follow show, these are not mutually exclusive categories, and many instances exist
where narratives are strategically combined to suit particular circumstances. As we
go on to argue, the important point is that each suggests different frames, different
politics, different alliances between actors, and so different routes to achieving green
transformations.
One thing that is notable from these narratives is the neglect, explicitly at least,
of questions of justice. Across each of these narratives, justice is implicitly assumed
to be delivered. In the technocentric version, this occurs through supposedly benign
elites stewarding global public goods. In the marketized version, just transformations will only be effective, efficient and tenable if consumers support them
through their purchasing power, and the market will deliver the best technologies
and goods at the best price. For those emphasizing state-led transformations, only
the state has the authority and legitimacy to protect rights, oversee redistribution
and ensure that the interests of the majority are served by particular green trans -
formations. By contrast, in narratives that place the accent on citizen-led action,
neither states nor markets nor technocratic elites have proven their ability to defend
their citizens from the impacts of previous transformations, and there are few grounds
for thinking they will do so in relation to green transformations. Conceptions of
justice thus must derive from popular understandings about what is fair and socially
acceptable.
This is not to suggest there are not hard trade-offs between justice and
sustainability (Dobson, 1998; Agyeman et al., 2003; Leach et al., 2010; Martin, 2013;
Sikor, 2013; Sikor and Newell, 2014). Indeed, work on political ecology has
long drawn attention to the intimate connection between social relations of race,
class and gender, for example, and the likelihood that social groups will either benefit
from or be further excluded from access to natural resources and projects aimed
at their protection (Martínez-Alier, 2002; Newell, 2005; Robbins and Watts,
2011; Wichterich, 2012). In relation to green transformation debates, North–South
non-governmental organization (NGO) networks have attacked the dominant
agenda of the ‘green economy’. Tensions between agendas have pervaded official
texts and debates, with arguments for human well-being and social equity existing
cheek by jowl with contradictory statements that promote dependence on an
unregulated private sector. These tensions often remain hidden in narratives about
green transformations, yet making them explicit is crucial if justice concerns are
to be given due consideration. Again, this requires focusing attention on the politics
of green transformations.
The politics of green transformations
Each narrative thus employs, explicitly or implicitly, very different theories of power,
politics and governance, and so implications for justice and distribution. They also
embody distinct understandings of ‘the market’, of ‘states’ and ‘citizens’, in terms
of their transformative potential, whose interests they serve and the forms of power
they exercise and are subject to.
The politics of green transformations 17
where narratives are strategically combined to suit particular circumstances. As we
go on to argue, the important point is that each suggests different frames, different
politics, different alliances between actors, and so different routes to achieving green
transformations.
One thing that is notable from these narratives is the neglect, explicitly at least,
of questions of justice. Across each of these narratives, justice is implicitly assumed
to be delivered. In the technocentric version, this occurs through supposedly benign
elites stewarding global public goods. In the marketized version, just transformations will only be effective, efficient and tenable if consumers support them
through their purchasing power, and the market will deliver the best technologies
and goods at the best price. For those emphasizing state-led transformations, only
the state has the authority and legitimacy to protect rights, oversee redistribution
and ensure that the interests of the majority are served by particular green trans -
formations. By contrast, in narratives that place the accent on citizen-led action,
neither states nor markets nor technocratic elites have proven their ability to defend
their citizens from the impacts of previous transformations, and there are few grounds
for thinking they will do so in relation to green transformations. Conceptions of
justice thus must derive from popular understandings about what is fair and socially
acceptable.
This is not to suggest there are not hard trade-offs between justice and
sustainability (Dobson, 1998; Agyeman et al., 2003; Leach et al., 2010; Martin, 2013;
Sikor, 2013; Sikor and Newell, 2014). Indeed, work on political ecology has
long drawn attention to the intimate connection between social relations of race,
class and gender, for example, and the likelihood that social groups will either benefit
from or be further excluded from access to natural resources and projects aimed
at their protection (Martínez-Alier, 2002; Newell, 2005; Robbins and Watts,
2011; Wichterich, 2012). In relation to green transformation debates, North–South
non-governmental organization (NGO) networks have attacked the dominant
agenda of the ‘green economy’. Tensions between agendas have pervaded official
texts and debates, with arguments for human well-being and social equity existing
cheek by jowl with contradictory statements that promote dependence on an
unregulated private sector. These tensions often remain hidden in narratives about
green transformations, yet making them explicit is crucial if justice concerns are
to be given due consideration. Again, this requires focusing attention on the politics
of green transformations.
The politics of green transformations
Each narrative thus employs, explicitly or implicitly, very different theories of power,
politics and governance, and so implications for justice and distribution. They also
embody distinct understandings of ‘the market’, of ‘states’ and ‘citizens’, in terms
of their transformative potential, whose interests they serve and the forms of power
they exercise and are subject to.
The politics of green transformations 17