need to continue at a more abstract level. And this is what
the German Council for Global Change does when it stresses that the
transformation is above all a political task. Central to this political task, according
to the Council, is the forging of World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability
(WBGU, 2011). What is meant here is a contract between the state and citizens.
‘The contract has to bring two important new protagonists into the equation: the
self-organized civil society and the community of scientific experts’ (WBGU, 2011,
p8). I agree with this political turn of the Council but suggest that the state–civic
nexus is not sufficient. Business needs to be included explicitly, thus turning attention
to the role of state–business–civic alliances. The earlier ‘Who?’ section of this chapter
stressed the role of such alliances. Since it is central to the fast-track issue, it deserves
further elaboration.
Focusing on alliances and including business in such alliances is critical according to recent political science analysis which shows that alliances (or coalitions)
can be effective in overcoming complex collective action problems (Leftwich, 2009;
Peiffer, 2012). Including business in the analysis and formation of alliances makes
a significant difference. Maxfield (1991, p421) stressed long ago the critical role of
policy coalitions which cut across state and society and include business. More
recently, Abdel-Latif and Schmitz (2010) have shown why and how state-business
alliances matter for overcoming bottlenecks in industrial development. When it
comes to green transformations, the inclusion of business seems particularly
important. As stressed by Newell and Paterson, ‘many capitalists and state elites,
for a range of different reasons, now have a political and financial stake in the project
of decarbonisation’ (2011, p41) . . . ‘short or medium term transitions to a low
carbon economy will have to be supported (financially and politically) by powerful
fractions of capital with a stake in the success of such a project’ (p23).
This is a key point. There are parts of the business community which are keen
to support green transformations but are, in fact, driven by ambitions in other fields
– notably, securing energy or building a competitive new industry. Understanding
the political dynamics needs to include also those interests which are not green in
themselves but support the green cause. Effective cooperation between public and
private actors does not require that the players support renewables for the same
reasons. On the contrary, the chance of effective cooperation increases dramatically
if players with different motivations are brought into the picture.
Accepting this is not easy for those who have argued that capitalism is destroying
our planet. It feels like a call to sleep with the enemy. The point made here is not
that their analysis is entirely wrong but that it is incomplete. Preventing the
182 Hubert Schmitz
way, yes. Of course, the above is at best a condensed sketch and a more detailed
account is needed. My key point is that testing our insights more systematically
for those countries which have made the greatest strides forward (Denmark,
Germany and China) is essential for answering the fast-track question. If this question
has a clear answer, one would expect to find it here.
In the meantime, we need to continue at a more abstract level. And this is what
the German Council for Global Change does when it stresses that the
transformation is above all a political task. Central to this political task, according
to the Council, is the forging of World in Transition: A Social Contract for Sustainability
(WBGU, 2011). What is meant here is a contract between the state and citizens.
‘The contract has to bring two important new protagonists into the equation: the
self-organized civil society and the community of scientific experts’ (WBGU, 2011,
p8). I agree with this political turn of the Council but suggest that the state–civic
nexus is not sufficient. Business needs to be included explicitly, thus turning attention
to the role of state–business–civic alliances. The earlier ‘Who?’ section of this chapter
stressed the role of such alliances. Since it is central to the fast-track issue, it deserves
further elaboration.
Focusing on alliances and including business in such alliances is critical according to recent political science analysis which shows that alliances (or coalitions)
can be effective in overcoming complex collective action problems (Leftwich, 2009;
Peiffer, 2012). Including business in the analysis and formation of alliances makes
a significant difference. Maxfield (1991, p421) stressed long ago the critical role of
policy coalitions which cut across state and society and include business. More
recently, Abdel-Latif and Schmitz (2010) have shown why and how state-business
alliances matter for overcoming bottlenecks in industrial development. When it
comes to green transformations, the inclusion of business seems particularly
important. As stressed by Newell and Paterson, ‘many capitalists and state elites,
for a range of different reasons, now have a political and financial stake in the project
of decarbonisation’ (2011, p41) . . . ‘short or medium term transitions to a low
carbon economy will have to be supported (financially and politically) by powerful
fractions of capital with a stake in the success of such a project’ (p23).
This is a key point. There are parts of the business community which are keen
to support green transformations but are, in fact, driven by ambitions in other fields
– notably, securing energy or building a competitive new industry. Understanding
the political dynamics needs to include also those interests which are not green in
themselves but support the green cause. Effective cooperation between public and
private actors does not require that the players support renewables for the same
reasons. On the contrary, the chance of effective cooperation increases dramatically
if players with different motivations are brought into the picture.
Accepting this is not easy for those who have argued that capitalism is destroying
our planet. It feels like a call to sleep with the enemy. The point made here is not
that their analysis is entirely wrong but that it is incomplete. Preventing the
182 Hubert Schmitz