Human rights campaign report Assessment brief – Human rights campaign report
Assessment brief Human rights campaign report (40%)
Project brief Human rights organizations regularly design and carry out campaigns on various human rights issues, such as freedom of speech, refugees, humanitarian assistance, human trafficking, torture, genocide, LGBTQ, domestic violence, etc. These campaigns aim to achieve concrete results that have a real impact on people’s lives. They have goals and objectives, target audience and target media, key message(s) and tactics. They are disseminated through different channels – both ‘new’ media – online and social, but also traditional – press, television, radio, posters, leaflets, etc. as well as alternative media channels (e.g. use of theatre, comedians).

Your task is to choose an existing human rights campaign that is of interest to you and/or you are already familiar with and produce a report to evaluate it. In writing the report, please reflect on the following: Relevance o This is about the suitability or appropriateness of the campaign in relation to the behaviours or beliefs it seeks to influence. Here you can talk about its selection of goals and objectives. Effectiveness o Did the campaign work well? Efficiency o Was the way the campaign was conducted the best way to achieve its aims? Results/impact o What has happened as a result of the campaign?

The report should be structured as follows: an introduction explaining the campaign, main part (including discussion of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and results) and a concluding section reflecting on wider significance for human rights campaigning. You are expected to reference any sources you use, but as this is not an essay the expectation is for a smaller number of texts to be consulted. A text that will be particularly useful and I strongly recommend you read while working on this assignment is: Boyle, E. H. et al. 2017. Making Human Rights Campaigns Effective While Limiting Unintended Consequences. Lessons from Recent Research. University of Minnesota: Research and Innovation Grants Working Papers Series (available for download as a PDF file here: https://www.iie.org/en/Programs/USAID-Democracy-Fellows-and-GrantsProgram/Grants/Grantees/Learni ng-Agenda-Questions#UM)

Self-evaluation form Group members What kind of challenges did your group encounter in working on this assignment and how did you overcome them? Please respond in no more than 100 words.

Learning Outcomes

On successful completion of this module, students will be able to:	Brookes Attribute developed	Other GAs developed, if applicable
1. Analyse the changing nature of competing theories of development and their relationship to practice	Academic literacy
2. Assess key issues in the contemporary international politics of development	Academic literacy
3. Evaluate the complex relationship between political economy and development	Academic literacy
4. Assess the relationship between theory and practice in development in the contemporary era of global change	Academic literacy
5. Read critically the literature on international development	Research literacy
6. Demonstrate an advanced knowledge and understanding of an issue area of particular interest within international development	Research literacy
7. Manage workloads effectively and set personal goals	Critical self-awareness and personal literacy
8. Demonstrate the skills of reflective independent learning	Critical self-awareness and personal literacy
9. Communicate arguments orally, via online discussion forums and on paper	Critical self-awareness and personal literacy	Digital and information literacy
10. Develop research skills with information technology	Digital and information literacy	Research literacy
11. Demonstrate a critical understanding of how International Relations as a discipline is often built on dominant cultural understandings of the world	Active citizenship	Academic literacy

 

Annotated bibliography: in very brief

• Here’s what you can do in 100 – 150 words.

The full reference (not included in word count)
Summary What it is about?	§  The author’s purpose, aim or question §  Main argument, central idea, findings or conclusions §  What sort of text is it? General? Specific?
Evaluation What do I think about it?	§  Who is it written for? §  Particular strengths, from your point of view §  Any weaknesses or limitations?
Reflection How might I use it?	§  Has the text helped you understanding something better? How useful is it? Will you use it? How?

 

The general criteria used to assess your coursework are described below:

	Relevance	Knowledge and Understanding	Analysis	Presentation	Use of Sources
High Distinction   80%+	All the material introduced is valid and is well-blended into the overall structure of the work. The question is consistently addressed throughout.	The limits of the knowledge base and the main issues of debate within the literature are acknowledged. Theoretical and empirical aspects are understood in their complexity and nuance. Key texts are used effectively.	A clear, authoritative, and significantly original answer, reflecting on a comprehensive range of positions relevant to the question. Demonstrates a high level of independent thought and critical analysis. Borderline publishable.	Excellently written with a structure that enhances the development of the central arguments of the answer.	Quotations and references are correctly used and a substantial variety of relevant sources have been consulted.
Distinction   70%+	All the material introduced is valid and is well-blended into the overall structure of the work. The question is consistently addressed throughout.	The limits of the knowledge base and the main issues of debate within the literature are acknowledged. Theoretical and empirical aspects are understood in their complexity and nuance. Key texts are used effectively.	A clear and authoritative answer reflecting on a comprehensive range of positions relevant to the question. Demonstrates a high level of independent thought and critical analysis.	Very well written with a structure that enhances the development of the central arguments of the answer.	Quotations and references are correctly used and a substantial variety of relevant sources have been consulted.
Merit   60%-69%	The material introduced is valid.  The structure enables the question to be addressed directly.	Substantial knowledge of the debates within the literature is demonstrated. Theoretical and empirical aspects are well understood and appropriately applied. Key texts are recognised.	Shows an ability to incorporate a range of positions relevant to the question. Demonstrates a good level of independent thought and critical analysis.	Well written with some minor deficiencies in clarity. Has a structure that supports the development of the central arguments of the answer.	Quotations and references are correctly used and a good variety of relevant sources have been consulted.
Pass   50%-59%	Most of the material introduced is valid. The question is addressed but there is a lack of focus in places.	Knowledge of the debates within the literature is demonstrated. Theoretical and empirical aspects are included, but not without some difficulties in understanding. Some key texts are recognised.	A limited range of positions are covered but not without problems in incorporating these into the answer. Some evidence of independent thought and analysis.	Competently written with some deficiencies in clarity. Has a structure that generally allows the development of the central arguments.	Quotations and references are correctly used with only minor problems. A variety of relevant sources have been consulted.
Marginal Fail   40%-49%	The material introduced bears some relevance to the question. However, there is a lack of focus and the question is only addressed in a superficial way.	A limited knowledge of the debates within the literature is demonstrated. There are problems with the understanding of theoretical and empirical aspects. A limited number of key texts are recognised.	A small number of positions are covered although these are not integrated into the answer. There is a lack of independent analysis and the answer is almost exclusively descriptive.	Written with significant deficiencies in clarity. Has a structure that allows, but does not support, the development of the central arguments of the answer.	Significant problems with the use of quotations and references. A limited number of sources have been consulted and some are not appropriate or relevant.
Fail   0%-39%	The material introduced bears little or no relevance to the question. The question is not directly addressed.	There is little engagement with the debates in the literature and very few key texts are recognised.	The answer rarely goes beyond simple paraphrasing of the opinions of others. No independent analysis at all.	Poorly written with major deficiencies in clarity. Lacks a clear structure and any central arguments.	Major problems with the use of quotations and references. Very few sources have been consulted and most are not appropriate or relevant.

 

Assignment(Annotated Bibliography)1500 words

Your annotated bibliography should consist of five readings from the detailed reading list(Essential/Supplementary) for weeks 2-6. You must do only five, and must do one from each week. You should try and give equal space to each piece (approx 300 words each).

If reviewing monographs you must refer to at least one chapter. Alternatively you may review a single chapter from an edited volume or a journal article.

 

You should try and give equal space to each piece (approx 300 words each).

Week 2: Modernization Theory and Structuralism

This week we focus on the two main theoretical approaches that dominated the debate on international development in the post-war era. First, modernization theory, which interpreted development as the move from the ‘traditional’ to the ‘modern’, will be discussed. We will also look at dependency and world-systems analysis, which offered a direct challenge to modernization theory in the 1960s and 1970s by viewing the world capitalist economy as an unequal system.

Week 2 Essential Reading

Questions for online discussion: 1. Are obstacles to development in the Global South domestic or structural? 2. What was modernization theory and why did it become the first orthodoxy in post-war development thinking? 3. What are the key aspects of the structuralist critique of modernization theory? 4. How could we criticise the main elements of dependency theory? 5. Do modernization theory and/or structuralism have any relevance to the contemporary international development situation?

Understanding Development

• Book
• by Paul Hopper
• 2018
• Essential

Chapter 1, pp. 18-27. Available as print and e-book

Modernization and Dependency: Alternative Perspectives in the Study of Latin American Underdevelopment in Comparative Politics

• Article
• by J. Samuel Valenzuela; Arturo Valenzuela
• 1978
• Essential

The End of Peripheries? On the Enduring Relevance of Structuralism for Understanding Contemporary Global Development in Development and Change

• Article
• by Andrew M. Fischer
• Essential

Week 2 Supplementary: Modernisation Theory

Modernization Theory and the Sociological Study of Development. in Journal of Development Studies

• Article
• by Henry Bernstein
• 1971

Neo-Modernization? IR and the Inner Life of Modernization Theory in European Journal of International Relations

• Article
• by David L. Blaney; Naeem Inayatullah
• 2002

Week 3: The Neo-Liberal Turn

During the early 1980s a major shift in the development debate took place. The popularity of neo-classical economic thinking in key Northern countries resulted in the spread of neo-liberal ideology. This had a huge impact on the politics of international development. The free-market was now seen as the key factor in development policy-making. This week we critically consider the elements of neo-liberalism and how it informed the activities of key institutions.

Week 3 Essential Reading

Questions for online discussion: 1. What are the key elements of the neo-liberal approach to development? 2. Why did neo-liberalism become popular among elites in the 1980s? 3. How does neo-liberal economic theory inform the policy of the World Bank and IMF? 4. What criticisms have been made of the ‘Washington Consensus’?

Week 3 Supplementary

Paradigm and nexus: neoclassical economics and the growth imperative in the World Bank, 1948–2000 in Review of International Political Economy

• Article
• by Bentley B. Allan
• 2019

‘Knowledge management’: a case study of the World Bank’s research department in Development in Practice

• Article
• by Robin Broad
• 2007

Reclaiming Development from the Washington Consensus in Journal of Post Keynesian Economics

• Article
• by Ha-Joon Chang; Ilene Grabel
• 2004

Neoliberalism and Patterns of Economic Performance, 1980-2000 in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science

• Article
• by Joseph Nathan Cohen; Miguel Angel Centeno
• 2006

Spreading the Wealth in Foreign Affairs

• Article
• by David Dollar; Aart Kraay
• 2002

Development as Zombieconomics in the Age of Neoliberalism in Third World Quarterly

• Article
• by Ben Fine
• 2009

Neo-Liberalism in Capital & Class

• Article
• by Andrew Gamble
• 2001

Week 4: The Developmental State Debate

The development success story of the East-Asian Newly-Industrialising Countries (NICs) during the 1980s contrasted strongly with the experience of most of the developing world. A debate ensued as to how their success could be explained. The World Bank published a volume entitled The East Asian Miracle in 1993, which concluded that the explanation of the success lay in a market-friendly approach. Other adherents of the neo-liberal view argued that East-Asian NICs had been so successful because by relying on the private sector and free trade, they had been able to minimise government failure so common in other developing countries. An alternative view, often called the ‘developmental state’ approach, has suggested that the core of East-Asian success lies in enlightened policy activism of national governments. This week we consider this debate and the role of the state in development strategy.

Week 4 Essential Reading

Questions for online discussion: 1. How does the role of the state in neo-liberal development thinking contrast with the experience of the East-Asian NICs? 2. Can we generalise about the experience of the East-Asian NICs? 3. Could the East-Asian model of the developmental state be emulated by other developing countries today?

Developmental States in Africa? A Review of Ongoing Debates and Buzzwords in Development Policy Review

• Article
• by Laura Routley
• 2014
• Essential

Twenty-first century developmental states? Argentina under the Kirchners in Third World Quarterly

• Article
• by Christopher Wylde
• 2018
• Essential

Week 4 Supplementary

The Lessons of East Asian Development: An Overview in Economic Development & Cultural Change

• Article
• by Bela Balassa
• 1988

Postwar Development in the Asian NICs: Does the Neoliberal Model Fit Reality? in Economic Geography

Article

• by John Brohman
• 1996

The East Asian development experience: the miracle, the crisis and the future

• Book
• by Ha-Joon Chang
• 2006

Chapter 1

‘Big Deal’ or big disappointment? The continuing evolution of the South Korean developmental state in The Pacific Review

• Article
• by Judith Cherry
• 2005

The Ethiopian developmental state in Third World Quarterly

• Article
• by Christopher Clapham
• 2018

Week 5: Post-Washington Consensus / Beijing Consensus

The dominance of neo-liberal thinking, or the ‘Washington Consensus’ as it became known came under increasing attack during the 1990s. This led to claims of a shift in thinking, most notably within the World Bank itself. This week we will consider the ‘Post-Washington Consensus’ and its claim to present ‘globalisation with a human face’. We will also consider the rise of China in recent years and the emerging debate in the literature about the possibility of an alternative to free-market capitalism or ‘Beijing Consensus’.

Week 5 Essential Reading

Questions for online discussion: 1. What are the main differences between the ‘Washington Consensus’ (WC) and the ‘Post-Washington Consensus’ (PWC)? 2. Does the PWC represent an improvement on the WC? 3. How unique is the model of development currently being pursued by China? 4. Is the so-called ‘Beijing Consensus’ applicable to other countries in the developing world?

Rethinking the Emerging Post-Washington Consensus in Development and Change

• Article
• by Ziya Onis; Fikret Senses
• 2005
• Essential

The ‘China model’ and the global crisis: from Friedrich List to a Chinese mode of governance? in International Affairs

• Article
• by Shaun Breslin
• 2011
• Essential

Dissecting China’s Rise: Controversies over the China Model in China Perspectives

• Article
• by Xiaoshuo Hou
• 2014
• Essential

Week 5 Supplementary: Post-Washington Consensus

The Death of the Washington Consensus? in World Policy Journal

• Article
• by Robin Broad; John Cavanagh
• 1999

Neither the Washington nor the post-Washington consensus: An introduction in Development policy in the twenty-first century: beyond the post-Washington consensus

• Chapter
• by Ben Fine
• 2001

Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers: Now Who Calls the Shots? in Review of African Political Economy

• Article
• by Alastair Fraser
• 2005

Good Governance, R.I.P.: A Critique and an Alternative in Governance

• Article
• by Merilee S. Grindle
• 2017

Whither the post-Washington Consensus? International financial institutions and development policy before and after the crisis in Review of International Political Economy

• Article
• by Ali Burak Güven
• 2018

Week 6: Critical theory / Post-Development theory

In response to the rise of neo-liberal theory and policy, came a backlash from critical scholars. However, they remained very much on the margins of the academic debate. This week we will consider what appears to be a growing resurgence in critical approaches. We will also consider post-development theory, which offers a critique of the discourse of ‘development’ itself.

Week 6 Essential Reading

Questions for online discussion: 1. What insights do contemporary critical theorists offer us in understanding processes of development and underdevelopment? 2. Are you convinced by Robinson’s call for a reconceptualisation of ‘development’ in light of globalisation? 3. How useful is the post-development emphasis on particular circumstances and contexts rather than generalization? 4. What are the key criticisms levelled against post-development arguments?

Understanding Development

• Book
• by Paul Hopper
• 2018
• Essential

Chapter 2, pp. 46-52. Available as print and e-book

Remapping development in light of globalisation: From a territorial to a social cartography in Third World Quarterly

• Article
• by William I Robinson
• 2002
• Essential

Post-Development: Premature Burials and Haunting Ghosts in Development and Change

• Article
• by Aram Ziai
• 2015
• Essential

The Last Refuge of the Noble Savage? A Critical Assessment of Post-Development Theory. in European Journal of Development Research

• Article
• by Ray Kiely
• 1999
• Essential

Week 6 Supplementary: Critical theory

Economism and critical silences in development studies: A theoretical critique of neoliberalism in Third World Quarterly

• Article
• by John Brohman
• 1995

Neo-Liberalism: The World Bank, and the New Politics of Development in Development theory and practice: critical perspectives

• Chapter
• by Paul Cammack
• 2002

Development Alternatives to Neoliberal Globalization: Or Are There No Alternatives? in Review of Radical Political Economics

• Article
• by Dennis C. Canterbury
• 2004

Bringing Development Back into Development Studies in Development and Change

• Article
• by Andrew M. Fischer
• 2019

The core for this research proposal in bold:

“The whole system change”, not just focusing on innovation itself, to make a transition of the whole system (product, business model, governance, social) to enable a sustainable transition.  And to investigate multi actor groups cooperation, collaborations and influences during the transition. With focus in China or the USA.

And below is the official guidance and introduction:

The PhD topic: Governing sustainable energy-mobility transitions in 1) UK with Scotland, 2) USA with California or 3) China with Guangdong

The EMPOCI PhD students will be enrolled for a PhD in Science and Technology Policy Studies and are expected to produce a cumulative PhD thesis (based on three peer-reviewed journal articles). The PhD topic will contribute to answering the overarching research question of the EMPOCI project on how to accelerate the low-carbon transition in the increasingly interconnected energy and mobility systems on a regional and national level. For this, the PhD students will be involved in all work packages of the EMPOCI project (except WP5), with each student focussing on a different country (UK, US or China) including a pioneering region within that country (Scotland, California or Guangdong).

Conceptually, each PhD will seek to enrich the interdisciplinary field of socio-technical innovation/transition studies (Koehler et al., 2019; Zolfagharian et al., 2019) with theories, concepts, and approaches from the field of policy studies to enable a better understanding of the governance of politically contested and complex multi-sectoral sustainability transitions (Kern and Rogge, 2018; Kern et al., 2019). For this, the PhD could, for example, draw on the advocacy coalition framework (Weible et al., 2011), discourse analysis (Hajer and Versteeg, 2005) or governance network theory (Klijn and Koppenjan, 2012), but other suggestions are also very welcome (Sabatier and Weible, 2014).

The proposed interdisciplinary framework shall foreground the causal interplay between actors (business, policy, academia, society), multi-level policy mixes and low-carbon innovations (technological, organisational, business model, social, institutional and/or policy innovation), and the role of transformative capacity and exogenous conditions for the unfolding co-evolutionary transition processes (Wolfram, 2016; Edmondson et al., 2019). By adopting a socio-political transitions perspective the PhD will recognize the existence of barriers arising from lock-in, vested interests and resistance to change, and will pay dedicated attention to the politics and power involved in transition processes (Geels, 2014; Stirling, 2014; Smink et al., 2015). This implies that acceleration not only calls for the coordination of efforts on different governance levels (e.g. national vs regional) and policy fields (climate vs industrial policy), but also for implementing policy mixes for creative destruction (Kivimaa and Kern, 2016; Rogge and Reichardt, 2016).

Empirically, each PhD student will focus on conducting one country/region case study, combining qualitative and quantitative analysis. Interested candidates should indicate whether they intend to study 1) the UK with Scotland, 2) the USA with California or 3) China with Guangdong.

The PhD topics shall follow EMPOCI in acknowledging that deep decarbonization requires simultaneous low-carbon transitions in multiple sectors (Geels et al., 2017; Schot and Kanger, 2018), such as across the electricity-mobility-ICT systems, reflecting trends in electrification, digitization and decentralisation (Canzler et al., 2017; Di Silvestre et al., 2018). PhD proposals can assume a broad perspective on energy-mobility transitions, but are also welcome to suggest (a) key area(s) for in-depth investigation, such as electricity storage/grid innovation or novel ICT/digitalization solutions at the interface of energy-mobility systems. In addition, PhD topics can give an equal weight on studying business, policy, academia and society as relevant actor groups, but may also suggest conducting in-depth investigations on (a) particular actor group(s), such as media, trade unions or NGOs.

Data will be collected through desktop analysis, expert interviews, multi-actor case studies and surveys, much of which will be undertaken in the country/region in question (incl. one year in the field). In particular, the qualitative case studies shall seek to investigate which role actors and their networks play for the interplay between policy mixes and low-carbon inno­vations, and how this is influenced by transformative capacity and exogenous conditions. In contrast, the quantitative survey analysis shall aim at investigating to what extent multi-level policy mixes explain the innovation activities of actors involved in multi-sectoral transition processes, and vice versa, and what is the role of transformative capacity for this interplay. The PhD topics may also propose to draw on big data analytics (e.g. social media analysis) and other novel methods (particularly from the field of policy studies) – thereby enhancing our understanding of the interplay between policy mixes and socio-technical change.

 

EMPOCI Project

In its 1.5°C report the IPCC stressed that global efforts to promote low-carbon transitions need to be accelerated to meet the Paris Agreement. This raises a number of questions for the emerging field of policy mixes for sustainability transitions, such as on the role of actors and multi-level governance in interconnected and politically contested socio-technical transition processes. The EMPOCI project, funded by the ERC, aims at addressing these knowledge gaps through its three objectives:

1. To provide a novel conceptual and empirical understanding of the global interplay between multi-level policy mixes and low-carbon innovations in socio-technical transitions which foregrounds the role of actors and transformative capacity.

• By bridging the innovation/transition and policy studies literatures and comparatively analyzing the increasingly interconnected electricity-mobility-ICT systems in four key countries (Germany, UK, China, USA), EMPOCI will advance the research frontier on transformative policy mixes for low-carbon transitions.

2. To develop and test widely applicable novel methodological tools enabling both deep and broad insights into the drivers and barriers in unfolding multi-sectoral transition processes towards sustainability.

• Drawing on a multi-method research design EMPOCI will provide novel standards for assessing policy, agency and innovation dynamics in politically contested low-carbon transition processes (e.g. surveys, big data, foresight).

3. 3. To co-design practically relevant multi-actor strategies for accelerating sustainable energy-mobility transitions, thereby supporting the Paris Agreement in combating climate change.

• Based on EMPOCI’s findings a transformative foresight process is organized with stakeholders from business, policy, academia and society to jointly derive implications for transformative policy mixes.

EMPOCI is a 5-year project that starts on June 1, 2020 and is led by Prof Karoline Rogge. Her project team will be composed of one research fellow (for 5 years) and two PhD students (for 3.5 years). The successful PhD candidates will be expected to start on June 15, 2020 or on September 15, 2020. For more information please see: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/research/projects/empoci

Further Information on the School / Department

was formed in 2009 and comprises the Department of Accounting and Finance, the Department of Strategy and Marketing, the Department of Management, the Department of Economics and the Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU). With a new home in the Jubilee Building, a state-of-the-art academic building at the heart of the campus, the Business School is a vibrant, ambitious and dynamic School with a strong research focus.

SPRU (Science Policy Research Unit)

Founded in 1966 by Christopher Freeman,  was one of the first interdisciplinary research centres in the field of science and technology policy and management. Today, with over 60 faculty members, SPRU remains at the forefront of new ideas, problem-orientated research, inspiring teaching, and creative, high impact engagement with decision makers across government, business and civil society. Our research addresses pressing global policy agendas, including innovation challenges posed by the digital economy, the future of industrial policy, inclusive economic growth, the politics of scientific expertise, energy policy, security issues, entrepreneurship, and pathways to a more sustainable future.

SPRU researchers are driven by a desire to tackle real-world questions, whilst also contributing to a deeper theoretical understanding of how science, technology and innovation is shaping today’s world. A 2012 study published in the journal ‘Research Policy’ ranked SPRU second only to Harvard University in terms of its research impact in innovation studies.

With a community of over 140 MSc and doctoral students from all over the world, SPRU is also well known for its high quality, research-led teaching programmes.

The Sussex Energy Group (SEG)

The Sussex Energy Group (SEG) aims to understand and foster transitions towards sustainable, low carbon energy systems. Drawing from SPRU’s tradition, researchers in the Sussex Energy Group undertake academically rigorous, interdisciplinary and world-leading research that is relevant to contemporary policy challenges. SEG also educates the next generation of energy policy professionals through our MSc and PhD programmes.

SEG’s research interests are in the prospects for a more sustainable energy future. The group’s expertise covers a wide range of areas, including energy innovation and transitions, economics and finance, energy justice, energy demand and behaviour, smart infrastructure, and energy supply technologies.

Brighton, January 6, 2020

References

Canzler, W., Engels, F., Rogge, J.-C., Simon, D., Wentland, A., 2017. From “living lab” to strategic action field: Bringing together energy, mobility, and Information Technology in Germany. Energy Research & Social Science 27, 25–35. 10.1016/j.erss.2017.02.003.

Di Silvestre, M.L., Favuzza, S., Riva Sanseverino, E., Zizzo, G., 2018. How Decarbonization, Digitalization and Decentralization are changing key power infrastructures. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 93 (June), 483–498. 10.1016/j.rser.2018.05.068.

Edmondson, D.L., Kern, F., Rogge, K.S., 2019. The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 103555. 10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.010.

Geels, F.W., 2014. Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective. Theory, Culture & Society 31 (5), 21–40. 10.1177/0263276414531627.

Geels, F.W., Sovacool, B.K., Schwanen, T., Sorrell, S., 2017. Sociotechnical transitions for deep decarbonization. Science (New York, N.Y.) 357 (6357), 1242–1244. 10.1126/science.aao3760.

Hajer, M., Versteeg, W., 2005. A decade of discourse analysis of environmental politics: Achievements, challenges, perspectives. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 7 (3), 175–184. 10.1080/15239080500339646.

Kern, F., Rogge, K.S., 2018. Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: A critical survey. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 27, 102–117. 10.1016/j.eist.2017.11.001.

Kern, F., Rogge, K.S., Howlett, M., 2019. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. Research Policy, 103832. 10.1016/j.respol.2019.103832.

Kivimaa, P., Kern, F., 2016. Creative destruction or mere niche support?: Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy 45 (1), 205–217. 10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008.

Klijn, E.-H., Koppenjan, J., 2012. Governance network theory: Past, present and future. Policy & Politics 40 (4), 587–606. 10.1332/030557312X655431.

Köhler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M.S., Nykvist, B., Onsongo, E., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sandén, B., Schot, J., Sovacool, B., Turnheim, B., Welch, D., Wells, P., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 31, 1–32. 10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.

Rogge, K.S., Reichardt, K., 2016. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: An extended concept and framework for analysis. Research Policy 45 (8), 1620–1635. 10.1016/j.respol.2016.04.004.

Sabatier, P.A., Weible, C.M., 2014. Theories of the policy process, 3rd ed. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Schot, J., Kanger, L., 2018. Deep transitions: Emergence, acceleration, stabilization and directionality. Research Policy 47 (6), 1045–1059. 10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.009.

Smink, M.M., Hekkert, M.P., Negro, S.O., 2015. Keeping sustainable innovation on a leash? Exploring incumbents’ institutional strategies. Bus. Strat. Env. 24 (2), 86–101. 10.1002/bse.1808.

Stirling, A., 2014. Transforming power: Social science and the politics of energy choices. Energy Research & Social Science 1, 83–95. 10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.001.

Weible, C.M., Sabatier, P.A., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A.D., deLeon, P., 2011. A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: An introduction to the special issue. Policy Studies Journal 39 (3), 349–360. 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00412.x.

Wolfram, M., 2016. Conceptualizing urban transformative capacity: A framework for research and policy. Cities 51, 121–130. 10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.011.

Zolfagharian, M., Walrave, B., Raven, R., Romme, A.G.L., 2019. Studying transitions: Past, present, and future. Research Policy 48, 103788. 10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.012.