Search

Low-carbon innovation is usually depicted as an exemplar of pursuit of the common good, in both mainstream policy discussion and the emerging orthodoxy of transition studies. Yet it may emerge as a key means of intensifying inequality. We analyse low-carbon innovation as a social and political process through the prism of differential risk-classes, focusing on the pivotal global case of emergence of the Chinese middle-class in seaboard megacities, especially regarding the profound challenges of urban e-mobility transition. This approach shows emergence of this still-forming sociopolitical grouping as tightly and complementarily coupled with the assembling of innovations that meaningfully tackle global risks, such as climate change, while also intensifying existing inequalities. Misrecognition of the duality of low-carbon innovations as both moral technologies and as relatively expensive consumer products has the potentiality to be a key mechanism of this process, thereby serving to reproduce, constitute and legitimize inequalities in novel and unexpected ways. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the global financial crisis of 2007/8, proliferating calls for a Keynesian Green New Deal have cast the publicly (and environmentally) minded state as a necessary driver of technological innovation and social transformation, while, vice versa, innovation has moved to political centre-stage. The history and genesis of this particular Green Keynesian paradigm illustrate that some of its most high-profile proponents selectively and problematically frame twentieth-century Keynesianism and the ‘public good’. It is important to examine critically the calls for an ‘entrepreneurial state’ in which Green Keynesian ideas are mobilized in support of an agenda for continued and accelerated development of commercially focused, privately developed green technologies. The entrepreneurial state represents a neoliberal re-appropriation of Green Keynesianism, where dominant financial actors (in Silicon Valley, as opposed to on Wall Street) are tapped as the visionaries who can and should set our collective innovation agenda. Although there is a need for large-scale, coordinated techno-social efforts to address climate change, supporting ‘green’ innovation cannot simply be framed as maximizing ‘innovation’ while taking the ‘state’ for granted. Instead, it must entail a careful assessment of the specific trajectories of innovation being enabled and the underlying socio-natures that they maintain and promote. Science and technology studies (STS)-informed analysis allows, and compels, asking how socio-technological innovation and their constitutive power relations are crucially interrelated, making the reshaping of the state—still the primary institution and system of social relations of collective governance—a core but neglected political, technological and ecological project of our time, with a key role for STS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'Methodological cosmopolitanism' connotes a profound transformation of the (social) sciences as forms of public reflexive social analysis on learning to live well together through building homes in the world: what may be called the 'Beckian vision', in memory of Ulrich Beck. This short note considers how Beck's concept of emancipatory catastrophism may not be the most productive development of his own programme. This is precisely brought out by a methodologically cosmopolitan analysis of a key East Asian response to the global risk of climate change: innovation of low-carbon cities in China. Instead, these presumptively archetypically cosmopolitan initiatives offer something of a political education regarding the irreducibly strategic power/knowledge dynamics at work - including in ongoing contestation about the very term 'cosmopolitan'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A decade of mobilities research has responded to the key question of how a ‘world on the move’ can and should be studied, including in terms of futures thereby brought into view and possibly shaped into being. What happens, however, if we shift our focus from the ‘worldon the move’ to the ‘worldon the move’, with all the cosmopolitical diversity this highlights? This paper explores this question regarding the parallel research programme of methodological cosmopolitanism, inspired and instigated by the work of Ulrich Beck. We examine how mobilities research and methodological cosmopolitanism illuminate, support and contrast with each other as paradigms of social science for the twenty-first century. We argue for two major changes in this regard: moving from ‘methods’ as tools for objective knowledge-gathering to partial but directed and knowledge-enablingdialogical interventions; and from ‘data’ as given ‘facts’ to the construction of new, promisingboundary-crossing connections. These reorientations resonate strongly also with methodological directions from mobilities research, but in complementary and (productively) different ways. In particular, both relate to a shift of methodological imperatives, specifically regarding dynamic, interactive and power-attentive forms of social knowledge-making orphronesis, a situated practical wisdom. We illustrate these points in brief with insights from our own methodologically cosmopolitan research on key contemporary cosmopolitized issues, undertaken as part of Beck’s ‘cosmopolitan climate change’ (CosmoClimate) project. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A mobility low-carbon transition is a key issue both socially and for mobilities research. The multi-level perspective (MLP) is justifiably a leading approach in such research, with important connections to high-profile socio-technical systemic analyses within the mobilities paradigm. The paper explores the key contributions that a Foucauldian-inspired cultural political economy offers, going beyond central problems with the MLP, specifically regarding: a productive concept of power that affords analysis of the qualitatively novel and dynamic process of transition; and the incorporation of the exogenous ‘landscape’ into the analysis. This move thus resonates with growing calls for attention to power dynamics in mobilities research and a ‘structural’ turn. In making this case, we deploy the key case study of contemporary efforts towards mobility transition in China. This not only sets out more starkly the importance of MLP’s gaps but also provides an empirical case to illustrate, albeit in the form of informed speculation, possible routes to low-carbon urban mobility transitionandthe inseparability from broader qualitative power transitions at multiple scales, including the global. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much discourse on low-carbon transition envisages progressive social change towards environmentally sustainable and more equitable societies. Yet much of this literature pays inadequate attention to the key question of (productive, relational) power. How do energy infrastructures and socio-technical systems interact with, construct, enable and constrain political regimes, and vice versa? Conceiving low-carbon energy transitions through a power lens, the paper explores a case study of huge, but overlooked, significance: the paradox of the ‘phenomenal’ resurgence of coal in an era of low-carbon innovation. Through exposition of the strong connections between coal-based socio-technical systems and a political regime of classical liberalism, illustrated in two eras, we trace an emerging constellation of energy and political regimes connecting ‘clean coal’ with a ‘liberalism 2.0’ centred on a rising China. This affords a critique of the low-carbon society emergent from these developments – a society more reminiscent of coal's previous Dickensian heyday than the progressive visions of much ‘low-carbon transition’ literature. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In the policy discourses of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and European Commission (EC), modern biotechnology and the life sciences are represented as an emerging “bioeconomy” in which the latent value underpinning biological materials and products offers the opportunity for sustainable economic growth. This articulation of modern biotechnology and economic development is an emerging scholarly field producing numerous “bio-concepts.” Over the last decade or so, there have been a number of attempts to theorize this relationship between biotechnologies and their capitalization. This article highlights some of the underlying ambiguities in these conceptualizations, especially in the fetishization of everything “bio.” We offer an alternative view of the bioeconomy by rethinking the theoretical importance of several key economic and financial processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Science and technology policy is both faced by unprecedented challenges and itself undergoing seismic shifts. First, policy is increasingly demanding of science that it fixes a set of epochal and global crises. On the other hand, practices of scientific research are changing rapidly regarding geographical dispersion, the institutions and identities of those involved and its forms of knowledge production and circulation. Furthermore, these changes are accelerated by the current upheavals in public funding of research, higher education and technology development in the wake of the economic crisis. The paper outlines an agenda for science & technology policy studies in terms of a research programme of a 'cultural political economy of research and innovation' (CPERI). First, the implications of the overlapping crises for science policy analysis are discussed. Secondly, three rough constellations of contemporary approaches to science policy are critically compared, namely: a techno-statist Keynesian governance; a neoliberal marketplace of ideas; and co-productionist enabling of democratic debate. CPERI is then introduced, showing how it builds on the strengths of co-production while also specifically targeting two major weaknesses that are of heightened importance in an age of multiple crises, namely neglect of political economy and the concept of power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a growing consensus that we are facing epochal challenges in global food security. Moreover, these challenges are multiple and complex. Meeting these challenges will involve nothing less than a wholesale socio-technical transition of the agri-food system. Optimizing the efficacy of the contribution of research to such a food security agenda will probably also need new institutional mechanisms and career structures to facilitate new kinds of collaborations and ongoing, longer-term projects. In short, the multiple challenges of food security demand a different political economy of research for effective intervention by science. In making this argument, the paper summarizes the major findings of a recent report regarding the potential impact of so-called ‘disruptive’ low-carbon innovations in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cosmopolitanism is the focus of much current debate. This literature, however, is marked by a relative paucity of detailed research that examines the impact of cosmopolitanism as a social force within different societies. In particular, two topics that have received little attention despite their utter importance for current global challenges are the scale and impact of cosmopolitanism in China and the significance of ‘cosmopolitan innovation’. This paper explores both on the basis of evidence from over 70 interviews with parties involved in low-carbon innovation, a field that may be considered to be particularly propitious for cosmopolitan motivation. We argue that there is distinct evidence of cosmopolitanism in China but that this is a relatively fragile and elite development, despite China's increasingly deep integration into global networks and flows. Furthermore, the cosmopolitanism in evidence is a distinctly Chinese version, thereby offering important lessons regarding the nature of cosmopolitanism per se and the reciprocal challenge of China to the existing cosmopolitanism of the global North. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The international standing of Chinese science has improved at an extraordinary rate in the last two decades, prompting fears among some commentators in the global North. Against such positions, this paper argues: first, that the continuing limitations of Chinese science show it is most unlikely to dominate global science imminently; and second, that the rise of Chinese science is, in any case, a trend that is greatly to be welcomed, with the potential to benefit everybody. In particular, regarding the simple advance of science and the tackling of unprecedented global problems, both Chinese science per se and international collaboration with Chinese researchers are crucial. Furthermore, such collaboration has demonstrable mutual benefits, yielding an international collaboration dividend' of increased impact and quality of research for all parties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The dominant player behind the Trade-Related Intellectual Property (TRIPs) agreement, as regards patents, was a handful of American pharmaceutical transnational corporations ('big pharma'). Given that TRIPs was exceptionally controversial, how was US big pharma uniquely enabled to command the entire trade diplomatic machinery of the US and, through that, enact global law in its favour? This paper explores one crucial factor in the enacting of TRIPs, namely the prior pursuit of domestic US patent reform, from which a highly integrated and powerful single-issue political coalition between US big pharma, the new biotechnology sector and academic life science departments was formed. This created the political context in the US in which patent issues, particularly those affecting the pharmaceuticals industry, came to be considered matters of state. But explaining both the success of this patent coalition and the subsequent success of the US-led international demands for TRIPs in turn demands appeal to analysis of the structure of the global economy and its transformation to one of neoliberal financialisation, from a watershed of 1980. The paper explores how the critical histories of each of the three sectors of the patent coalition are illuminated by analysis in the context of this structural change and the underlying connections between apparently disparate issues it reveals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We explore the dynamic consumer preferences for EVs in China. • Three-wave stated preference experiments elicit dynamic preferences for EVs. • Dynamic preference for EVs by generation and geography are captured. • We highlight the dynamic and non-linearity patterns of EV transition. Sustainable innovations such as electric vehicles (EVs) are important means to address global environmental and energy sustainability challenges – one of the key agendas of current strategic government policy. Although EVs have gradually penetrated the market, existing research on consumer preferences for EVs is mostly based on cross-sectional analysis, without sufficient attention devoted to consumer preference changes over time. To fill this gap, this study proposes a longitudinal approach to extend the EV adoption research. Specifically, this study illustrates the value of studying consumer preferences for EVs from a dynamic perspective and focuses on changes in preference heterogeneity across different marketA segments over time. This study conducts three waves of stated preference experiments from 2017 to 2019 from a same group of respondents. The mixed logit analysis shows that, over these three years, Chinese consumers have become less sensitive to running cost but have been consistently valuing home charging capability and prioritized licensing for EVs. Furthermore, the perceived importance of the density of fast charging stations and overall preferences for EVs fluctuated over this period. Further analysis on preference heterogeneity finds that consumers in small cities were developing stronger preferences for battery EVs in 2018 and 2019 than in the base year of 2017, while those living in midsized and big cities did not present the preference change for battery EVs over the same period. Our study provides important managerial and policy implications for the diffusion of EVs, in particular with respect to specific insights obtained by taking a dynamic perspective to study consumer preferences for EVs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This special issue seeks to deepen conversations at the intersections between mobilities research and a number of adjacent fields. Contributions explore how mobilities research has emerged and travelled along with a range of approaches concerned with the lived production of socio-material orders, such as science and technology studies, non-representational and feminist theory, critical and speculative design and cosmopolitanism, to name but a few, while also intersecting with many applied fields, such as transport planning and policy, disability studies, or disaster response. The field of mobilities research has grown by connecting different epistemological frames, and offering new post-disciplinary approaches to complex interconnected phenomena. In pausing to reflect on these mobility intersections, we suggest that mobilities research is integral to a broader project of transforming the social sciences that is currently underway. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Negative emissions techniques (NETs) promise to capture greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and sequester them. Since decarbonisation efforts have been slow, and the climate crisis is intensifying, it is increasingly likely that removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere will be necessary to meet internationally-agreed targets. Yet there are fears that pursuing NETs might undermine other mitigation efforts, primarily the reduction (rather than removal) of greenhouse gas emissions. This paper discusses the risk of this phenomenon, named 'mitigation deterrence'. Some of us have previously argued that a cultural political economy framework is needed for analysing NETs. Such a framework explains how promises of future NETs deployment, understood as defensive spatio-temporal fixes, are depoliticised and help defend an existing neoliberal political regime, and its inadequate climate policy. Thus they risk deterring necessary emissions reductions. Here we build on that framework, arguing that to understand such risks, we need to understand them as the result of historically situated, evolving, lived practices. We identify key contributing practices, focussing in particular but not exclusively on climate modelling, and discuss how they have been reproduced and co-evolved, here likened to having dug a hole for ourselves as a society. We argue that understanding and reducing deterrence risks requires phronetic knowledge practices, involving not just disembodied, dispassionate technoeconomic knowledge-making, but also strategic attention to political and normative issues, as well as emotional labour. Reflecting on life in the hole hurts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mitigating human-induced climate change calls for a globalized change of consciousness and practice. These global challenges also demand a double transformation of the social sciences - first, from 'methodological nationalism' to 'methodological cosmopolitanism' and, second, an empirical reorientation towards 'cosmopolitization' as the social force of emerging cosmopolitan realities. One of these realities is the possible emergence, locally and globally, of 'cosmopolitan communities of climate risk' in response to a 'world at risk'. A key research question for contemporary social science is thus: how and where are new cosmopolitan communities of climate risk being imagined and realized? In this article, we propose and explore a research agenda formulated around this key question. We both develop a theoretical perspective and provide short empirical illustrations of case studies regarding ongoing research in Europe and East Asia on such cosmopolitan climate risk communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

But unable and/or unwilling as societies to think seriously and anew about how a pandemic demands understandings of freedom (of movement) different to those of the mythical unrestricted individual - a predicament notably marked in societies at the core of the neoliberal world order such as the US and UK, where Covid deaths have been high and government responses notably incompetent, or worse, venal (Monbiot [50]) - the result is paradoxical. In this Special Issue on "Pandemic (Im)mobilities" we have invited leading contributors in the field of mobilities studies to address the multiple issues generated by the pandemic's relation to complex (im)mobilities at many scales, as well as deeper theoretical issues that arise when we consider the pandemic from a critical mobilities approach. We might also interpret the problem of tourism recovery after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in relation to discourses of "disaster capitalism", "disaster tourism", and the wider understanding of tourism as a form of extractive economy founded upon uneven mobilities and the consumption of labor, natural resources, and produced spaces as places for some to play (Sheller and Urry [66]). The Covid-19 pandemic has brought with it the prospect of greater biometric surveillance, biophysical testing regimes to pass through borders, self-registration into contact-tracing technologies and regimens, and the idea of developing some kind of "immunity passports" that would potentially be registered into a global database for tracking of mobilities. Pandemic tourism (Im)mobilities One of the first sectors of the global economy to be severely disrupted by the coronavirus pandemic of 2020 was tourism. [Extracted from the article]

What is 'relational theorizing' in International Relations and what can it offer? This article introduces a thematic section that responds to these questions by showing two things. First, relational theorizing is not a doctrine or a method, but a set of analyses that begin with relations rather than the putative essences of constitutively autonomous actors. Second, relational theorizing has emerged from different geo-linguistic traditions, and a relational approach to International Relations (IR) can offer the language and space for increased and productive engagement beyond Anglophone scholarship. This thematic section takes a significant step in this direction by staging a dialogue between Sinophone and Anglophone scholarship on relational IR theorizing. Such an engagement shows points of comparison and contrast, convergence and divergence. In this way, the essays presented here contribute to developing a more 'global' IR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]