Governmentality and the climate-development nexus: The case of the EU Global Climate Change Alliance

Roeck, Frederik De

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.02.006

Cited by 13 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Governments and corporations frame their climate response as an opportunity to expand markets, make profit, and, ultimately, reproduce capitalism itself. Like international development more broadly (Mawdsley 2018), climate change mitigation and adaptation are increasingly being financialised and subsumed into existing, or seeking to create new, market relations globally (Ciplet and Roberts 2017; De Roeck 2019; Mills-Novoa et al 2020; Oels 2005). Yet, it is important to recognise that there is a mosaic of climate governmentalities (Death, Stripple and Bulkeley 2013).…”

Section: From Foucault To Climate Governmentalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An emerging governmentality of climate change loss and damage

Jackson

N’Guetta

Rosa

et al. 2023

Progress in Environmental Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Loss and damage is the “third pillar” of international climate governance alongside mitigation and adaptation. When mitigation and adaptation fail, losses and damages occur. Scholars have been reacting to international political discourse centred around governing actual or potential severe losses and damages from climate change. Large gaps exist in relation to understanding the underlying power dimensions, rationalities, knowledges, and technologies of loss and damage governance and science. We draw from a Foucauldian-inspired governmentality framework to argue there is an emerging governmentality of loss and damage. We find, among other things, that root causes of loss and damage are being obscured, Western knowledge and technocratic interventions are centred, and there are colonial presupposed subjectivities of Global South victims of climate change, which are being contested by people bearing the brunt of the climate crisis. We propose future directions for critical research on climate change loss and damage.

show abstract

Section: From Foucault To Climate Governmentalitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Climate governmentality research has illuminated the underlying rationalities and technologies of government in adaptation and mitigation policy and interventions at various scales (De Roeck 2019;Lövbrand et al 2013;Mills-Novoa et al 2020;Oels 2005). Lövbrand et al (2013, 34) observed that:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An emerging governmentality of climate change loss and damage

Jackson

N’Guetta

Rosa

et al. 2023

Progress in Environmental Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, the work of researchers, consultants, and donors involved in resilience projects and policy design represent important sites at which hierarchies of decision making and knowledge production play out. For example, national governments' dependence on external funding can lead to donor organizations having an outsized influence on project development and governance (De Roeck, 2019; Lebel et al, 2018; Wilbanks, 2015). In Thailand, for instance, NGOs attempt to influence government policy and shape decision‐making processes (Ober & Sakdapolrak, 2020).…”

Section: The Conceptualization Of Power In Resilience Scholarshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Power in resilience and resilience's power in climate change scholarship

Garcia

Gonda

Atkins

et al. 2022

WIREs Climate Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resilience thinking has undergone profound theoretical developments in recent decades, moving to characterize resilience as a socio‐natural process that requires constant negotiation between a range of actors and institutions. Fundamental to this understanding has been a growing acknowledgment of the role of power in shaping resilience capacities and politics across cultural and geographic contexts. This review article draws on a critical content analysis, applied to a systematic review of recent resilience literature to examine how scholarship has embraced nuanced conceptualizations of how power operates in resilience efforts, to move away from framings that risk reinforcing patterns of marginalization. Advancing a framework inspired by feminist theory and feminist political ecology, we analyze how recent work has presented, documented, and conceptualized how resilience intersects with patterns of inequity. In doing so, we illuminate the importance of knowledge, scale, and subject making in understanding the complex ways in which power and resilience become interlinked. We illustrate how overlooking such complexity may have serious consequences for how socio‐natural challenges and solutions are framed in resilience scholarship and, in turn, how resilience is planned and enacted in practice. Finally, we highlight how recent scholarship is advancing the understandings necessary to make sense of the shifting, contested, and power‐laden nature of resilience. Paying attention to, and building on, such complexity will allow scholarly work to illuminate the ways in which resilience is negotiated within inequitable processes and to address the marginalization of those continuing to bear the brunt of the climate crisis. This article is categorized under: Climate and Development > Social Justice and the Politics of Development

show abstract

“…Such projects also likely support state building projects in various ways (Allouche, 2019; Ruwanpura et al, 2020). De Roeck (2019), for example, explains how the EU Global Climate Change Alliance advances an idea of adaptation as a matter of technical practices that stabilise the legitimacy of the European project and its identity as a leader in development, foreign policy and climate change, and Colven (2017) describes how the development of Jakarta’s ‘Great Garuda Sea Wall’ is favoured by a network of political and technical elites united behind ideas about urban modernisation. Indeed, such ideas, and possibly a desire to escape cities increasingly mired in congestion and environmental degradation may well lie behind the development of new urban areas such as the Xiong’an New Area in North China (Zou and Zhao, 2018) and Indonesia’s plan to build a new capital in east Kalimantan (Teo et al, 2020).…”

Section: Capital Projectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global environmental change III: Political economies of adaptation to climate change

Barnett

2022

Progress in Human Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This progress report reviews research on climate change adaptation through a political economy lens, explaining the way ideas, institutions and interests enable diverse forms of adaptation practice. It reviews research on community-based adaptation, and spatial planning and investments in capital works for the purposes of adaptation. The analysis explains how practices that reduce vulnerability to climate change come into being, though it is as yet unclear if these existing political economies of adaptation are able to bring about the kind of (re)assembling of environments, technologies and practices over space and time necessary to sustain human needs and values through a dramatically changed climate.

show abstract

Governmentality and the climate-development nexus: The case of the EU Global Climate Change Alliance

Cited by 13 publications

References 31 publications

An emerging governmentality of climate change loss and damage

An emerging governmentality of climate change loss and damage

Power in resilience and resilience's power in climate change scholarship

Global environmental change III: Political economies of adaptation to climate change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About