16
There is an endless variety of practices of legitimation. But they draw on a
number of common registers. Four such registers surfaced clearly from
empirical research on solar energy uptake in Portugal during 2017–2019.
These empirically derived registers are put forward as a typology of practices of legitimation. They are:
• Discursive legitimation
• Bureaucratic legitimation
• Technocratic legitimation
• Financial legitimation
Without elaborating the empirical basis for this typology, detailed elsewhere (Sareen in review), and without extending the initial foray into the
Portuguese case, this chapter unpacks each of these four types of practices:
what do they mean? Furthermore, it puts forward a few preliminary suggestions for how this typology is supported by extant research on accountability and legitimacy within environmental governance. Environmental
governance research has on the whole been rather laggardly in taking up
the important question of sustainable energy transitions at disaggregated
scales (Falkner 2014; Smith and Stirling 2010), so this connection between
its treatment of accountability and legitimacy and their application to the
energy sector is overdue (Szulecki 2018). It is a task that requires multiple
perspectives and many person-years of research. This book enlists the support of select colleagues who have an appreciation of both environmental
governance and energy transitions scholarship. This chapter kickstarts the
conversation by laying out the types of practices of legitimation. Then,
Part II opens with an explanation of the invitation (Chap. 3) issued to the
authors of five subsequent case chapters, each of which presents a perspective on accountable governance under energy transitions, drawing on the
case author’s own empirical research (Chaps. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). The concluding Part III synthesises learning about the analytical usefulness of
practices of legitimation across the five cases (Chap. 9), then features collective reflection on how future environmental governance scholarship can
generate analytical insights on accountability (Chap. 10). The book seeks
both to guide the uptake of accountability within theoretical and applied
energy transitions research in a broad range of fields and disciplines, and
to inform strategic action, thereby contributing to both analysing energy
sector transitions and enabling accountable governance towards
sustainability.
S. SAREEN
There is an endless variety of practices of legitimation. But they draw on a
number of common registers. Four such registers surfaced clearly from
empirical research on solar energy uptake in Portugal during 2017–2019.
These empirically derived registers are put forward as a typology of practices of legitimation. They are:
• Discursive legitimation
• Bureaucratic legitimation
• Technocratic legitimation
• Financial legitimation
Without elaborating the empirical basis for this typology, detailed elsewhere (Sareen in review), and without extending the initial foray into the
Portuguese case, this chapter unpacks each of these four types of practices:
what do they mean? Furthermore, it puts forward a few preliminary suggestions for how this typology is supported by extant research on accountability and legitimacy within environmental governance. Environmental
governance research has on the whole been rather laggardly in taking up
the important question of sustainable energy transitions at disaggregated
scales (Falkner 2014; Smith and Stirling 2010), so this connection between
its treatment of accountability and legitimacy and their application to the
energy sector is overdue (Szulecki 2018). It is a task that requires multiple
perspectives and many person-years of research. This book enlists the support of select colleagues who have an appreciation of both environmental
governance and energy transitions scholarship. This chapter kickstarts the
conversation by laying out the types of practices of legitimation. Then,
Part II opens with an explanation of the invitation (Chap. 3) issued to the
authors of five subsequent case chapters, each of which presents a perspective on accountable governance under energy transitions, drawing on the
case author’s own empirical research (Chaps. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8). The concluding Part III synthesises learning about the analytical usefulness of
practices of legitimation across the five cases (Chap. 9), then features collective reflection on how future environmental governance scholarship can
generate analytical insights on accountability (Chap. 10). The book seeks
both to guide the uptake of accountability within theoretical and applied
energy transitions research in a broad range of fields and disciplines, and
to inform strategic action, thereby contributing to both analysing energy
sector transitions and enabling accountable governance towards
sustainability.
S. SAREEN