Some Concluding Comments

  • Reihana MohideenEmail author


Engineering systems and models that factor social considerations into their design are an important development and can be classified as socio-technical systems. However, factoring in these considerations inevitably raises the questions: Who has the power to make decisions? For whose benefit are decisions made?

The AECP programmes and other examples suggest no technical or economic reason why renewable technologies cannot enable development “leapfrogging” the carbon-emitting stage, at the same time creating outcomes that improve gender equity and social inclusion.

Energy production is an extremely political affair, with powerful and competing vested interests which include governments, private sector corporations and marginalized people, women and men, and their communities. Women also have a vested interest in ensuring public and community control over energy production.


Socio-technical Causality Environment Politics Transforming Capitalism 


  1. Banerjee, S.G., et al. 2011. Power and People: The Benefits of Renewable Energy in Nepal. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bellamy Foster, John. 2000. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New York: Monthly Review Press.Google Scholar
  3. Cecelski, Elizabeth. 2005. Energy, Development and Gender: Global Correlations and Causality. Leusden, The Netherlands: ENERGIA International Network on Gender and Sustainable Energy.Google Scholar
  4. Commoner, Barry. 1972. The Closing Circle: Confronting the Environmental Crisis. London: Cape.Google Scholar
  5. Granger, C.W.J., and R. Joyeux. 1980. An Introduction to Long-memory Time Series Models and Fractional Differencing. Journal of Time Series Analysis 1: 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jacobsen, J. 2011. The Role of Technological Change in Increasing Gender Equity with a Focus on Information and Communications Technology. World Bank. World Development Report 2012: Gender Equity and Development: Background Paper, p. 8 and pp. 30–31.Google Scholar
  7. Legros, G., et al. 2011. Decentralised Energy Access and the Millennium Development Goals: An Analysis of the Development Benefits of Micro-Hydropower in Nepal. Rugby, UK: Practical Action Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nerini, F., et al. 2014. Rural Electrification Options in the Brazilian Amazon: A Multi-Criteria Analysis. Energy for Sustainable Development 20: 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rundle, Guy. 2014. A Revolution in the Making: 3D Printing, Robots and the Future. Melbourne: Affirm Press.Google Scholar
  10. Vanek, Joann. 1974. Time Spent in Housework. Scientific American 231 (5): 116–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Winrock International. 2008. Impacts and Its Contribution in Achieving MDGs – Assessment of Rural Energy Development Programme. Kathmandu, Nepal.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Electrical and Electronic EngineeringUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations