Advertisement

Energy Transitions and Power: Between Governmentality and Depoliticization

  • Andrea Bues
  • Ludger Gailing
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter focuses on a crucial aspect in energy transitions that has to date not received major attention: questions of power. Arguing that power and power relations constitute decisive determinants in energy transitions, the chapter explores ways of linking the concepts of governmentality and depoliticization in order to incorporate both actor- and non-actor-based power shifts in the study of energy transitions. The chapter provides an empirical illustration of how this combined conceptualization could be applied to study power shifts, exploring the case of contestation over wind energy in eastern Germany. It concludes that using both governmentality and depoliticization approaches offers a promising path to study the practices, tactics and discourses underpinning shifts in power relations.

Keywords

Energy transition power governmentality depoliticization wind energy 

References

  1. Agrawal, A. 2005. Environmentality. Technologies of Government and the Making of Subjects. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, J. 2003. Lost Geographies of Power. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  3. Avelino, F., and J. Rotmans. 2009. “Power in Transition: An Interdisciplinary Framework to Study Power in Relation to Structural Change.” European Journal of Social Theory 12 (4): 543–569.Google Scholar
  4. Bachrach, P., and M. S. Baratz. 1962. “Two Faces of Power.” American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–952.Google Scholar
  5. Barnett, M., and R. Duvall. 2005. “Power in International Politics.” International Organization 59 (1): 39–75.Google Scholar
  6. Bates, S., L. Jenkins, and F. Amery. 2014. “(De)politicisation and the Father's Clause Parliamentary Debates.” Policy & Politics 42 (2): 243–258.Google Scholar
  7. Beveridge, R. 2012a. A Politics of Inevitability. The Privatisation of the Berlin Water Company, the Global City Discourse, and Governance in 1990s Berlin. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  8. Beveridge, R. 2012b. “Consultants, Depoliticization and Arena-shifting in the Policy Process: Privatizing Water in Berlin.” Policy Sciences 45 (1): 47–68.Google Scholar
  9. Beveridge, R., and M. Naumann. 2014. “Global Norms, Local Contestation: Privatisation and De/politicisation in Berlin.” Policy & Politics 42 (2): 275–291.Google Scholar
  10. Bevir, M. 2011. “Governance and Governmentality After Neoliberalism.” Policy & Politics 39 (4): 457–471.Google Scholar
  11. Bulkeley, H., V. Castán Broto, and G. A. Edwards. 2014a. An Urban Politics of Climate Change. Experimentation and the Governing of Socio-technical Transitions. Abingdon, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Bulkeley, H., and K. Kern. 2006. “Local Government and the Governing of Climate Change in Germany and the UK.” Urban Studies 43 (12): 2237–2259.Google Scholar
  13. Burnham, P. 2001. “New Labour and the Politics of Depoliticisation.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 3 (2): 127–149.Google Scholar
  14. Campbell, E. 2010. “The Emotional Life of Governmental Power.” Foucault Studies 9: 35–53.Google Scholar
  15. Cowell, R. 2007. “Wind Power and ‘The Planning Problem’: The Experience of Wales.” European Environment 17 (5): 291–306.Google Scholar
  16. Dahl, R. A. 1957. “The Concept of Power.” Behavioral Science 2 (3): 201–215.Google Scholar
  17. Dean, M. M. 2010. Governmentality. Power and Rule in Modern Society. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Ettlinger, N. 2011. “Governmentality as Epistemology.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 101 (3): 537–560.Google Scholar
  19. Flinders, M. 2004. “Distributed Public Governance in Britain.” Public Administration 82 (4): 883–909.Google Scholar
  20. Flinders, M., and J. Buller. 2006. “Depoliticisation: Principles, Tactics and Tools.” British Politics 1 (3): 293–318.Google Scholar
  21. Flinders, M., and M. Wood. 2014. “Depoliticisation, Governance and the State.” Policy & Politics 42 (2): 135–149.Google Scholar
  22. Foster, E. A., P. Kerr, and C. Byrne. 2014. “Rolling Back to Roll Forward: Depoliticisation and the Extension of Government.” Policy & Politics 42 (2): 225–241.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. 1982. “The Subject and Power, Afterword.” In Michel Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics, edited by H. L. Dreyfus, and P. Rabinow. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. 1991. “Governmentality.” In The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality, edited by G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. 2009. Security, Territory, Population. Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–78. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Gailing, L., and A. Röhring. 2015. “Was ist dezentral an der Energiewende? Infrastrukturen erneuerbarer Energien als Herausforderungen und Chancen für ländliche Räume.” Raumforschung und Raumordnung 73 (1): 31–43.Google Scholar
  28. Gamble, A. 2000. Politics and Fate. Cambridge, Malden: Polity.Google Scholar
  29. Gordon, C. 1991. “Governmental Rationality: An Introduction.” In The Foucault Effect. Studies in Governmentality, edited by G. Burchell, C. Gordon, and P. Miller. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hamann, T. H. 2009. “Neoliberalism, Governmentality, and Ethics.” Foucault Studies 6: 37–59.Google Scholar
  31. Hay, C. 1997. “State of the Art: Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power.” Politics 17 (1): 45–52.Google Scholar
  32. Hay, C. 2007. Why We Hate Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hay, C. 2014. “Depoliticisation as Process, Governance as Practice: What Did the “First Wave” Get Wrong and Do We Need a “Second Wave” to Put it Right?” Policy & Politics 42 (2): 293–311.Google Scholar
  34. Hearn, J. 2012. Theorizing Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Hoffman, J. 2013. “Theorizing Power in Transition Studies: The Role of Creativity and Novel Practices in Structural Change.” Policy Sciences 46 (3): 257–275.Google Scholar
  36. Huxley, M. 2010. “Geographies of Governmentality.” In Space, Knowledge and Power. Foucault and Geography, edited by J. W. Crampton, and S. Elden. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  37. IRS (Leibniz-Institut für Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanung) and BFLK (Büro für Landschaftskommunikation). 2014. Kulturlandschaften als Handlungsräume – ein Beitrag zur Lösung der Herausforderungen von Energiewende und Klimawandel. Gutachten “Gemeinsames Raumordnungskonzept Energie und Klima für Berlin und Brandenburg (GRK)” Teil 3, im Auftrag der Gemeinsamen Landesplanungsabteilung Berlin-Brandenburg. Accessed July 10, 2014. http://gl.berlin-brandenburg.de/landesplanung/themen/energie/mdb-bb-gl-energie-grk-grk3_endbericht.pdf.
  38. Jenkins, L. 2011. “The Difference Genealogy Makes: Strategies for Politicisation or How to Extend Capacities for Autonomy.” Political Studies 59 (1): 156–174.Google Scholar
  39. Jessop, B. 2014. “Repoliticising Depoliticisation: Theoretical Preliminaries on Some Responses to the American Fiscal and Eurozone Debt Crises.” Policy & Politics 42 (2): 207–223.Google Scholar
  40. Keskitalo, E. C. H., S. Juhola, and L. Westerhoff. 2012. “Climate Change as Governmentality: Technologies of Government for Adaptation in Three European Countries.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 55 (4): 435–452.Google Scholar
  41. Kuzemko, C. 2014. “Politicising UK Energy: What “Speaking Energy Security” Can Do.” Policy & Politics 42 (2): 259–274.Google Scholar
  42. Lemke, T. 2008. Gouvernementalität und Biopolitik. 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  43. Li, T. M. 2007. “Practices of Assemblage and Community Forest Management.” Economy and Society 36 (2): 263–293.Google Scholar
  44. Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London: The Macmillan Press.Google Scholar
  45. MacKinnon, D. 2000. “Managerialism, Governmentality and the State: A Neo-Foucauldian Approach to Local Economic Governance.” Political Geography 19 (3): 293–314.Google Scholar
  46. McFarlane, C., and J. Rutherford. 2008. “Political Infrastructures: Governing and Experiencing the Fabric of the City.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32 (2): 363–374.Google Scholar
  47. Mckee, K. 2009. “Post-Foucauldian Governmentality: What Does It Offer Critical Social Policy Analysis?” Critical Social Policy 29 (3): 465–486.Google Scholar
  48. Miller, P., and N. S. Rose. 2008. Governing the Present. Administering Economic, Social and Personal Life. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  49. MWE (Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie des Landes Brandenburg). 2014a. “Energiepolitischer Weg als richtig bestätigt”. Minister Gerber zum Abschneiden Brandenburgs im Bundesländervergleich Erneuerbare Energien. Accessed November 28, 2014. http://www.mwe.brandenburg.de/sixcms/detail.php/bb1.c.383382.de.
  50. MWE (Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie des Landes Brandenburg). 2014b. Land der Erneuerbaren Energien: Leitsterne 2008, 2010 und 2012. Accessed October 29, 2014. http://www.energie.brandenburg.de/sixcms/detail.php/bb1.c.205019.de.
  51. Oels, A. 2005. “Rendering Climate Change Governable: From Biopower to Advanced Liberal Government?” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 7 (3): 185–207.Google Scholar
  52. Oels, A. 2010. “Die Gouvernementalität der internationalen Klimapolitik: Biomacht oder fortgeschritten liberales Regieren?” In Der Klimawandel. Sozialwissenschaftliche Perspektiven, edited by M. Voss. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  53. Ohlhorst, D. 2009. Windenergie in Deutschland. Konstellationen, Dynamiken und Regulierungspotenziale im Innovationsprozess. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  54. Owen, D. 2005. “On Genealogy and Political Theory.” Political Theory 33 (1): 110–120.Google Scholar
  55. Pierre, J., and B. G. Peters. 2000. Governance, Politics, and the State. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  56. Poggi, G. 2001. Forms of Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  57. Sack, D. 2014. “Governance und Gouvernementalität – Komplementäres und Distinktes zweier Regierungslehren.” In Gouvernementalität, Staat und Weltgesellschaft. Studien zum Regieren im Anschluss an Foucault, edited by A. Vasilache. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, A., and A. Stirling. 2010. “The Politics of Social-ecological Resilience and Sustainable Socio-technical Transitions.” Ecology and Society 15 (1): 11.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, M. J. 2009. Power and the State. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  60. Stäheli, U. 2000. Poststrukturalistische Soziologien. Bielefeld: Transcript.Google Scholar
  61. Tucker, K. 2014. “Participation and Subjectification in Global Governance: NGOs, Acceptable Subjectivities and the WTO.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 42 (2): 376–396.Google Scholar
  62. Vanolo, A. 2014. “Smartmentality: The Smart City as Disciplinary Strategy.” Urban Studies 51 (5): 883–898.Google Scholar
  63. Ward, L. 2013. “Eco-governmentality Revisited: Mapping Divergent Subjectivities among Integrated Water Resource Management experts in Paraguay.” Geoforum 46: 91–102.Google Scholar
  64. Wood, M., and M. Flinders. 2014. “Rethinking Depoliticisation: Beyond the Governmental.” Policy & Politics 42 (2): 151–170.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Bues
    • 1
  • Ludger Gailing
    • 2
  1. 1.ErknerGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz Institute for Research on Society and Space (IRS)ErknerGermany

Personalised recommendations