Skip to main content. By using our site, you agree to our collection of information through the use of cookies. To learn more, view our Privacy Policy. Log In Sign Up. Download Free PDF. Anneleen Kenis. Download PDF. A short summary of this paper. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 18 5 , And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.
Download date: To start with, transition management understands the relation transition initiatives adopt towards existing regimes not in political, but in market terms. This impacts their internal processes, which are based on a deliberative notion of democracy, assuming the existence of a common good and misrecognizing the constitutive role of conflict. Moreover, transition management embraces a governance approach centring on public—private bodies which, in the name of bottom-up processes and participation, especially gives a voice to a privileged group of business, policy and civil society actors.
Insofar as citizens get a place, it is merely in their role as consumers. The crucial question is how these features affect transition management's possibilities to contribute to effective and democratic sustainable change. Given the context of growing ecological awareness, but disappointment about the limited results achieved so far, this should maybe not come as a surprise. This resulted on the one hand in a growing scepticism with regard to the possibilities to avoid ecological catastrophe, and on the other hand in the emergence of new initiatives to deal with the current crises in innovative ways.
Indeed, transition management evokes hope again by filling a gap. But there is more: as Rotmans, Loorbach and Kemp Rotmans et al. It was thus partly by distancing itself from other attempts to tackle the ecological crises that transition management succeeded in putting itself on the agenda.
How should its discourse on this terrain be understood? To which extent does it indeed bring hope for effective change? And will it also be capable of realising this change in a democratic way? Transition management developed a discourse relying on concepts such as adaptive governance, reflexivity, complexity, long-term thinking, multi-actor, multilevel systems, social learning and network management Kemp and Loorbach, ; Loorbach, , , ; Loorbach et al.
Other approaches are criticised for not taking these key innovative insights and concepts into account. Interestingly, this criticism is levelled both against regulatory environmental policies and classical liberal market approaches.
Finally, reflexive long term thinking is advocated based on the idea that complex societal problems cannot be solved by achieving quick results through the development of a blueprint with fixed criteria Loorbach, ; Rotmans et al.
These are all valuable reflections as such. However, the key questions are whether the transition model that is developed on this basis succeeds in fulfilling its promises and what are the consequences of these choices on other terrains.
This context is increasingly diagnosed by contemporary political theorists as post-political, and many of its main characteristics also relate to the core of transition management. In what follows, we will first introduce transition management and discuss why it triggers so much enthusiasm. The following elements will be explored. To start with, relying on a deliberative model of democracy, transition management fails to fully acknowledge power relations, radical pluralism and from the possibly constitutive role of conflict in society.
Sometimes, they are taken into consideration in their role as consumers, but even that is not always the case. This paper aims to unravel the post- political in transition management. The challenge transition management is confronted with, we will argue, is to come to terms with recent insights concerning the political, which is of crucial importance if we want to lay out effective and democratic pathways towards change.
Transition management Transition management is often understood as the policy application of transition theory, which, starting from a multi-level perspective, considers transitions as the product of the interaction between several levels: the regime, niche and landscape level Geels, , b.
The theory states that transitions take place when radical niche innovations break through and succeed in changing the existing regime Geels, ; Geels and Schot, ; Raven, ; Raven et al.
This would be partly related to the maturity of the niche, but also to elements which are external to it Geels, a, b, a; Hoogma et al. But opportunities can also emerge within a regime itself, especially when the internal logic of a regime is getting disturbed Geels, ; Geels, a.
For example, the car only gives freedom and comfort as long as not everyone has one, as traffic jams subvert these advantages. The regime of the car becomes disturbed by the traffic jams, which can provide a window of opportunity for innovations such as electric bikes. In this way, internal developments within the regime co-evolve and can facilitate the breakthrough of innovative niches.
At first sight, these insights seem more than promising in the context of the pursuit of sustainability. Indeed, are we today not in a situation of landscape pressure e. Transition management can have a stimulating effect to the extent that it shows that several crucial transition factors are already present today and can be relied upon to shape the urgently needed change.
Furthermore, if we can understand how transitions happen, it should maybe not be so difficult to steer them a bit more consciously and pro-actively?
The idea behind transition management is that through the study of how transitions happened in the past, a model can be developed on how transitions can be steered in the future, this time in view of realising sustainable change. Transition management relies on the conviction that, if approached in a well- considered way, a broad range of actors from different societal backgrounds can achieve consensus about the urgency of the problems at stake and about the related long-term goals to be realised Kemp and Loorbach, , p.
As Loorbach and Rotmans Loorbach and Rotmans, , p. In order to achieve this, transition management takes an outspokenly deliberative approach to collective decision-making. In this way, new and innovative approaches would be arrived at. To make that possible, setting up creative processes of exchange and dialogue between a carefully selected range of societal actors is key. As Loorbach , p. Transition management thus relies on a participatory multi-actor governance model Boulanger, ; Loorbach, , ; Loorbach and Rotmans, ; Loorbach et al.
When a consensus on this long-term guiding vision is reached, a multiplicity of possible transition pathways is elaborated. The subsequent process is conceived in such a way as to remain as open as possible.
Rather than choosing one pathway early in the process, different transition experiments are launched that can possibly become the starting points for these transition trajectories Loorbach, , ; Loorbach and Rotmans, ; Rotmans and Loorbach, ; Sondeijker et al. The expectation is that if these niches succeed in breaking through, a transition process is set off.
According to this approach, the ideal of a democratic society is one where consensus is sought through dialogue. This model of democracy should be distinguished from what is called an aggregative model of democracy Tinnevelt, The latter conceives of democracy as a method to aggregate previously existing individual or group interests through procedures such as voting or negotiation.
We will come back to this discussion on democracy below. In a relatively short lapse of time, quite a number of transition processes have been launched following this approach. In the Netherlands, transition arenas have been set up focusing on energy Kemp et al. In Flanders, transition arenas were launched related to sustainable living and building DuWoBo , sustainable material management Plan C Paredis, , , sustainable agriculture, next to an atypical transition arena composed of civil society actors.
However, while actors from different backgrounds enthusiastically embrace this new and promising model, both sympathetic and more stringent criticisms have emerged Avelino, ; Meadowcroft, ; Shove and Walker, It is our conviction that looking through the lenses of these theories of the political can yield a more precise diagnosis of both the merits and difficulties which transition management is confronted with.
In order to circumscribe the concept more precisely, we will especially make use of the path- breaking work of Chantal Mouffe, which is particularly relevant as she has formulated a trenchant critique of the deliberative approach to democracy which is central to transition management. This latter notion refers to the institutions such as the parliament or voting, or more in general, to a specific social sphere which we usually call politics Mouffe, Indeed, there will always be politics as a specific sphere where decisions are made and new laws and rules are produced.
But this activity, and society at large, are not always necessarily understood in political terms. Technocratic discourses, for example, fail to acknowledge the contingent and contestable nature of decisions taken in the sphere of politics. They tend to portray the act of governing as neutral, or as scientifically grounded, thus making invisible that we are always dealing with the exercise of power in a context of potential disagreement.
These tend to overlook the reality of power and decision and to downplay the existence of conflict and debate about the way society is organised and about multiple future possibilities and different strategies to reach these. The reason why the recognition of the political is so important, according to these scholars, is that this recognition is a crucial feature of democracy. Democracy, so it is stated, starts by making power, conflict and decision visible and contestable.
This diagnosis is of utmost importance for the evaluation of transition management and its potential to realise sustainability change. As the misrecognition of the political dimension can not only undermine the democratic nature, but also the effectiveness of transition processes, it is of crucial importance to investigate this issue. The post- political in transition management 4. This vision, Loorbach and his colleagues suggest, is running into its limits today.
The classical, nation-state concepts and tools of democratic decision-making increasingly fail to effectively respond to contemporary complex challenges, including climate change and the other large-scale environmental crises.
This novel term refers to a series of modes of steering and governing, whereby a broader range of societal actors, including private agents, cooperate in usually horizontal networks in order to address specific problems.
While inclusiveness and participation are key values of many governance systems, the question can be asked how representative and democratic these new forms of governance actually are. In what follows we will argue that, at least up to a certain degree, transition management can indeed be understood as a new form of governance, based on a consensus-driven multi- actor model, as several scholars claim Berkhout et al.
Interestingly, transition management does explicitly depart from a traditional consensus model as is typically found in the Netherlands, and which relies on negotiations between social interests, especially workers and employers Rotmans et al.
One of the reasons he mentions is the role of corporatism and the fact that especially vested interests are taken into account. In contrast, proponents of transition management aim at developing a conception of dialogue which is much more inclusive, encompassing and open.
Loorbach and Rotmans , Rotmans et al. This consensus consists of a shared conviction that structural change is needed and a shared view on the overall direction of this change Kemp et al. In other words, transition management claims not to start from a given consensus but assumes that consensus on the overall goals will arrive if different actors are brought around the table and allow real dialogue and forms of inter-relational learning. Heiskanen and her colleagues Heiskanen et al. Although the attempt to set up democratic experiments and adopt innovative methods of dialogue is surely relevant and valuable, we would like to raise three critical points concerning this approach.
The first relates to the question how open a transition process really is, the second addresses the distinctive way transition management allows for conflict, while the third elaborates upon the limits of the specifically deliberative approach to democracy and collective decision-making.
A natural consensus First, we argue that the openness of a transition process inevitably has its limits. While the process is kept open initially, and a consensus on key objectives is supposed only to arise after dialogue, the parameters of the resulting common vision, and especially the framework within which it should be implemented, are already determined in advance.
Sometimes, specific choices are made to arrive more easily at such a natural consensus. As Grin , p. Admittedly, transition management and the method of transition arenas still allow for some choice, but this is a choice within an already structured setting. Interestingly, some proponents of transition management not only acknowledge that conflicts will nevertheless arise, but even consider these conflicts as desirable in order to realise transition managements aims. In practice, this step is very difficult because of the conflicting perspectives of the actors involved and the different interests they have.
Through an integral assessment of the problem, however, a certain level of agreement can be reached at least on the question whether or not there is an urgent problem. Conflict thus acquires a very specific meaning and aim.
It is useful because and in so far as it facilitates innovation. Conflict is no longer specifically political, but acquires an economic thrust, as the last quote reveals: it contributes to broadening the market of ideas, it generates a peculiar type of competition and creates incentives for transition initiatives. As we will argue in what follows, transition management thus adds to the deliberative notion a market conception of what conflict can imply.
The place of conflict Indeed, to the extent that conflict is given a place, the central question is how the nature of the conflict is understood. Here we arrive at the second point.
There are three possibilities. In other words, conflict then appears primarily as a psychological? A second possibility is that disagreement entails a radical choice for one or another type of society, based on specific values. In other words, we are then confronted with a cleavage which is constitutive and cannot be overcome as such. This is what political conflict in essence is about Mouffe, A third option, finally, is that conflict is rather viewed as something which ought to trigger creativity, stimulate the dialogue and enhance a competitive and challenging atmosphere.
According to the latter view, a conflict can be instrumental in realising innovation. It is to be feared that transition management especially endorses the first and third view, rather than the second. Conflict and competition between ideas, options and agendas are considered as something positive on the short-term, as long as it does not hamper the long-term consensus. Giving a place to conflict and disagreement then becomes a tool for enhancing the overall effectiveness of transition processes.
The more fundamental value political theorists such as Chantal Mouffe attribute to conflict is thereby pushed aside. Indeed, according to her, acknowledging conflict as implying a real choice between forms of society, including models of democracy, is the condition of possibility of freedom Mouffe, , p. Deliberation and the free and equal subject Thirdly, the open process projected by transition management is typical for a vision of democracy that is deliberative in nature, which, as we argue, has its own limits.
As already suggested, the type of democratic process taking place in transition arenas partakes of a deliberative view of democracy.
It is distinguished from an aggregative model, and typically based on the presupposition that bringing actors together, enabling them to get to know each other better, and exchanging arguments will facilitate convergence and consensus-seeking. Actors can arrive at a common problem definition and long term goals through dialogue and by putting the common interest before personal interests and goals Bergman et al.
For Loorbach , p. As Rotmans and Loorbach , p. The idea that learning and dialogue, when organised adequately, will facilitate the development of common goals is of course a hopeful idea. However, how open and rational is deliberation really? Its root cause is an undemocratic element in society. Populism exacerbates the problems of polarization. Fundamentally, it is a politics of inclusion based on the exclusion of others.
Some theorists have imagined populism to have some basis in majority rule, but this assumption has been proven false time and time again. Populists do not care if they are a minority. Donald Trump has not called for the abolition of the electoral college. He has ossified his policies through the expansion of cardinal laws. Populists believe they have been the victims of democratic exclusion.
Their solution is to silence others to ensure their opinions are heard. Their antagonism can become directed toward immigrants, racial or religious minorities, or elites. It does not matter whom their opponents are. But there is a fundamental belief their inclusion depends upon the exclusion of someone else. Polarization is independent of populism. But there is a relationship.
The character of polarization in a populist environment brings out its worst elements. It becomes far more intense because the stakes are raised on both sides of the political debate. Populists believe their concerns will remain unmet so long as some groups remain part of the political process.
Those targeted become radicalized because their political rights are at stake. It is tempting for those whose rights are not in jeopardy to deescalate tensions through the accommodation or amelioration of their agenda with their opponents.
But this means the sacrifice of the political or civil rights of the most vulnerable members of their coalition. The decades which followed the Civil War demonstrate an extreme example. White southerners saw their political influence threatened so long as African Americans remained part of the body politic. African Americans rightfully felt their political rights were threatened.
The Republican Party fought to protect these rights under the Presidency of Grant, but gradually distanced themselves from this position to reconcile with White Southerners.
Frederick Douglass remained committed to the Republican Party but notes some former slaves had already begun to depart for the Democrats before the twentieth century because the Republicans had done so little for their cause. Suzanne Mettler and Robert Lieberman give the best account of how the Republicans finally abandoned African Americans in the South after the white supremacist insurrection in Wilmington, North Carolina in The intense polarization of the nineteenth century was ended through the accommodation of white supremacists and the abandonment of African Americans.
It is also necessary to ensure that these practices are wide-ranging. In her latest Deleuzian-inspired theorists in particular to task, for book Mouffe seeks to develop an alternative conception of supporting the normative thrust of deterritorialization: politics to these seemingly endless post-political aspirations.
It is a mistake to believe that In this very brief introduction I would like to flag up one reference to territory is by nature backward-looking and important point.
Mouffe encourages us to develop a space reactionary and that it has fascistic tendencies. What is at stake is the this journal and the wider discussion about de territoriali- challenging of the power relations and geographies of zation in geography more generally see Pugh et al.
This short table to wider scale institutions of territorial governance. These arguments are used to whilst seeking to ensure that different political demands speak to key debates and tensions in contemporary politics are articulated and not repressed, is equally concerned that such as the rise of the far right and the political challenges radical democracy remains legitimated through a broader of globalization. Her central contention is that the move regional sense of public accountability.
For Mouffe, this away from a notion of the political centred on conflict and requires that a multi-polar world, with agonistic territorial contestation has had devastating consequences for both spaces of democracy be developed. The alternative posed understandings and practices of politics. Here she continues by some is that a new, trans-national, unelected elite should her engagement with Carl Schmitt, the creative and rigorous decide what is legitimate action, replacing publicly accountable critic of liberal democracy, whose work was framed by territorial regions.
By others, that territorial sovereignty should extremely problematic relations with Nazism1. It concludes by considering what is at stake in this shift to Schmitt from Gramsci, the most significant theoretical presence in Note Hegemony and socialist strategy, albeit in post-Marxist and 1 It will also be one of the themes of a recent network anti-essentialist guise.
0コメント