Transitioning into a sustainable energy system is becoming ever more pressing as the reality of an anthropogenic ecological crisis becomes difficult to ignore. Due to the complexity of the matter, proposed solutions often address the symptoms of the current socioeconomic configuration rather than its core. To conceptualise possible future energy systems, this Perspective focuses on the disconnect between science and technology and engineering studies. On the one hand, this disconnect leads to social science research that passively critiques rather than contributes to tackling societal issues in practice. On the other, it produces technical work limited by the incumbent conceptualisations of economic activity and organisational configurations around production without capturing the broader social and political dynamics. We thus propose a schema for bridging this divide that uses the "commons" as an umbrella concept. We apply this framework on the hardware aspect of a conceptual energy system, which builds on networked microgrids powered by open-source, lower cost, adaptable, socially responsible and sustainable technology. This Perspective is a call to engineers and social scientists alike to form genuine transdisciplinary collaborations for developing radical alternatives to the energy conundrum.
Strategic spatial planning (SSP) has been a key planning practice supporting spatial transformation globally. However, designing and implementing strategic spatial plans is a complex task. The process involves prioritizing planning intentions, establishing funding mechanisms and structuring governance settings, which take shape within power configurations. It is within this complexity that a participatory and integrative planning approach assume increasingly importance when addressing, strategically, societal challenges such as spatial injustice. Furthermore, a consolidated planning practice – that is the experiences in dealing with SSP are thought to influence how strategic plans are prepared and executed. Bearing in mind the influential role of preceding experiences in SSP processes as well as of participation, project promotion and policy integration, this paper synthesises the results of a literature review reflecting three decades of SSP (1990-2020) in England. England has a well-defined history of engagements with SSP. The purpose is to discuss lessons learned from looking back thirty years and debate suggestions for how to design future SSP that account for public and private interests and align cross-sectoral policies. To overcome democratic accountability constraints and steering resource management effectively, this review pleas for more cooperative central–local relationships in shaping future SSP processes in England and beyond.
Strategic spatial planning (SSP) has been a key planning practice supporting spatial transformation globally. However, designing and implementing strategic spatial plans is a complex task. The process involves prioritizing planning intentions, establishing funding mechanisms and structuring governance settings, which take shape within power configurations. It is within this complexity that a participatory and integrative planning approach assume increasingly importance when addressing, strategically, societal challenges such as spatial injustice. Furthermore, a consolidated planning practice – that is the experiences in dealing with SSP are thought to influence how strategic plans are prepared and executed. Bearing in mind the influential role of preceding experiences in SSP processes as well as of participation, project promotion and policy integration, this paper synthesises the results of a literature review reflecting three decades of SSP (1990-2020) in England. England has a well-defined history of engagements with SSP. The purpose is to discuss lessons learned from looking back thirty years and debate suggestions for how to design future SSP that account for public and private interests and align cross-sectoral policies. To overcome democratic accountability constraints and steering resource management effectively, this review pleas for more cooperative central–local relationships in shaping future SSP processes in England and beyond.
In: Fuglsang , L & Hansen , A V 2022 , ' Framing improvements of public innovation in a living lab context : Processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement ' , Research Policy , vol. 51 , no. 1 , 104390 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104390
Public innovation has received increasing attention in recent years. Experiments with new governance structures, such as New Public Management and New Public Governance, have challenged the traditional top-down, internally driven forms of innovation in the public sector and have entailed a search for new forms of open, collaborative and interactive innovation, implying a reframing of public innovation activities. However, introducing these new frames of innovation causes uncertainties in the public sector, necessitating better understanding of how public innovation can be changed to address societal needs. This paper uses materials from case studies of 21 public living labs across Europe to analyse the lessons that can be learned from public sector participation in living labs in terms of their contribution to reframing public innovation. The "frame" construct is used to analyse and provide an understanding of how participation in living labs helps public actors to reframe innovation and address public and societal needs. Three living lab framings for changing public innovation are identified (processual learning, restrained space and democratic engagement), and the degree of intensity of these framings with respect to involving stakeholders and addressing societal challenges is discussed. The paper contributes to knowledge of public sector innovation by extending previous accounts of how public innovation can be improved.
The Gnassingbé clan has ruled the country since 1967. The demand for political alternance, initiated by institutional and electoral reforms, constituted the major contentious issue between the government and the challengers of the Gnassingbé regime throughout the survey period. The legislative elections of 20 December 2018, boycotted by the major opposition parties, resulted in an easy victory of the ruling party. The first local elections since more than 30 years took finally place on 30 June 2019 and resulted in the victory of the ruling party. Shortly afterwards, in February 2020, the President won also the disputed presidential elections and even consolidated his power, assisted by the loyal army and security services. The outbreak of the Corona epidemic in Togo in April and the subsequent economic recession may have contributed to limit popular protest against the Gnassingbé regime. The human rights record of the government has improved but remains poor. Despite undeniable improvements to the framework and appearance of the regime's key institutions during the review period, democracy remains far from complete. However, the international community, notably Togo's African peers, the AU and ECOWAS, followed a 'laissez-faire' approach in the interests of regional stability and their national interests in dealing with Togo. Economic growth remained stable at about 5% per annum (before Corona). Public investment in infrastructure and increases in agricultural productivity, notably of export crops, had been the key drivers of economic growth. However, growth remains vulnerable to external shocks and the climate and has not been inclusive. Positive growth was overshadowed by increasing inter-personal and regional inequality as well as an increase in extreme poverty. Moreover, money-laundering, illegal money transfers and trafficking grew alarmingly. The business climate improved considerably nevertheless. ; Author's enhanced version ; RÉSUMÉ: Le clan Gnassingbé dirige le pays depuis 1967. La revendication d'alternance politique, initiée par des réformes institutionnelles et électorales, a constitué le principal litige entre le gouvernement et les challengers du régime Gnassingbé tout au long de la période d'enquête. Les élections législatives du 20 décembre 2018, boycottées par les principaux partis d'opposition, se sont soldées par une victoire facile du parti au pouvoir. Les premières élections locales depuis plus de 30 ans ont finalement eu lieu le 30 juin 2019 et ont abouti à la victoire du parti au pouvoir. Peu de temps après, en février 2020, le président a remporté également les élections présidentielles contestées. Par cela il a même consolidé son pouvoir, aidé par l'armée fidèle et les services de sécurité. Le déclenchement de l'épidémie de Corona au Togo en avril 2020 et la récession économique qui a suivi, ont peut-être contribué à limiter les protestations populaires contre le régime de Gnassingbé. Le bilan du gouvernement en matière de droits humains s'est amélioré, mais reste médiocre. Malgré des améliorations indéniables du cadre et de l'apparence des principales institutions du régime pendant la période à l'examen, la démocratie reste loin d'être achevée. Cependant, la communauté internationale, notamment les pairs africains du Togo, l'UA et la CEDEAO, ont suivi une approche de «laissez-faire» dans l'intérêt de la stabilité régionale et de leurs intérêts nationaux face au Togo. La croissance économique est restée stable à environ 5 % par an (avant Corona). Les investissements publics dans les infrastructures et les augmentations de la productivité agricole, notamment des cultures d'exportation, ont été les principaux moteurs de la croissance économique. Cependant, la croissance reste vulnérable aux chocs externes et au climat, et le développement n'a pas été inclusive. La croissance positive a été éclipsée par l'augmentation des inégalités interpersonnelles et régionales ainsi que par une augmentation de l'extrême pauvreté. En outre, le blanchiment d'argent, les transferts d'argent illégaux et le trafic ont augmenté de façon alarmante. Le climat des affaires s'est néanmoins considérablement amélioré. --- ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Der Gnassingbé-Clan regiert das Land seit 1967. Die Forderung nach politischer Abwechslung, die durch institutionelle Reformen und Wahlreformen ausgelöst wurde, war das Hauptstreitpunkt zwischen der Regierung und den Herausforderern des Gnassingbé-Regimes während des gesamten Untersuchungszeitraums. Die von den großen Oppositionsparteien boykottierten Parlamentswahlen vom 20. Dezember 2018 führten zu einem leichten Sieg der Regierungspartei. Die ersten Kommunalwahlen seit mehr als 30 Jahren fanden schließlich am 30. Juni 2019 statt und führten zum Sieg der Regierungspartei. Kurz darauf, im Februar 2020, gewann der Präsident auch die umstrittenen Präsidentschaftswahlen. Somit festigte er sogar seine Macht, unterstützt von der loyalen Armee und den Sicherheitsdiensten. Der Ausbruch der Corona-Epidemie in Togo im April und die anschließende wirtschaftliche Rezession haben möglicherweise dazu beigetragen, den Protest der Bevölkerung gegen das Gnassingbé-Regime zu begrenzen. Die Menschenrechtsbilanz der Regierung hat sich verbessert, ist aber weiterhin schlecht. Trotz unbestreitbarer Verbesserungen des Rahmens und des Erscheinungsbilds der wichtigsten Institutionen des Regimes im Berichtszeitraum bleibt die Demokratie bei weitem nicht umfassend. Die internationale Gemeinschaft, insbesondere die afrikanischen Kollegen Faure Gnassingbés in der AU und ECOWAS, verfolgten jedoch im Interesse der regionalen Stabilität und in ihren nationalen Interessen im Umgang mit Togo einen "Laissez-Faire"-Ansatz. Das Wirtschaftswachstum blieb stabil bei etwa 5% pro Jahr (vor Corona). Öffentliche Investitionen in die Infrastruktur und die Steigerung der landwirtschaftlichen Produktivität, insbesondere in Exportkulturen, waren die Haupttreiber des Wirtschaftswachstums. Das Wachstum bleibt jedoch anfällig für externe Schocks und das Klima und war nicht inklusiv. Das positive Wachstum wurde durch die zunehmende zwischenmenschliche und regionale Ungleichheit sowie die Zunahme der extremen Armut überschattet. Darüber hinaus nahmen Geldwäsche, illegale Geldtransfers und Menschenhandel alarmierend zu. Das Geschäftsklima hat sich dennoch erheblich verbessert.
Unlike almost most other studies of neoliberal universities and academic capitalism this book ethnographically explores and interprets those transformations and their contradictions empirically in the everyday practices of students, faculty members, and administrators at two public universities: NTNU in Norway and UCLA in California.Differently situated in global political economies, both are ambitious, prosperous campuses. The book refl exively examines their disturbing disputes about quality, competition, and innovation. It argues that some academic, bureaucratic, and corporate university governance practices are both unsustainable and undermining what some university students and faculty already do well: circulate interdisciplinary knowledge and its making globally across the diasporic domains of academia, society, industry, and government while addressing the world's immediate challenges: power, inequities, and sustainability.It shows the important, strategic work of domesticating, co- morphing, and meshworking at the faultlines of emerging knowledge. This book is for students, faculty, society members, and policy makers who want to engage more effectively with contemporary universities that increasingly serve as busy crossroads for sharing ideas and how to make them. It will be of interest to workers and scholars in the interdisciplinary fi elds of higher education studies, critical university studies, and critical public infrastructure studies, plus science, technology, and society studies.
This paper aims to investigate the concept, context and socio-economic consequences of fiscal competition in the integrated economic space of EMU in completion, to pinpoint the positive and negative factors at work via a case study of the Benelux countries – both founder members of the EU and pioneers of EMU – and to examine the impact on European and international regulations in the field. In particular, it will endeavour to provide a comprehensive interpretation of fiscal policy in the Benelux countries via a comparative approach and from a historical perspective. It will look at the development of respective domestic fiscal policies, driven by national interests and by membership of a Community that is subject to requirements in terms of harmonisation and taxation, but also by constant contact (and frequent clashes) with the multilateral international environment.