(de Alcántara, 1993). Rather than wishing away the state or denying its relevance,
these accounts point to the potential of state-led Keynesian, or developmental
states (Chang, 2002; Fine et al., 2013) as an important corrective to some of
the naivety, as well as ideological tone, apparent in some market-based versions
of green transformations. In more paternalist versions, states are assumed to have
the interests of citizens at heart and a sincere commitment to the advancement of
development. Yet such models need to be nuanced with an appreciation of the
uneven capacity and resources that most states have, especially those in the majority
of the world. Only some states have the policy autonomy and developmental
space (Evans, 1995) to pursue ambitious and autonomous strategies for green
developmental transformation.
Contexts matter, and as the chapters in this book show there are a whole variety
of states, with different financial, bureaucratic and technological capacities, and
different possibilities of state-led or guided transformations follow from this. Other
critiques coming from marketized narratives would take issue with the idea that
the state knows best, and equally those emphasizing social justice issues would
question whether states are willing and able to act in benign ways rather than serve
as vehicles for the expression of the particular interests that capture them. Stateled perspectives thus still require an explanation of who sets the direction of change
and how the overall goals of green transformations are set. They also require
reflection on how issues of distribution, accountability and chronic power
imbalances will be addressed.
Those advocating more citizen-led transformations take as their point of
departure that neither state nor market can deliver. Either captured by or with
interests aligned to capital, state or marketized transformations inevitably serve the
interests of the minority, not the majority. Issues of ownership and control over
the process and the tools of change (production, technology, finance and
institutions) are key. In this narrative, greater faith is placed in the role of mobilized
citizens to democratize technology, production and the institutions that oversee
them. This assumes a much more active and inclusive view of citizenship (Leach
and Scoones, this book). In this rendition, citizens are creative, knowledgeable actors
exercising active agency, individually and through networks across scales. The
cumulative and diverse unruly politics of movements offer diverse possibilities for
transformations, and perhaps reflect more accurately where the momentum for
change has come from historically (Stirling, this book). This requires thinking about
transformations in terms of cultures, practices and mobilizations that create the
pressure for change, acting both to disrupt incumbent pathways, but also construct
alternatives (Smith and Ely, this book), connecting across scales and between
movements.
Yet, given the nature of the contemporary political landscape and prevailing
distributions of power, as well as the scale of change required, there are doubts as
to whether citizen-led action alone is up to the challenge. This is either because
of the urgency of the situation or because of the inevitable need to enrol powerful
actors in transformative projects, given their control over many of the very things
The politics of green transformations 19
these accounts point to the potential of state-led Keynesian, or developmental
states (Chang, 2002; Fine et al., 2013) as an important corrective to some of
the naivety, as well as ideological tone, apparent in some market-based versions
of green transformations. In more paternalist versions, states are assumed to have
the interests of citizens at heart and a sincere commitment to the advancement of
development. Yet such models need to be nuanced with an appreciation of the
uneven capacity and resources that most states have, especially those in the majority
of the world. Only some states have the policy autonomy and developmental
space (Evans, 1995) to pursue ambitious and autonomous strategies for green
developmental transformation.
Contexts matter, and as the chapters in this book show there are a whole variety
of states, with different financial, bureaucratic and technological capacities, and
different possibilities of state-led or guided transformations follow from this. Other
critiques coming from marketized narratives would take issue with the idea that
the state knows best, and equally those emphasizing social justice issues would
question whether states are willing and able to act in benign ways rather than serve
as vehicles for the expression of the particular interests that capture them. Stateled perspectives thus still require an explanation of who sets the direction of change
and how the overall goals of green transformations are set. They also require
reflection on how issues of distribution, accountability and chronic power
imbalances will be addressed.
Those advocating more citizen-led transformations take as their point of
departure that neither state nor market can deliver. Either captured by or with
interests aligned to capital, state or marketized transformations inevitably serve the
interests of the minority, not the majority. Issues of ownership and control over
the process and the tools of change (production, technology, finance and
institutions) are key. In this narrative, greater faith is placed in the role of mobilized
citizens to democratize technology, production and the institutions that oversee
them. This assumes a much more active and inclusive view of citizenship (Leach
and Scoones, this book). In this rendition, citizens are creative, knowledgeable actors
exercising active agency, individually and through networks across scales. The
cumulative and diverse unruly politics of movements offer diverse possibilities for
transformations, and perhaps reflect more accurately where the momentum for
change has come from historically (Stirling, this book). This requires thinking about
transformations in terms of cultures, practices and mobilizations that create the
pressure for change, acting both to disrupt incumbent pathways, but also construct
alternatives (Smith and Ely, this book), connecting across scales and between
movements.
Yet, given the nature of the contemporary political landscape and prevailing
distributions of power, as well as the scale of change required, there are doubts as
to whether citizen-led action alone is up to the challenge. This is either because
of the urgency of the situation or because of the inevitable need to enrol powerful
actors in transformative projects, given their control over many of the very things
The politics of green transformations 19