who this is likely to be and how they can be mobilized for lower carbon trans -
formations is a key task.
Second, the historically central role of labour in struggles to constantly ‘revolu -
tionalize the means of production’. While the power of labour movements has
been reduced in a globalized economy, the potential of green transformations to
threaten or create employment is a key battleground and will significantly affect
their chances of state and public support as the examples below illustrate.
Third, the state has a key role to play in enabling or frustrating transformations
as historical and contemporary evidence shows clearly (Mazzucato, 2011). This is
true not just in terms of supporting innovation and ‘picking winners’, but also
mediating the above struggles and conflicts between fractions of capital and
between capital and labour. The state also plays a central role in shaping and
being shaped by global institutions which potentially circumscribe (or globalize)
their control over energy (politics) through interventions in power sector reform
and liberalization processes (Tellam, 2000; Cho and Dubash, 2005).
Fourth, the role of finance in enabling technological revolutions and unsettling
incumbent regimes, in particular from the Industrial Revolution onwards (Perez,
2002). Given the heightened power of finance capital in the current phase of
capitalism, a key strategic challenge is whether and how this power might be har -
nessed to the goal of green, in this case low-carbon, transformations.
Highlighting these dimensions provides a basis for exploring what the role of
these social forces and relations of power in previous periods of capitalist
restructuring imply for current efforts to reorganize the energy base around what
regulation theorists refer to as a new ‘regime of accumulation’ and its associated
‘mode of regulation’.
2 Reference to ‘Great Transformations’ in these debates also
invites reference to Karl Polanyi’s (1980 [1944]) insights into the disembedding and re-embedding of the economy from society that began with the rise of
eco nomic liberalism in nineteenth-century Britain through efforts to create ‘selfregulating markets’ in land, labour and money by subjecting them to market
exchange, and the reaction this laissez-fair approach provoked in the form of a
‘double movement’ for the protection of society. Indeed, many scholars have sought
to underscore the relevance of these insights for contemporary debates in environ -
mental political economy (Dale, 2010; Peck, 2013; Prudham, 2013), although less
so around questions of environmental transformation per se. While it is possible
to argue that a Polanyian approach needs to include a wider range of forms of
domination and exploitation to effectively shed light on the nature of the current
triple crisis (financial–social–ecological) (Fraser, 2012; Selwyn and Miyamura,
2013), it remains a valuable point of reference for thinking about how the balance
of social forces in particular historical epochs has a profound impact on the ‘nature’
of transformation that is considered possible and desirable at a particular conjuncture.
Taken together, a political economy approach provides the sort of understanding
of power and structure that is absent in much of conventional theorizing about
transitions and green transformations. A more explicitly political and historical
70 Peter Newell
formations is a key task.
Second, the historically central role of labour in struggles to constantly ‘revolu -
tionalize the means of production’. While the power of labour movements has
been reduced in a globalized economy, the potential of green transformations to
threaten or create employment is a key battleground and will significantly affect
their chances of state and public support as the examples below illustrate.
Third, the state has a key role to play in enabling or frustrating transformations
as historical and contemporary evidence shows clearly (Mazzucato, 2011). This is
true not just in terms of supporting innovation and ‘picking winners’, but also
mediating the above struggles and conflicts between fractions of capital and
between capital and labour. The state also plays a central role in shaping and
being shaped by global institutions which potentially circumscribe (or globalize)
their control over energy (politics) through interventions in power sector reform
and liberalization processes (Tellam, 2000; Cho and Dubash, 2005).
Fourth, the role of finance in enabling technological revolutions and unsettling
incumbent regimes, in particular from the Industrial Revolution onwards (Perez,
2002). Given the heightened power of finance capital in the current phase of
capitalism, a key strategic challenge is whether and how this power might be har -
nessed to the goal of green, in this case low-carbon, transformations.
Highlighting these dimensions provides a basis for exploring what the role of
these social forces and relations of power in previous periods of capitalist
restructuring imply for current efforts to reorganize the energy base around what
regulation theorists refer to as a new ‘regime of accumulation’ and its associated
‘mode of regulation’.
2 Reference to ‘Great Transformations’ in these debates also
invites reference to Karl Polanyi’s (1980 [1944]) insights into the disembedding and re-embedding of the economy from society that began with the rise of
eco nomic liberalism in nineteenth-century Britain through efforts to create ‘selfregulating markets’ in land, labour and money by subjecting them to market
exchange, and the reaction this laissez-fair approach provoked in the form of a
‘double movement’ for the protection of society. Indeed, many scholars have sought
to underscore the relevance of these insights for contemporary debates in environ -
mental political economy (Dale, 2010; Peck, 2013; Prudham, 2013), although less
so around questions of environmental transformation per se. While it is possible
to argue that a Polanyian approach needs to include a wider range of forms of
domination and exploitation to effectively shed light on the nature of the current
triple crisis (financial–social–ecological) (Fraser, 2012; Selwyn and Miyamura,
2013), it remains a valuable point of reference for thinking about how the balance
of social forces in particular historical epochs has a profound impact on the ‘nature’
of transformation that is considered possible and desirable at a particular conjuncture.
Taken together, a political economy approach provides the sort of understanding
of power and structure that is absent in much of conventional theorizing about
transitions and green transformations. A more explicitly political and historical
70 Peter Newell