In this perspectives piece, an interdisciplinary team of social science researchers considers the implications of Covid-19 for the politics of sustainable energy transitions. The emergency measures adopted by states, firms, and individuals in response to this global health crisis have driven a series of political, economic and social changes with potential to influence sustainable energy transitions. We identify some of the initial impacts of the 'great lockdown' on sustainable and fossil sources of energy, and consider how economic stimulus packages and social practices in the wake of the pandemic are likely to shape energy demand, the carbon-intensity of the energy system, and the speed of transitions. Adopting a broad multi-scalar and multi-actor approach to the analysis of energy system change, we highlight continuities and discontinuities with pre-pandemic trends. Discussion focuses on four key themes that shape the politics of sustainable energy transitions: (i) the short, medium and longterm temporalities of energy system change; (ii) practices of investment around clean-tech and divestment from fossil fuels; (iii) structures and scales of energy governance; and (iv) social practices around mobility, work and public health. While the effects of the pandemic continue to unfold, some of its sectoral and geographically differentiated impacts are already emerging. We conclude that the politics of sustainable energy transitions are now at a critical juncture, in which the form and direction of state support for post-pandemic economic recovery will be key.

No abstract

Improving the understanding of the politics of sustainable energy transitions has become a major focus for research. This paper builds on recent interest in institutionalist approaches to consider in some depth the agenda arising from a historical institutionalist perspective on such transitions. It is argued that historical institutionalism is a valuable complement to socio-technical systems approaches, offering tools for the explicit analysis of institutional dynamics that are present but implicit in the latter framework, opening up new questions and providing useful empirical material relevant for the study of the wider political contexts within which transitions are emerging. Deploying a number of core concepts including veto players, power, unintended consequences, and positive and negative feedback in a variety of ways, the paper explores research agendas in two broad areas: understanding diversity in transition outcomes in terms of the effects of different institutional arrangements, and the understanding of transitions in terms of institutional development and change. A range of issues are explored, including: the roles of electoral and political institutions, regulatory agencies, the creation of politically credible commitment to transition policies, power and incumbency, institutional systems and varieties of capitalism, sources of regime stability and instability, policy feedback effects, and types of gradual institutional change. The paper concludes with some observations on the potential and limitations of historical institutionalism, and briefly considers the question of whether there may be specific institutional configurations that would facilitate more rapid sustainable energy transitions.

This paper contributes to the literature on institutional change by creating a framework that both measures and explains policy change. The framework is then applied to UK energy policy from 2000 to 2012 and finds that a policy paradigm change has occurred. Contrary to expectations in the literature, however, the process of change has been informed by multiple narratives and the new governance system is complex and incoherent. The analysis also finds that there has been relatively little shift in how energy systems operate suggesting shortcomings in a conceptual focus on institutional change over outcomes.

Provides new insights into depoliticisation literatures by applying depoliticisation beyond economic and monetary policy to energy and climate change policy. • Demonstrates ways in which forms of depoliticisation can affect political capacity to respond to new policy challenges. • Challenges climate change and energy transition literatures by explaining how and why UK energy policy institutions have constrained innovation and sustainable change. Depoliticisation, as a concept, has been utilised to explain specific aspects of economic governance as it has developed over the past thirty years, particularly in certain OECD countries. This article focuses on the outcomes of three forms of depoliticisation, marketised, technocratic and nondeliberative, for political capacity. Political capacity is defined in relation to a notion of politics as social interaction, deliberation, choice and agency. Using UK energy governance as a case study it claims that the depoliticisation of energy policy has resulted in embedded corporate power, a widening disjuncture between experts and majoritarian institutions and limited knowledge structures. As a result the state's role is still confined to giver of market signals and to temporary interventions in the face of complex and unprecedented commitments to transition the UK towards a low carbon future.

No abstract

No abstract

This article explores one set of conditions under which a policy area, energy, became politicised. It also explores the relationship between concepts of ‘speaking security’, which claim that the language of security is politically potent, and notions of (de-) politicisation. It argues that the framing of energy supply as a security issue influenced an opening up of UK energy, which had been subject to processes of depoliticisation since the late 1980s, to greater political interest and deliberation. Speaking security about energy had a high degree of cognitive authority and was instrumental in revealing a lack of policy-making capacity in energy.