Transformations, transitions and structural changes are not new to human civilization. Transitions can be emergent, that is, a subservient response to changes such as technological breakthroughs, or purposive, that is, a strategically instigated effort to achieve certain goals. Changes are constantly occurring and define identities, aspirations and how we see our human nature (Menschenbild), how we interact with each other, and how we make sense of the world (Weltbild).
Transformations, transitions and structural changes are not new to human civilization. Transitions can be emergent, that is, a subservient response to changes such as technological breakthroughs, or purposive, that is, a strategically instigated effort to achieve certain goals. Changes are constantly occurring and define identities, aspirations and how we see our human nature (Menschenbild), how we interact with each other, and how we make sense of the world (Weltbild). Changes can also be both fortuitous and expected. It is often during sudden changes that we feel disoriented, our identities dismantled, and that our way of life is threatened. Changes can cause ambivalence towards the stability of our political, economic or social systems. While some changes can be ground-breaking in improving the quality of human lives, they can also involve backlashes, which, if not properly understood and facilitated, can lead to system ruptures and the collapse of fundamental values and social contracts. Very often, transition periods are confronted by vacuums that may pave the way to “horrendous events” such as the violent seizure of power by armed groups or the suspension of habeas corpus fraudulently justified by the need to restore stability. Unstable systems promote the ‘romanticizing’ of nostalgic memories of the past when ‘everything worked,’ whereas other conditions such as a high mortality rate, non-existent welfare system or poor living conditions are neglected. Particularly when the imminent change or the public call for changes was met by violence by those ‘status quo agents’ in power, the caveat against using violence from all sides diminishes as “challenging times” can suddenly legitimate excessive use of coercion or the disregard for the rule of law. As Ian Bremmer (2018) contends in his book “Us vs. Them: The Failure of Globalism,” insecurities behind paradigm-shifting changes such as globalization have paved the way to the current emergence of the “era of strongmen.”
Transformations and transitions are often linked to subversion through which existing principles and norms are changed, leading to changes in power relations, which mostly motivate those in power to delay or even reject transitions. Individual societies may react differently to a specific change depending on the ‘Zeitgeist’ of change. These differences in ‘absorption’ and ‘diffusion’ of change can be attributed to existing lock-ins and path dependencies that are deeply rooted in socio-political systems. Change also depends on the availability of and trust (social capital) in formal and informal channels for change agents who can push for change within established provisions. For example, in societies with low social capital, changes in power relations can be fatal, especially when the narrative “the winner takes it all” defines contestation. Powerful actors can resist change, because of the perceived threat to the power. At the same time, weaker actors can resist change, because they perceive that changes will only deteriorate their positions. Because existing structural inequalities, for example, may limit the scope and functionality of representation and verification, they might fear being powerless when burdens are disproportionately distributed to them. Hence, it remains difficult for academe to grasp the real meaning of change for each actor, often because of the lack of precedents. It is also almost impossible to determine the ‘retrospective’ value of something that has allegedly prevented negative effects.
Anzeige
Because this book intends to address transformation towards sustainability, one must inevitably look for other “Great Transformations” to understand and explain the dynamics, issues and effects behind such metamorphoses. One example of such a Great Transformation is the industrial revolution, which is often seen as the event that foreshadowed modernity (see Hobsbawm 1965; Riello & O’Brien 2009). The industrial revolution was responsible for major shifts in human relations that resulted not only in positive effects linked with urbanization, the emergence of the middle class, economic growth and changes in the role of women in society, but also in negative effects such as air pollution, child labor, and inhumane labor conditions (see Scott & Baltzly 1958; Stearns 1993). In addition, industrialization was instrumental in justifying colonialism and imperialism as reflected by the narrative of civilizing others as a ‘White Man’s Burden’ and a “noble enterprise of civilization” (see Chrisholm 1982; Murphy 2010). A rather speculative and yet compelling question is whether these negative effects were necessary for development or if they could have been relativized or even prevented if decision-making was inclusive. If the multiple trade-offs were already clear and properly understood, and if the weak had credible representation in the policy-making process, would economic growth still have been attained? Was child labor in factories a necessary evil of the Industrial Revolution?
Centuries later, human civilization is experiencing another kind of revolution—one that is driven by ‘sustainable low carbon’ developmental goals. Like the industrial revolution, this sustainable low carbon development is highly dependent upon technological advancement. However, in contrast to the Industrial Revolution, it was initially motivated by threats to human welfare such as climate change, environmental degradation, social inequality and diminishing resources, with solutions requiring fundamental changes in structures, paradigms, institutions, behavior, and identities. It is therefore purposive, which, unlike the Industrial Revolution, was more of an emergent occurrence. Nevertheless, this “great ‘green’ revolution” is inhibited by several complex problems, multiple trade-offs and dilemmas such as the public good dilemma, normative traps, the prisoner’s dilemma, the not-in-my-backyard dilemma, and the indecisiveness dilemma. These dilemmas require proper, additional reconceptualization to adequately address the specificities of sustainable low carbon development. The absence of a proper understanding of numerous factors and causalities will not only lead to missed opportunities but will also empower those who wish to discredit the essence of changes. The failure to effectively address the negative aspects and fatal synergies linked to sustainable low carbon development has supported or even mobilized counter-movements such as anti-intellectualism, anti-factualism, anti-establishment, anti-globalization, anti-environmentalism, and anti-liberalism that threaten to reverse “hard fought” advancement in climate protection and sustainable development.
The parable of the blind men and an elephant can elucidate the complexity and uncertainty of sustainable low carbon transformation. The parable is about a group of blind men, who have never come across an elephant before and who learn and conceptualize what the elephant is like by touching it. Because each blind man feels a different and distinct part of the elephant, their individual description of the elephant is expected to contrast to those of the others. My entry point as one of the “blind men” is the linkage between multiple policy goals to achieve sustainable low carbon development. While these policy goals are inter-related, they are still addressed separately not only in the international system, but also by national governments and local communities. Each one of these often has its own socio-political and socio-linguistic context, set of (status quo or change) agents and (domestic/endogenous or global) audience.
This book employs a ‘negotiative’ and systems perspective as well as a process outlook on sustainable low carbon transformation. As such, I look not only at agents, context, audience, sectors and subsystems relevant to transitions towards sustainability, but also at processes including functional, institutional, and bargaining interactions that define collective, multi-level, and fragmented decision-making. The reason for this ‘integrated’ approach is that the success of transformations will most likely depend not solely on technical solutions but also on how consensus is negotiated and how decisions and actions promoting sustainability become self-enforcing. In addition, the stability of the transition process will depend on its agents, context, and audience, implying the relevance of sociotechnical narratives in ensuring legitimacy.
Anzeige
1.1 Research Objectives
1.1.1 Background
Studies of global transformation are often regarded as highly ambitious. The difficulty of studying (global) transformation starts with the term “transformation” and continues with the question of “what transforming actually is”. Synonyms of transformation include shift, transition, structural change, conversion, revolution, transfiguration, transmogrification, switch and metamorphosis. Furthermore, related disciplines such as international relations, history, sociology, anthropology, and political science are still struggling to fully understand and grasp global transformation as a subject of scholarly work. One reason for this is that while transformation touches on concepts or categories that transcend disciplinary boundaries, fundamental research questions tend to be formulated using “boxes of disciplines.” As such, academic debates on global transformation towards sustainability tend to be ‘fragmented’ and therefore limited within each scholarly discipline. In addition, the answers provided by these disciplines rather create more questions instead of providing useful answers.
Another challenge refers to the process of how notions behind concepts are established and reinforced. Current concepts of global transformation may include ‘faulty assumptions’ that further blur the understanding of the contemporary world. Because analyzing transformation will touch upon human cognition, such intentions, motivations, preferences, and decisions can also be made out of ignorance (“omission”) or out of malicious motives and intentions (“commission”) (see Spranca et al. 1991). For example, referring to global transformation as merely changes in the global economy may be too simplistic and therefore misleading, because it fails to provide understanding of non-monetary values such as social trust and cohesion which are necessary to define human well-being.
The difficulty of studying global transformation is further aggravated when transformation is linked to sustainability, which is itself a normative concept. This particular coupling of transformation and sustainability has increasingly gained attention from both academe and policy-makers, because of the distinct ‘body’ that emerges. Global transformation towards sustainability is a concert of multiple and multi-level linkages. Many universities across the globe are now incorporating the study of transformation/transitions towards sustainability in their curricula, with many others starting to branch out into more specialized areas of this emerging discipline including, for example, climate, environment, energy, water, governance, policy, regulations and business. In addition, several governments have created special agencies to address this linkage. For example, China’s Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China initiated the creation of the task force “National Governance Capacity for Green Transformation” and mandated it to propose a comprehensive framework for enhancing governance capacity for a successful green transformation through 2030 (CCICED 2015).
1.1.2 Objectives
The primary objective of this book is to provide a comprehensive and integrated analytical framework that promotes understanding of multi-level (global, national, local and sectoral) transformation towards sustainability. This analytical framework seeks to contribute and enrich the current discourse on transformation towards sustainability by linking climate protection and sustainable development not only to each other, but also with transformation/transition studies, change management, negotiation and conflict management studies, and with decision analysis. This linkage will not only necessitate new methodologies and assessment approaches but also new concepts that specifically address issues and dynamics that only arise through this linkage. This analytical framework that is built upon negotiative and systems perspectives as well as process outlook aims to help define, design and facilitate functional, institutional, and bargaining interactions to align collective actions in order to execute the principles of sustainability.
Interestingly, due to the conceptual and methodological challenges of studying global transformation towards sustainability, the formulation of concrete objectives of this book has already entailed the justification of arguments as well as the clarification of the rationales and logic behind these objectives. These rationales and logic will be further elaborated in Chapters 3 and 4. These objectives are:
1.
The Sharp-edging of the inter-, multi- and trans-disciplinarity of studying global transformation towards sustainability:
a.
Understanding and concretization of conceptual and receptive gaps that arise through the enforcement of closing or blurring boundaries between disciplines
b.
Identification and assessment of ‘discriminative contrasts’ that paradoxically promote learning about transformation towards sustainability
2.
Support more strategic and purposive approaches in planning, designing and implementing new branches of studies of transformation towards sustainability:
a.
The effective design and implementation of new curricula or subdisciplines that highlight trade-offs by ‘coupling’ issues such as human rights and climate change, sustainable development and law, energy systems and governance.
b.
Identification of new channels or venues for academic discourse, particularly when considering ‘peripheral scholars’ from the Global South who do not have access to conventional scholarly channels such as peer-reviewed journals and conferences.
3.
Promote the adequate combination of incremental (step-by-step), regressive (going back to basics), decremental (backward-sorted) and saltatory (leapfrogging, by leaps and bounds) learning in a global transformation towards sustainability:
a.
The critical assessment of varying paces of development among sectors and technologies (e.g., efficient procurement procedures in the energy sector) through incremental learning.
b.
A pragmatic and yet critical evaluation of ‘best practices’, for example among traditional modes of governance, which highlights the advantages of regressive and decremental learning (critiques of modernity).
c.
The efficient and critical design of innovative concepts that aim to circumvent traditional stages of development through saltatory learning.
4.
Advance academic and public discourse on transformation towards sustainability by highlighting linkages that uncover new conflict cleavages, co-benefits, synergies, fatal synergies, caveats, trade-offs, positive and negative externalities as well as self-enforcing dynamics resulting from such linkages:
a.
The identification of novel approaches and methodologies to grasp and resolve collaboration and coordination problems, including the prisoner’s dilemma, free-riding, and the indecisiveness dilemma.
b.
The delegitimization of “counterfactual” claims on global transformation towards sustainability.
c.
An assessment of the ontological and epistemological baggage of ideas, concepts and notions to allow out-of-the-box thinking and to prevent the reproduction of ‘cognitive lock-ins’ that frame the understanding of causalities.
d.
The evaluation of transition costs, for example, the costs of ‘unlocking’ carbon lock-ins.
5.
Empower decision-makers (policy-makers, policy entrepreneurs) by enhancing their capacity to empathize:
a.
Resolve challenges in the monolithic architecture and polycentrism of multi-level (global, regional, national, local, sectoral) decision-making to abrogate existing blurred or competing jurisdictions, inefficient governance structures, structural imbalances and inequities, lock-ins in utility and value systems and volatile social contracts.
b.
Enhance evidence-based decision-making that profits from studies of various futures, each of which is defined by context, agents and audience.
c.
Strengthening of the value of (knowledge) diplomacy and a critical outlook on consensus-building and policy models (e.g., deliberative, democratic, authoritarian, post-democratic).
1.1.3 The definition of a Global Transformation Towards Sustainability—Clarification
This book defines transformation towards sustainability as:
the shifting from the initially chosen (or taken) pathway to another pathway as goals have been revised to enable the system to adapt to changes.
Pathways are sets of critical junctures and lock-ins that have framed decisions and collective actions. With this definition, sustainable low carbon transformation is then depicted by shifting from one pathway to another by shouldering transition costs, that is, the costs of detaching a system for example from existing carbon lock-ins. Each transformative pathway is always ‘negotiative’ in nature. The negotiative pathway pursues the convergence of objectives, principles, visions, goals and the necessary instruments through collaboration and coordination. However, emerging collaboration and coordination problems in various modular sub-systems need to be resolved among others by institutions in various modular sub-systems. For example, transformation cross-cuts various levels (global, regional, national, local, and sectoral). Nevertheless, while relevant vulnerabilities and risks, as well as opportunities and benefits, tend to have a global impact, responses are constituted and concretized following a local contextualization of vulnerabilities. In addition, transformation is dependent upon economies-of-scale. As one country achieves benefits and competitive advantages after choosing the sustainable low carbon pathway, other countries will follow and when a critical mass’ is reached, this sustainable low carbon pathway will become the ‘new normal.’ However, we have a long way to go before we can achieve this new normalcy. Countries need additional information to identify benefits and assess their capacity to shoulder the costs of switching pathways, particularly when (carbon) lock-ins of the current non-sustainable high-carbon pathway seem insurmountable.
Figure 1.1 can be helpful in explaining the definition of sustainable low carbon transformation. While the figure illustrates the different radiative forces of the representative concentration pathways (RCPs), it also demonstrates the level of climate protection pursued—the lower the radiative forces, the higher the climate mitigation that needs to be done. If the line representing RCP8.5 is the pathway with the least emission reduction efforts and the line representing RCP2.6/RCP3PD is the pathway with the most mitigation efforts, shifting from the RCP8.5 line to the RCP2.6/RCP3PD refers to the ‘transformation’ depicted in this book through the dashed arrow. The dashed arrow reflects an example of a change of pathway from the initial pathway to the ‘purposive’ pathway, which reflects newly implemented principles.
Figure 1.1
Radiative Forcing of the Representative Concentration Pathways.
(van Vuuren et al. 2011) (modified)
×
The success of a facilitation of transformation towards sustainability depends on the ‘shifting or transition costs’ of moving from one pathway to another. The critical juncture points to the decisive point in defining the transition costs, because this represents the point with the lowest transition costs. As the transformative pathway unfolds, transition costs also increase. As new technologies are developed, or new sustainability-friendly policy and market instruments are introduced, a specific pathway, here for example the RCP3PD/RCP2.6 line, becomes more beneficial. However, some countries, while willing to shift pathways, may need additional capacities to be able to shift from their current pathway to the more efficient one. Shifting will therefore depend on flexibility measures that do not encourage free-riding, technology transfer that caters to innovation, capacity-building that does not reinforce inequalities and even transition cost relief that does not hamper autonomy.
In this book, transformation is understood as an ‘umbrella-concept’ that encompasses shifts (e.g., a behavioral shift favoring energy-efficient cars), transition periods (e.g., a ‘grace period’ given to companies to adapt to the new legislation), structural changes (e.g., a government changing its policies following the increased importance of the service and information sector), conversion (e.g., the monetary value of heritage sites included in the assessment of policies), evolution (e.g., changing the social mandate of universities following new demands from the private sector), revolution (e.g., new business models or new technologies as game changing factors), transfiguration (e.g., new technologies that rearrange the competitive positions of countries), transmogrification (e.g., changing the landscape by building a public park on the former elevated freight rail line tracks of the “High Line” in New York), switch (e.g., using of an alternative IT standard or energy source instead of the conventional standard or preference) and metamorphosis (e.g., a change in the utility of resources such as agricultural waste-to-energy). All these terms connote causalities and associations relevant to changes. This book will make distinctions if deemed necessary.
1.2 Research Design and Methodology
Achieving the objectives of this book requires a coherent research design. Figure 1.2 illustrates the research design strategy of this project and describes the various stages and processes involved.
Figure 1.2
Research Design Strategy
×
Parts B and C of this book refer to the descriptive part that introduces the theoretical framework. Chapter 2 synthesizes the literature on transformation and introduces clusters of scholarly research on entry points in understanding the concept of sustainable development pathways (SDPs). Chapter 3 discusses the trade-offs as major drivers of transformation towards sustainability. Chapter 4 highlights the critical process outlook on decision systems by addressing the ‘paradoxical’ assumptions that influence how decisions are made. Chapter 5 conceptualizes knowledge diplomacy, how knowledge relevant to sustainable low-carbon transformation is generated, and how it reproduces and reinforces asymmetries in the international system. Chapter 6 illuminates a systems perspective on transformations to adequately address problem contexts and policy objectives particularly in countries with emerging economies.
Without the intention of relativizing the impact of historical emissions brought by now-developed countries, the perspective of developing countries is selected, not only because they currently represent the sources of the most growth on GHG emissions and are confronted with environmental degradation, but primarily because they tend to be confronted with multiple transitions such as political transitions (e.g., from a military junta to a democratically elected regime) and economic transitions (from a planned economy to a market economy), which make their transformation towards sustainability more complex and highly contextual. This high level of contextuality increases their resistance to the best experiences of developed countries.
Chapters 2 to 7 provide some necessary background and parameters for the development of ideal types as theoretical models (chapter 8). They also consolidate the theoretical pillars of the case studies and simulation game and introduce the benefits of using scenarios and theoretical models (ideal types) as tools for understanding the complexity of transformation under conditions set by policy models. Chapter 8 introduces the ideal types (theoretical models) of policy pathways—democratic, authoritarian, institutional, ‘activistic,’ technocratic and post-democratic. These ideal types summarize the assumptions and storylines of policy models and identify linkages between policy models and policies on sustainable low-carbon transformation. These theoretical models are compared with country-specific case studies (to highlight the local context, drivers and path dependence of policy-making processes).
Chapters 9 to 12 are country-specific case studies that provide retrospective analyses, with the ideal types serving as theoretical models. This part of the project demonstrates how ideal type analysis can promote the further development of theories by highlighting the historicity of pathways taken by countries.
The theoretical chapters as well as the case studies coherently lead to the subsequent chapters: Chapter 13 introduces a conceptual framework of ‘transformative pathways,’ which is inherently derived from the contextualization of theoretical models. Through the case studies, this conceptual framework aims to provide additional theoretical inputs to better grasp the complexity of shifting from the pathway initially chosen (business-as-usual) to other pathways. Chapter 14 highlights the empirical value of this book by creating a check-list that comprises reflective questions for stakeholders to develop awareness of the complexities of the transformation process when engaging in various functional, institutional, and bargaining interactions.
1.2.1 Ideal Types: Theoretical Models and Scenarios from the Negotiation Perspective
Like most of the scientific studies on climate mitigation and low carbon transformation, this book orients itself on the use of scenario methods. Because the outcomes of present mitigation actions will only be realized after years, if not decades, decision-making is inevitably conducted in the context of complexity and uncertainty. Without the support of decision tools, decision-makers can be easily overwhelmed by issues, structures and processes, encouraging them to either delay or refuse necessary decisions. However, it needs to be highlighted that scenarios also have limitations. While scenarios aim to structure complexities and uncertainty in a way that helps decision-makers find orientation, they cannot be followed blindly.
Scenarios such as decision (analytical) tools can be useful in defining the view of the form, contents, and purpose of decisions. While scenarios cannot predict or forecast how, and which decisions will be made under specific conditions as the transformation process unfolds, they can provide answers to questions such as how decisions should be made (normative analysis) and how to ensure their compatibility with existing norms and principles. In such cases, theoretical models such as scenarios can be useful in determining the content and extent of norms and principles. However, the use of normative frameworks in evaluation policies has its own short-comings, particularly when reflecting upon how and from whom such normative frameworks are determined. Here, scenarios can highlight causalities between factors. Finally, and of equal importance, scenarios can demonstrate how decision-makers can facilitate multi-dimensional and multi-level negotiation processes (negotiation analysis) through a stakeholder perspective approach (see Zartman 1988; Young 1991; Sebenius 1992b; Raiffa 2002).
In this book, scenarios (policy models) have been developed that apply ‘ideal types’ of analysis to policy-making. Like scenarios, these ideal types express specific ‘storylines’ that have been defined from the perspective of negotiation studies. The so-called ‘ideal type analysis’ pertains to ideal types acting as analytical instruments by formulating hypotheses that are verifiable through the observation of empirical proceedings. The usefulness of ideal types is expressed through comparing the ‘storylines’ of each ideal type with empirical case studies. The purpose of ideal types is to enable researchers to ask appropriate underlying questions.
1.2.2 Case Studies and Simulations
This book employs a structured and systematic presentation of selected country-specific cases to verify theoretical models (ideal types). The interactions and relations between and the influences on implementing policies that support or inhibit transformation towards sustainability will be highlighted. A coherent framework for an analysis of cases has been developed for this book to implement a step-by-step evaluation using different sets of criteria. The implementation of these case studies using the framework will also address the significant shortcomings of using (historical) case studies to evaluate transformation processes. Through these shortcomings, new conceptual questions can be identified and retrofitted to the locality of the context.
Using case studies as methods of scientific inquiry has its own challenges. For example, Audley Genus and Anne-Marie Coles (2008 p. 1441) criticize the “flawed use of secondary data sources” as well as any study which “uncritically accepted accounts” and assumptions of the importance of certain events, intentions and actions (or non-actions). To address this, this book intends to re-visit and re-evaluate rationales and assumptions (see chapter 4). In addition, case studies that pertain to the transition or transformation processes of countries are often characterized as being rather descriptive or “illustrative” rather than analytical or systematic (Geels 2011 p. 36).
Moreover, by using case studies and simulations, this book aims to address the broader trade-off that is typical of mainstream social science. As Frank Geels (2011) and Peter Abell (2004) contend, this trade-off pertains to the tendency of social science to over-emphasize methods (e.g., the procedures for gathering data, data analysis, and replication) at the expense of ontology, i.e., a set of concepts and categories in a subject area that depicts properties and relations. Similarly, process theories tend to have a more complex ontology, but less developed methodologies. Studying transformation processes is not only constrained by this trade-off, it is also restricted by misleading or absent precedents that undermine the usefulness of existing concepts for explaining the various dynamics of transformation towards sustainability. A possible solution is introduced by this book by exploring comparative and nested case studies, event-sequence analysis, network analysis, negotiation analysis and decision analysis.
This book primarily depicts the sustainable low-carbon policies of selected countries representing selected groups of countries and how these policies are implemented in the context of various historical specificities:
OECD
United States (case study), Mexico (comparative case study)
High Income and Emerging Economies
China (comparative case study), the Philippines (case study)
Middle and Low Income
Jamaica (case study & simulation)
Mexico is a democratic country and an OECD member with clear visions on where the country should stand in the future. While these visions seek transformation towards sustainability, legitimacy deficiencies and coordination gaps are found to inhibit the achievement of these visions. The deficiencies pertaining for example to the formal and material participation of civil societal groups such as indigenous communities limit the legitimacy of policies. The lack of genuine deliberation processes undermines the realization of sustainable developmental goals.
China is often taken as the ‘best example’ that supports the argument that stable authoritarian regimes are in a better position to develop and implement more ambitious environmental policies. It is argued in this book that when climate protection is “securitized”, it inevitably becomes an indicator of human well-being. It also modifies the context through new socio-political and socio-linguistic narratives, which alter relations between status and change agents, and re-define the relevance of audience. In China’s case, the need for authoritarian regimes to ensure a high degree of output-legitimacy has promoted climate protection as a high-priority policy goal. The case study on China highlights how the securitization of climate protection and sustainable development has empowered “change agents” that push transformation towards sustainability.
The case study on the Philippines pertains to a transformative pathway defined by weak governance and the authoritarian tendencies of a democratic regime. The inability of the Philippine State to provide key services or its strategy to franchise the implementation of policies not only limits the sets of possible actions, but also undermines the effectiveness of policy implementation. The change of administration every six years tends to result in a disruptive return to “default” policies as the new administration seeks to first discredit its predecessor in order to consolidate political capital. While there are cases that illustrate strong governance systems, particularly in local levels and civil society participation, this strength ironically indicates weak national governance. National governance mechanisms are highly dependent on non-state actors or local political dynasties, which further strengthen the fragmentation of governance. In addition, one result of the state’s low capacity and low autonomy is the diminished caveat against politicians abusing the state apparatus to implement policies, which is further reinforced by the current, stable culture of impunity.
The case study on the United States of America focuses on how change agents have been mobilized under the Trump administration. With the business and industry sectors as well as civil society pursuing more ambitious, sustainable low-carbon policy goals, it can be argued that under a federal government with ambitious sustainability policy goals, civil society and the private sector would not have been mobilized in the same way they have been now. The case study analyzes how the private sector and civil society can substitute the role of the federal government in pursuing sustainable developmental goals.
The case study on Jamaica commences with an assessment of the country’s transformation process towards sustainability. The assessment identifies the carbon lock-ins and path dependencies of Jamaica’s key sectors as well as potential entry points to mitigation. In addition, an experiment involving a simulation game was conducted to better understand some of the dynamics of decision-making, looking in particular at the carbon lock-ins that inhibit decision-making and support sustainability. Jamaica is a democratic island-state with an insular economy that is isolated and, at the same time, highly dependent on imports from other countries. It derives almost 100% of its electricity and other energy supplies from oil imports, which implies Jamaica’s vulnerability.
1.3 The Analytical Framework—Negotiation Studies as an Entry Point to Transformation Towards Sustainability
When reflecting on global, sustainable, low-carbon transformation, understanding the concept of transformation will provide decision-makers from all levels and sectors (government agencies, business companies, and other societal groups) with the capacity to understand and capitalize on information and knowledge in order to come up with effective decisions and ‘drive’ the process in a way that is tolerable for all stakeholders. This book intends to come up with ideas to better understand and explain this process. As Wayne Booth and colleagues (1995) argue, “tell me something I don’t know so I can understand better what I do know.”
This book introduces negotiation studies as entry point to the analysis of sustainable low-carbon transformation. The focus on entry points helps to better think through the problem and to guide attention firstly to relevant questions and problems in order to come up with the appropriate normative foundation and an agenda for collective actions. While the implementation of transformation towards sustainability covers multi-level and multiple conflict cleavages, the value of negotiation studies tends to be underestimated and neglected. The reason for this is that negotiation is, as a process, assumed to be self-evident. Negotiation studies address how conflicts can be resolved by focusing on the process of collective decision-making.
The current debate on transformation or transition towards sustainability with regards to decision- and policy-making tends to evolve around deliberative democracy, regime/governance studies and organization studies. For example, Teresa Haukkala (2017) highlights the importance of a green-transition advocacy coalition for launching the transition take-off phase for renewable energy in Finland. This implies the significance of a robust deliberative democratic model which nurtures advocacy. Nevertheless, while a deliberative democratic model can promote transformation towards sustainability, it cannot be fully argued that countries with alternative models will not be equally capable of achieving transformation towards sustainability, especially those stable authoritarian states with technocratic elements that can also achieve audience’s approval through output performance.
In addition, Franziska Ehnert et al. (2018) demonstrate how national and subnational institutions enable and/or constrain local agency for sustainability transition. However, while they identify the linkage between local and national agencies for sustainability transition, they do not address the fact that institutions are themselves evolving and adapting to changes. This evolution is itself a concert of negotiation outcomes. Furthermore, Brendan Haley (2017) identifies the high demand on the capabilities of the state in designing and implementing policies tailored to technological innovation systems and socio-technical niches and regimes. This implies that the state is expected to facilitate innovation through “game rules” that will further send useful signals about appropriate behavior. In his case study, he demonstrates that an organization’s formal and informal rules can make the design principles mutually reinforcing, while a stronger political consensus is needed to manage tensions between accountability and stability. However, he does not consider that the state itself can be either an agent for change or for the status quo. Therefore, the state as an agency cannot be absolutely autonomous in designing formal and informal rules. Conflict of interests may arise when the state becomes not only a “rule-setter”, but also a player that needs to abide by the rules. This can be problematic when states tend to bend the rules to their advantage at the cost of their role as facilitator.
Other authors who focus on the socio-technical dimension of transformation towards sustainability tend to highlight technologically optimal solutions as drivers of transformation. For example, Farzin Hossein (1996) suggests the possibility of the optimal pricing of environmental and natural resource use with stock externalities. In addition, Hans Werner Sinn (2007) argues for the relevance of pareto optimality in determining the appropriate extraction of fossil fuels to stabilize the greenhouse effect. However, as asserted by the IPCC (2007), while optimal solutions are often proposed as benchmarks for actual negotiations, these optimal solutions tend to be far from the negotiated solution, which causes frustration among technical experts. In addition, as Allard van Mossel et al. (2018) argue, the application of solutions will most likely be confronted by resistance. Some actors, even indifferent ones, will very likely seek to protect their autonomy to enable them to react to varying (local) context conditions. Ronan Bolton (2018), for example, identifies the problematic relationship between high-level grand visions of an integrated European system and more pragmatic bottom-up processes of electricity system development.
Negotiation studies highlight the process of reaching agreements through collaboration. Negotiation requires that there is a conflict that needs to be resolved (see Hopmann 1996) Moreover, the inability to resolve, a stalemate, is “mutually hurting” (Zartman 1978, 1988; Young 1991). Negotiated agreements are necessary, particularly in cases of common vulnerabilities where no single actor can effectively resolve the vulnerability (Krasner 1983). This confirms the relevance of negotiations when addressing global environmental concerns such as climate change. In addition, particularly when addressing complex (Druckman 1977; Crump & Zartman 2003) and uncertain issues such as sustainable development and climate change, negotiation serves as a tool for adaptive learning and for improving social relationships (Kramer & Messick 1995; Cross 1996).
However, the negotiation process is itself not self-enforcing. It requires purposive structure and adaptable organization (Malnes 1995; Lewicki et al. 1999; Kremenyuk 2002). Negotiation studies can provide ‘anchors’ or ‘focal points’ of transformation from which decisions that promote or inhibit the transformation process can depart. Some authors have already initiated the linking of negotiation studies with sustainability, particularly with environmental sustainability. As one of the leading figures in negotiation studies on environmental issues, Gunnar Sjöstedt (1993; 2013 with Penetrante) highlights the benefits of focusing on negotiation as a process when resolving global environmental issues. Others, such as William Moomaw et al. (2003), suggest focusing on innovations in negotiations in order to push forward environmental negotiations. This includes effectively addressing free-riding problems and the tragedy of the commons. Furthermore, studying negotiation is dependent on the analysis of perspectives. Mechanisms are needed to enable actors to analyze, reflect, evaluate and modify the perspective of their peers. Because conflicting parties cannot unilaterally achieve agreements, and the factors hindering particularly weaker parties from committing to agreements are regarded as equally the problems of the stronger parties, empathy is enhanced. Adil Najam et al. (2003) and Ariel Penetrante (2010) argue that the enhancement of the negotiation capacity of developing countries is inevitably linked with any global agreement on climate and environmental issues.
In addition, negotiation studies relativize the influence of power asymmetry (Habeeb 1988; William & Rubin 2002; Larson 2003). Because the stronger party requires the help of weaker parties, it is in the interest of stronger parties to prevent the use of coercive power. A probable explanation for this is that the outcome of coerced negotiation will very likely be challenged the moment power has shifted. For example, Joseph Nye (2010a) prefers the usage of “smart power” for global climate negotiations. For him, the conventional utility of power does not have the same meaning in climate negotiations.
Gregory Northcraft et al. (1995) contest the necessity of accommodating the non-linear preferences of actors when it comes to the reasons why actors engage or leave negotiations. This is particularly the case when there are multiple issues under consideration, the parties value the issues differently (Lax & Sebenius 1986) and there are initially no obvious benefits for participating actors. Because the transformation process consists of multiple ‘negotiation’ or ‘bargaining games,’ transformation towards sustainability is equally non-linear. As such, the relationship between the objective value obtained through the achievement of transformation goals and the subjective utility experienced by all relevant actors cannot be characterized by a straight line (see Northcraft et al. 1995). Because sustainability transitions are goal-oriented and purposive (see Smith & Tushman 2005), attention needs to be given to the preferences not only of the actors, but also of the approving or disapproving audience. In addition, because sustainability is an ambiguous and contested concept, the directionality of sustainability transitions is itself the subject of negotiations or what is referred to in this book as ‘knowledge diplomacy.’
From the negotiation perspective, against the backdrop of multiple possible transformative pathways of adapting to changes, ‘status quo agents’ and ‘change agents’ can employ various ways of interacting in order to elaborate which practices and rules need to be maintained to avoid system ruptures. In addition, the formalization of interactions (negotiations) between change and status quo agents will be guarded by a context that is expressed through narratives. Socio-technical and socio-linguistic narratives are the outcomes of multiple, multi-level negotiation or ‘elaboration’ processes. Pathways are the sum of policies, institutions, norms and narratives that aim to achieve predetermined goals, whereas path-dependent factors and critical junctures may promote or inhibit the course of the paths taken. Shifts from one pathway to another also mean resolving many types of conflicts that emerge as (power) relations between actors when hierarchies are realigned. Transformation produces new conflict cleavages, as tensions between the “old” and the “new” will most likely be projected into many issues, platforms and forums. As an implication of the conflicting nature of transformations, various types of functional, institutional, and bargaining games emerge. These games or interactions can be regarded as the ‘fibers’ of the transformation process, because these interactions compel collective actions.
Furthermore, the manner by which the monolithic architecture of global decision-making promotes or inhibits transformation towards sustainability in a specific country can be answered by looking at how this architecture determines how basic and policy games are pursued (i.e., connected or disconnected). The usefulness of the negotiation perspective is also demonstrated when addressing gaps between global, regional, national and local policy-making. The two arguments that 1) sustainable low carbon transformation requires global visions, a purpose and structural changes in the global sphere; and that 2) decision-making at the global level still uses a national lens are already widely accepted. It is necessary to account for many kinds of contextual influences that can stabilize or destabilize systems. Connecting these two arguments together will lead to additional questions that can be adequately formulated and answered by negotiation studies.
Negotiation studies calls for a deeper analysis of how decisions can be made, for example, to manage the balancing act between the global vision and the national reality. The literature on global transformation underestimates the proximity between the merely assumed analytical value of global transformation and its actual practical value in individual countries. So, if policy-makers are able to fully understand global transformation, will this help them make appropriate decisions domestically? In several cases, the disconnect between global visions and domestic priorities leads to a refusal to commit to decisions or the so-called “indecisiveness dilemma,” that is, the lack of will to make decisions not because decision-makers reject the assumed solutions (Allison & Zelikow 1999; Raiffa 2002), but because they do not fully grasp or make sense of the potential effects of these solutions. When the complexity of sustainable low-carbon transformation is perceived to be manageable, decision-makers will eventually find resources to circumvent the ‘indecisiveness dilemma’ that has effectively inhibited the unfolding of the process.
1.4 Reflexivity and Stakeholder Engagement for Transformation Towards Sustainability
This book intends to present a practical approach to strategically facilitating sustainable low-carbon transformation. The recommendations that can be made are presented using the Weberian understanding (Verstehen) of various variables and dynamics that has been crystalized through this book’s theoretical foundation (chapters 2 to 6), methodological tools (chapters 7 and 8), case studies (chapters 9 to 12), simulation game (part of chapter 12) and theoretical claims through the conceptual framework (chapter 13). The theoretical outputs of this research as synthesized in chapter 13 can be used by stakeholders as “political models” (politische Leitbilder) as well as guides for interpretations of various discourses
Chapter 14 provides the empirical value of this book with a reflexivity analysis and a stakeholder engagement plan. Reflexivity is itself a form of intervention that allows systems to adapt while preventing ruptures. The analysis of reflexivity can help better structure institutional, functional, and bargaining interactions from the negotiating perspective on context, agencies and the audience of transformation towards sustainability. Reflexivity analysis is a matrix or collection of concrete questions that resonate with the (meta-level) theoretical/conceptual, methodological and practical challenges relevant for each analytical level (actors, issues, structures, processes and outcomes). In addition to the reflexivity analysis, a roadmap or “stakeholder engagement plan” is introduced. The roadmap provides a structure that can facilitate interactions by highlighting the roles of stakeholders, their power base as well as how they tend to behave at various bargaining games (negotiation analysis). The conflict analysis covers how stakeholders define conflicts and how they believe the conflict can be resolved. Moreover, potential measures of engagement are presented, as well as their possible entry points to transformation towards sustainability.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
