The environmental state and the glass ceiling of transformation

Abstract

What are the capacities of the state to facilitate a comprehensive sustainability transition? It is argued that structural barriers akin to an invisible 'glass ceiling' are inhibiting any such transformation. First, the structure of state imperatives does not allow for the addition of an independent sustainability imperative without major contradictions. Second, the imperative of legitimation is identified as a crucial component of the glass ceiling. A distinction is introduced between 'lifeworld' and 'system' sustainability, showing that the environmental state has created an environmentally sustainable lifeworld, which continues to be predicated on a fundamentally unsustainable reproductive system. While this 'decoupling' of lifeworld from system sustainability has alleviated legitimation pressure from the state, a transition to systemic sustainability will require deep changes in the lifeworld. This constitutes a renewed challenge for state legitimation. Some speculations regarding possible futures of the environmental state conclude the article.

The Virtuous Circle of Sustainable Welfare as a Transformative Policy Idea

“…Therefore, a reframed virtuous circle could induce a way out of the locked-in situation in which the goal of sustainable welfare is, on the one hand, widely acknowledged and policy alternatives exist, but, on the other, political courage and the capability for transformation are weak.Many policymakers are already highly aware of the limits to growth and advocate for sustainable development goals. Despite the growing interest in sustainability and the degrowth discussion, it seems that the only policy alternatives deemed laudable are those in line with the growth paradigm [46,47], apparently because of the underlying belief that a growing GDP is necessary to generate funding for welfare institutions such as education, healthcare, and universal social security, along with other public goods. This shows in a practical way how, in addition to institutional lock-ins, policy ideas can also constrain While maintaining "virtuous" human development, welfare states are strongly embedded in the vicious circle of ecological collapse and climate change.…”

“…As Koch has shown, state-led ecosocial policies can overcome the imperative of economic growth if they are "integrated into comprehensive strategy" [46] (p. 13). Currently, a system boundary that Hausknost [47] calls a "glass ceiling of transformation" curtails the prospects of transformation towards a sustainable welfare state. Those states that do try to introduce sustainable policies tend to hit this glass ceiling; only policies that do not limit economic growth and endanger citizens' wellbeing are feasible [47] (p. 14).…”

Revisiting the Right to the City, Rethinking Urban Environmentalism: From Lifeworld Environmentalism to Planetary Environmentalism

“…In light of climate change, for instance, acting decisively, conjointly, and trans-locally on a transformation from "carbon democracies" (Mitchell 2013) towards low or post-carbon democracies is clearly necessary and widely perceived as necessary. Yet politically it is difficult to realize, since the legitimacy of liberal capitalist institutions, including the local state, is (still) deeply dependent on "dense energy"-based economic growth, which fuels not only the market economy but also (local and national) social security systems (Hausknost 2019). To avoid political legitimacy crises, institutional responses to socio-ecological challenges, including the responses of cities, have so far most often meant investing in "green growth".…”

“…Neither of these urban, local state interventions seems to really touch on unsustainable societal and planetary processes. In fact, they may even sustain them (Hausknost 2019). Acting locally and thinking globally is an unbinding, ethical appeal to citizens, who may or may not feel addressed.…”

Beyond the environmental state? The political prospects of a sustainability transformation

“…Overall, environmental states appear to have primarily succeeded to shield their citizens from environmental harm, but have had much less success in minimizing their negative impact on the earth system, and in particular on the breaching of crucial planetary boundaries such as climate change and biodiversity loss (Rockström et al 2009). This ambivalent performance record suggests the existence of what one of us has termed a 'glass ceiling' of environmental transformation (Hausknost 2017(Hausknost , 2020: a structural barrier that marks the line until which environmental reform is compatible with functional requirements of the state and beyond which this compatibility gives way to functional tension, conflict, and outright contradiction. Empirically, the glass ceiling seems to separate the realm of policies that improve domestic environmental quality without limiting the prospects of economic growth by interventions designed to save the planetary biosphere from the rapid decay it is currently experiencing, which might require deep transformations of the economic system.…”