107
through the five cases, it draws out seven dimensions: spatiality, temporality, opportunism, prefiguration, performativity, power-play, political economy, and normalisation or routinisation. This sets up the concluding
Chap. 10, which links the four registers of practices of legitimation and the
structuring set of cross-cutting dimensions with broader environmental
governance scholarship on accountability.
While each case treatment can be read in multiple lights, certain dimensions stand out in each: spatiality and temporality in Timothy Moss’ historical analysis of Berlin’s energy transitions over the past century;
opportunism in Christian Lund’s study of attempts at the scalar reconstitution of authority during land conflicts in Indonesia; prefiguration and
performativity in Håvard Haarstad’s account of the role of target-setting
in urban climate change mitigation efforts; power-play in the form of
automobile incumbency, regime persistence and path dependence in
Benjamin Sovacool’s unpacking of electric mobility in the Nordic countries; and political economy and normalisation or routinisation in Steven
Wolf’s problematisation of the construction of a habitat exchange for biodiversity offsetting by energy extractive industries. The latter part of this
chapter, Sect. 9.2, draws out these aspects case by case. It offers reflections
in relation to which practices of legitimation play out within these dimensions and in what way.
9.2 The regisTers aLong WhiCh LegiTimaTion is
PraCTiseD in eaCh Case
9.2.1
For Timothy Moss
The case is three contrasting energy transitions at different historical
moments in Berlin, each driven by the situated urges of a specific politics
that evolves over time. Moss points out that there are different crises of
accountability at each historical point, as the urban fabric of Berlin itself
cannot be understood as the same space over the past century. In the
1920s, this concerned who should supply energy to Berlin; during postwar division, it concerned self-sufficiency for West Berlin’s energy provision within city borders; and today it concerns ownership and control of
the urban energy infrastructure. Each of these accountability crises features corresponding practices of legitimation, and this historical contextualisation (cf. Lockwood et al. 2017) serves to caution against any easy
9 PRACTICES OF LEGITIMATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY CRISES…
through the five cases, it draws out seven dimensions: spatiality, temporality, opportunism, prefiguration, performativity, power-play, political economy, and normalisation or routinisation. This sets up the concluding
Chap. 10, which links the four registers of practices of legitimation and the
structuring set of cross-cutting dimensions with broader environmental
governance scholarship on accountability.
While each case treatment can be read in multiple lights, certain dimensions stand out in each: spatiality and temporality in Timothy Moss’ historical analysis of Berlin’s energy transitions over the past century;
opportunism in Christian Lund’s study of attempts at the scalar reconstitution of authority during land conflicts in Indonesia; prefiguration and
performativity in Håvard Haarstad’s account of the role of target-setting
in urban climate change mitigation efforts; power-play in the form of
automobile incumbency, regime persistence and path dependence in
Benjamin Sovacool’s unpacking of electric mobility in the Nordic countries; and political economy and normalisation or routinisation in Steven
Wolf’s problematisation of the construction of a habitat exchange for biodiversity offsetting by energy extractive industries. The latter part of this
chapter, Sect. 9.2, draws out these aspects case by case. It offers reflections
in relation to which practices of legitimation play out within these dimensions and in what way.
9.2 The regisTers aLong WhiCh LegiTimaTion is
PraCTiseD in eaCh Case
9.2.1
For Timothy Moss
The case is three contrasting energy transitions at different historical
moments in Berlin, each driven by the situated urges of a specific politics
that evolves over time. Moss points out that there are different crises of
accountability at each historical point, as the urban fabric of Berlin itself
cannot be understood as the same space over the past century. In the
1920s, this concerned who should supply energy to Berlin; during postwar division, it concerned self-sufficiency for West Berlin’s energy provision within city borders; and today it concerns ownership and control of
the urban energy infrastructure. Each of these accountability crises features corresponding practices of legitimation, and this historical contextualisation (cf. Lockwood et al. 2017) serves to caution against any easy
9 PRACTICES OF LEGITIMATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY CRISES…