Search

While the urban is identified as a productive site for addressing climate change, the ‘post-political’ critique dismisses climate policy as a vacuous discourse that obscures power relations and exclusion, defends the established neoliberal order, and silences challenges. This paper argues that rather than consensus, there is a conflict between urban climate policy and the need to reignite economic growth in the context of austerity urbanism, but also that we should not assume that challenges to neoliberal understandings of the ‘sensible’ will always be disregarded. Rather, urban climate policy can be progressed through partnership processes utilising ‘co-production’ techniques which entail significant agonistic, if not antagonistic, contestation. The argument is illustrated with a case study of climate policy making in the context of austerity urbanism in Liverpool, UK. While ‘low carbon’ is conceptualised by elite actors in Liverpool in neoliberal terms as a source of new low carbon jobs and businesses, with an emphasis on energy security and fuel poverty, this view is not unchallenged. The paper recounts how an ad hoc group of actors in the city came together to form a partnership advocating for more strategic decarbonisation, which should be progressed through a bid for the city to be European Green Capital. The disputes that emerged around this agenda suggest that in the context of austerity urbanism the need for cities to act to mitigate against dangerous climate change is not as uncontested as conceptions of the post-political suggest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper starts from the premise that our understanding of the extent to which, and of the conditions under which, we might rely on new or neoliberal forms of governance beyond the state to deliver particular public interest objectives is limited, especially when they seek to instigate changes in corporate behaviour. In response, we briefly explore some of the key elements of debates on 'governance from the outside' where public, private, and civic actors engage in activities that seek to shape the behaviour or performance of a corporation, and 'governance from the inside' where the behaviour of a corporation is shaped by, for example, its structures and systems, resources and opportunities, and cultures and values. We hypothesise that the ability of a particular set of governance conditions to change the behaviour or performance of a business will be shaped by the strength and alignment of (a) the range of external governance pressures surrounding the business and (b) the internal governance conditions within that business. We then consider the reasons why firms within one key sector (UK supermarkets) have responded to one key issue (climate change) in recent years. We argue that a specific set of governance conditions brought about a step change in UK supermarkets' approach to climate change in 2007/08, and that this has triggered a period of improvement in their climate-related performance. However, we suggest that this process of improvement is bounded by the presence of a business case that simultaneously supports incremental change and constrains the potential for more transformative change. We conclude by suggesting that if the business case weakens, then governance conditions are likely to be characterised either by collective inaction or by socially led governance, with its influence being determined by whether the diverse forms of social pressure that are central to it are stronger and better aligned than any associated forms of business resistance. We argue that this has significant implications for our understanding of the extent to which new or neoliberal forms of governance beyond the state can be relied upon to ensure that corporations--or indeed other actors--might help to deliver public interest objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]