why such change has taken place previously. It does so by situating contemporary
debates about transitions to a ‘green economy’ within a broader historical context
of change within global capitalism. In particular, it offers some reflections on what
previous reorganizations in production and technology reveal about how, when,
why and for whom transformations occur under capitalism and what this suggests
about the prospects of today’s attempts to restructure the global economy along
low-carbon lines.
The world is not short of initiatives that claim to be pursuing such a goal
(Hoffman, 2011; Bulkeley et al., 2012). However, despite rhetorical embracing of
the concept of green transformations by governments, businesses and international
organizations, applied analysis of what a dramatic shift in the structures of production and consumption would imply for alignments of political and economic
power that will be required to achieve and sustain a low-carbon economy is sorely
lacking. The premise of this chapter, then, is that much of the policy debate so
far, as well as existing academic scholarship on these questions, has understandably
focused more on the governance of transitions than the politics of transformation (Loorbach, 2007; Scarse and Smith, 2009; Verbong and Loorbach, 2012).
Interestingly, other literatures on different kinds of transitions place politics and
system change more centrally. In political science work on democratization,
‘transi tions’ refers to wholescale upheaval or even revolutions in a political system
and mode of governing society, and the development industry often talks about
‘economies in transition’, meaning the wholescale reorganization of socialist
economies along capitalist lines, while for many Marxist scholars ‘the transition
debate’ is about the transition from feudalism to capitalism (Wood, 2002). The
point, however, is that current debates about green transformation adopt a more
apolitical reading of what is at stake. They have failed to adequately analyse either
the role of social forces in how change occurs in contemporary capitalism or to
provide a fuller political analysis of historical precedents about the politics of when
organized large-scale sociotechnical and economic change has occurred in the past
(albeit in pursuit of very different ends) and what lessons might be deduced for our
current predicament. It is precisely such a framework for political and historical
analysis of ‘green transformations’ that is proposed here.
I draw on work within different strands of political economy literature to develop
an understanding of the politics of green transformations and the relations of power
which enable and frustrate change. This approach is used to highlight the
importance of the following social forces in the politics of green transformations.
First, competition between different fractions of capital
1 and their reliance on
particular types of energy for the success of their accumulation strategies (Newell
and Paterson, 1998). This builds on the idea that a key challenge of enabling green
transformations is to assemble ‘coalitions of the winning and the willing’: of actors,
including powerful fractions of capital, that will materially benefit from a new
wave of low-carbon growth and which compete to promote their role in enabling
such growth (Newell and Paterson, 2010). Put more bluntly, someone has to win
(or believe they can win) in capitalism for change to be realized and working out
Green transformations in capitalism 69
debates about transitions to a ‘green economy’ within a broader historical context
of change within global capitalism. In particular, it offers some reflections on what
previous reorganizations in production and technology reveal about how, when,
why and for whom transformations occur under capitalism and what this suggests
about the prospects of today’s attempts to restructure the global economy along
low-carbon lines.
The world is not short of initiatives that claim to be pursuing such a goal
(Hoffman, 2011; Bulkeley et al., 2012). However, despite rhetorical embracing of
the concept of green transformations by governments, businesses and international
organizations, applied analysis of what a dramatic shift in the structures of production and consumption would imply for alignments of political and economic
power that will be required to achieve and sustain a low-carbon economy is sorely
lacking. The premise of this chapter, then, is that much of the policy debate so
far, as well as existing academic scholarship on these questions, has understandably
focused more on the governance of transitions than the politics of transformation (Loorbach, 2007; Scarse and Smith, 2009; Verbong and Loorbach, 2012).
Interestingly, other literatures on different kinds of transitions place politics and
system change more centrally. In political science work on democratization,
‘transi tions’ refers to wholescale upheaval or even revolutions in a political system
and mode of governing society, and the development industry often talks about
‘economies in transition’, meaning the wholescale reorganization of socialist
economies along capitalist lines, while for many Marxist scholars ‘the transition
debate’ is about the transition from feudalism to capitalism (Wood, 2002). The
point, however, is that current debates about green transformation adopt a more
apolitical reading of what is at stake. They have failed to adequately analyse either
the role of social forces in how change occurs in contemporary capitalism or to
provide a fuller political analysis of historical precedents about the politics of when
organized large-scale sociotechnical and economic change has occurred in the past
(albeit in pursuit of very different ends) and what lessons might be deduced for our
current predicament. It is precisely such a framework for political and historical
analysis of ‘green transformations’ that is proposed here.
I draw on work within different strands of political economy literature to develop
an understanding of the politics of green transformations and the relations of power
which enable and frustrate change. This approach is used to highlight the
importance of the following social forces in the politics of green transformations.
First, competition between different fractions of capital
1 and their reliance on
particular types of energy for the success of their accumulation strategies (Newell
and Paterson, 1998). This builds on the idea that a key challenge of enabling green
transformations is to assemble ‘coalitions of the winning and the willing’: of actors,
including powerful fractions of capital, that will materially benefit from a new
wave of low-carbon growth and which compete to promote their role in enabling
such growth (Newell and Paterson, 2010). Put more bluntly, someone has to win
(or believe they can win) in capitalism for change to be realized and working out
Green transformations in capitalism 69