One area where this literature has fallen short is in its understanding of power
and political economy (Smith et al., 2005, 2010; Meadowcroft, 2011; Baker et al.,
2014). An understanding of politics is important in explaining which pathways get
supported and legitimized, and which are ignored and so fail to gain traction. This
is starting to be recognized in recent contributions around the ‘multi-level
perspective’ of the sociotechnical transition literature (e.g. Geels, 2014). A deeper
understanding of the processes of knowledge politics, political conflict and accommodation, bargaining and disciplining, as niche experiments challenge existing
regimes is clearly highly pertinent (Smith and Raven, 2012).
The politics of green transformations implicate multiple levels of governance
and decision-making, and the challenges of coordinating these to pull in the same
directions. A plethora of approaches labelled multilevel, polycentric, global and
earth systems governance has been suggested (Galaz et al., 2012). However, each
raise the key questions of who steers, and which actors and institutions govern
transformations, through which institutional mechanisms operate. This in turn raises
questions about how far transformations can, in fact, be managed and directed, as
often assumed in earth systems governance and transition management debates,
as opposed to emerging from below in unanticipated ways that are difficult to
anticipate and direct. Questions are also raised about roles and actors. Should
transformations be overseen by nation states or global institutions, and in what
relation? Given the track-record of national environmental policies and global
governance of the environment, what can realistically be expected? Assumptions
about capacity, commitment and willingness are built into many green economy
policy proclamations, but will the key players be prepared to intervene, and if so,
what type of green transformation will be backed (Allen, 2012; Fouquet and Pearson,
2012)?
The politics of green transformations are also about the politics of accountability
and participation – whether at global, national or local levels. These become
especially pertinent as global institutions and governments seek to extend their reach
in efforts to create – or under the guise of building – a green economy. Will these
interventions be inclusive or exclusive, top-down or bottom-up, and who gets the
rent from ‘managing’ such transformations? As Lockwood (this book) describes,
depending on the political–economic setting, the incentives for policy elites to back
a green transformation and for states to intervene will vary dramatically. The role
of elite politics, and alliances of states, businesses and finance, becomes important,
as different groups seek to capture the benefits of any transformative shift. Power
and political authority in alliance-building, influenced by particular political
economic context, is central to any understanding of what is likely to happen, and
what is not (Schmitz, this book).
The political dimensions of long-term change are also important. History offers
highly relevant lessons about the circumstances in which ‘technological revolutions’
come about – whether the move to coal under the Industrial Revolution or the
shift to mass mobility under Fordism – are also relevant. Perez (2002, 2013), building
on Schumpeter, highlights the critical role of finance capital in unleashing ‘waves
The politics of green transformations 7
and political economy (Smith et al., 2005, 2010; Meadowcroft, 2011; Baker et al.,
2014). An understanding of politics is important in explaining which pathways get
supported and legitimized, and which are ignored and so fail to gain traction. This
is starting to be recognized in recent contributions around the ‘multi-level
perspective’ of the sociotechnical transition literature (e.g. Geels, 2014). A deeper
understanding of the processes of knowledge politics, political conflict and accommodation, bargaining and disciplining, as niche experiments challenge existing
regimes is clearly highly pertinent (Smith and Raven, 2012).
The politics of green transformations implicate multiple levels of governance
and decision-making, and the challenges of coordinating these to pull in the same
directions. A plethora of approaches labelled multilevel, polycentric, global and
earth systems governance has been suggested (Galaz et al., 2012). However, each
raise the key questions of who steers, and which actors and institutions govern
transformations, through which institutional mechanisms operate. This in turn raises
questions about how far transformations can, in fact, be managed and directed, as
often assumed in earth systems governance and transition management debates,
as opposed to emerging from below in unanticipated ways that are difficult to
anticipate and direct. Questions are also raised about roles and actors. Should
transformations be overseen by nation states or global institutions, and in what
relation? Given the track-record of national environmental policies and global
governance of the environment, what can realistically be expected? Assumptions
about capacity, commitment and willingness are built into many green economy
policy proclamations, but will the key players be prepared to intervene, and if so,
what type of green transformation will be backed (Allen, 2012; Fouquet and Pearson,
2012)?
The politics of green transformations are also about the politics of accountability
and participation – whether at global, national or local levels. These become
especially pertinent as global institutions and governments seek to extend their reach
in efforts to create – or under the guise of building – a green economy. Will these
interventions be inclusive or exclusive, top-down or bottom-up, and who gets the
rent from ‘managing’ such transformations? As Lockwood (this book) describes,
depending on the political–economic setting, the incentives for policy elites to back
a green transformation and for states to intervene will vary dramatically. The role
of elite politics, and alliances of states, businesses and finance, becomes important,
as different groups seek to capture the benefits of any transformative shift. Power
and political authority in alliance-building, influenced by particular political
economic context, is central to any understanding of what is likely to happen, and
what is not (Schmitz, this book).
The political dimensions of long-term change are also important. History offers
highly relevant lessons about the circumstances in which ‘technological revolutions’
come about – whether the move to coal under the Industrial Revolution or the
shift to mass mobility under Fordism – are also relevant. Perez (2002, 2013), building
on Schumpeter, highlights the critical role of finance capital in unleashing ‘waves
The politics of green transformations 7