Suchergebnisse

The non-signing of the association and free trade agreement with the EU by the former Ukrainian president Victor Janukovych triggered the on-going conflict in the Ukraine. By offering a deepening of the political and economic relations with the West, the EU did not consider Russia's interests in the post-Soviet region. Drawing on Harvey, the article argues that within this process the territorial-geopolitical logic prevails over the capitalist logic of power. Economic interests of the European Union exist, but they are not sufficient to explain the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Rather, the conflict can be understood as a non-intentional consequence of the EU's politics concernging the Ukraine. In particular, three sectors – finance, energy and agriculture – are relevant for the EU in Ukraine. However, up to now the European capital factions are facing difficulties in asserting their interests in these sectors due to strong oligarchic structures in the country. Together with the territorial-geopolitical logic of power they have to be taken into account to explain the conflict. Ultimately, the armed conflict in the Eastern Ukraine endangers the EU's economic ties with Russia. These are more important for the EU than its economic relations with Ukraine. As a result, the territorial-geopolitical logic unfolds as opposed to the capitalist logic in the conflict.

"The non-signing of the association and free trade agreement with the EU by the former Ukrainian president Victor Janukovych triggered the on-going conflict in the Ukraine. By offering a deepening of the political and economic relations with the West, the EU did not consider Russia's interests in the post-Soviet region. Drawing on Harvey, the article argues that within this process the territorial-geopolitical logic prevails over the capitalist logic of power. Economic interests of the European Union exist, but they are not sufficient to explain the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. Rather, the conflict can be understood as a non-intentional consequence of the EU's politics concerning the Ukraine. In particular, three sectors - finance, energy and agriculture - are relevant for the EU in Ukraine. However, up to now the European capital factions are facing difficulties in asserting their interests in these sectors due to strong oligarchic structures in the country. Together with the territorial-geopolitical logic of power they have to be taken into account to explain the conflict. Ultimately, the armed conflict in the Eastern Ukraine endangers the EU's economic ties with Russia. these are more important for the EU than its economic relations with Ukraine. As a result, the territorial-geopolitical logic unfolds as opposed to the capitalist logic in the conflict." (author's abstract)

Presentation on "Provisioning systems and their implications for the transformation of the stock-flow-service nexus. Space, time and the role of the state" given at 2nd Austrian Conference on International Resource Politics: Resources for a social-ecological transformation, FEB 28 - MAR 2, 2019, Innsbruck, AUSTRIA

The planetary boundaries concept has profoundly changed the vocabulary and representation of global environmental issues. We bring a critical social science perspective to this framework through the notion of societal boundaries and aim to provide a more nuanced understanding of the social nature of thresholds. We start by highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of planetary boundaries from a social science perspective. We then focus on capitalist societies as a heuristic for discussing the expansionary dynamics, power relations, and lock-ins of modern societies that impel highly unsustainable societal relations with nature. While formulating societal boundaries implies a controversial process ‒ based on normative judgments, ethical concerns, and socio-political struggles ‒ it has the potential to offer guidelines for a just, social-ecological transformation. Collective autonomy and the politics of self-limitation are key elements of societal boundaries and are linked to important proposals and pluriverse experiences to integrate well-being and boundaries. The role of the state and propositions for radical alternative approaches to well-being have particular importance. We conclude with reflections on social freedom, defined as the right not to live at others' expense. Toward the aim of defining boundaries through transdisciplinary and democratic processes, we seek to open a dialogue on these issues.

The planetary boundaries concept has profoundly changed the vocabulary and representation of global environmental issues. We bring a critical social science perspective to this framework through the notion of societal boundaries and aim to provide a more nuanced understanding of the social nature of thresholds. We start by highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of planetary boundaries from a social science perspective. We then focus on capitalist societies as a heuristic for discussing the expansionary dynamics, power relations, and lock-ins of modern societies that impel highly unsustainable societal relations with nature. While formulating societal boundaries implies a controversial process ‒ based on normative judgments, ethical concerns, and socio-political struggles ‒ it has the potential to offer guidelines for a just, social-ecological transformation. Collective autonomy and the politics of self-limitation are key elements of societal boundaries and are linked to important proposals and pluriverse experiences to integrate well-being and boundaries. The role of the state and propositions for radical alternative approaches to well-being have particular importance. We conclude with reflections on social freedom, defined as the right not to live at others' expense. Toward the aim of defining boundaries through transdisciplinary and democratic processes, we seek to open a dialogue on these issues.

Degrowth has emerged as one of the most exciting, and contested, fields of research into the drivers of global heating, ecological collapse, and economic injustice. The perspective is both a critique of existing growth-based models of development, which it argues have put humanity on a collision course with non-negotiable ecological limits, and a vision for a brighter future in which humans and non-humans alike can flourish. By putting an end to growth-seeking economic development and boundless energetic and material throughputs, degrowth's proponents suggest we can build an economy that meets the material needs of people and planet for generations to come. This handbook's contributions signal the importance of degrowth across multiple disciplines and practices. Along the way, they grapple with some of the most critical questions, ideological assumptions, policies, and social struggles of our time. The handbook approaches degrowth as a loosely knit and developing set of interdisciplinary propositions about what it might take to achieve a world of human and non-human flourishing. Contributors explore, challenge, and critique degrowth's propositions and its prospects of shaping scholarly agendas, policy frameworks, and social movements. Essays consider degrowth from a variety of empirical and theoretical vantages, including urban design, architecture, political economy, political ecology, critical geography, and political theory. This integrative approach, at once critical and constructive, aims to preserve for readers the sense of possibility that has drawn people to degrowth scholarship thus far