Main Article Content

Pablo García-García
Universidad de León
Spain
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2572-1966
Vol 22 No 1 (2023), Articles
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15304/rips.22.1.8621
Submitted: 22-08-2022 Accepted: 03-02-2023 Published: 27-06-2023
Copyright How to Cite

Abstract

Just energy transitions have re-emerged from their unionist roots to gain increasing momentum politically and scholarly, especially driven by the SDGs. In the movement from unionism to mainstream debate, the notion has acquired diverse nuances that determine its normative scope. Four major approaches have been theoretically proposed to classify views currently: statu quo, managerial, structural, and transformative. Implicitly, these approaches observe two dimensions: individualism versus collectivism, and green growth versus post-growth. Although this classification has been useful to study the positions of groups of individuals in international organisations, NGOs, and activist movements, this paper suggests testing if it remains operative in contrast with individuals’ attitudes and perceptions. Through basic statistics, clustering algorithms, and correspondence analysis applied to the most recent version of the European Social Survey (2020-2022), this contribution finds three key insights. First, although the empirical four-group classification resembles some of the theoretical traits, it does not fit the approaches. The individualism versus collectivism dimension is operational, but the environmental dimension is difficult to determine. Second, empirically, twenty-three optimal groups exist. Three groups congregate more than 90% of respondents. The remaining marginal but optimal groups point to the relevance of observing isolated profiles in the study and political planning of just energy transitions. Finally, human values show greater explanatory capacity than sociodemographic and political variables.

Cited by

Article Details

References

European Social Survey European Research Infrastructure (ESS ERIC) (2022a). ESS20 - integrated file, edition 1.2 [Data set]. Sikt - Norwegian Agency for Shared Services in Education and Research. https://doi.org/10.21338/ESS10E01

European Social Survey European Research Infrastructure (ESS ERIC) (2022b). Methodology Overview. https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/methodology/

FRITZ, Martin, & Max KOCH (2019). “Public Support for Sustainable Welfare Compared: Links between Attitudes towards Climate and Welfare Policies”. Sustainability, 11(15), 4146. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154146

GARCÍA-GARCÍA, Pablo, Óscar CARPINTERO, & Luis BUENDÍA (2020). “Just energy transitions to low carbon economies: A review of the concept and its effects on labour and income”. Energy Research & Social Science, 70, 101664. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101664

GAWEL, Erik, Klaas KORTE, & Kerstin TEWS (2015). “Distributional challenges of sustainability policies-The case of the German energy transition”. Sustainability (Switzerland), 7(12), 16599–16615. https://doi.org/10.3390/su71215834

GÖLZ, Sebastian, & Oliver WEDDERHOFF (2018). “Explaining regional acceptance of the German energy transition by including trust in stakeholders and perception of fairness as socio-institutional factors”. Energy Research & Social Science, 43, 96–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ERSS.2018.05.026

GROH, Elke D., & Andreas ZIEGLER (2018). “On self-interested preferences for burden sharing rules: An econometric analysis for the costs of energy policy measures”. Energy Economics, 74, 417–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENECO.2018.06.026

ILO (2018). World Employment and Social Outlook 2018 – Greening with jobs. https://www.ilo.org/weso-greening/documents/WESO_Greening_EN_web2.pdf

International Statistical Institute (2010). ISI Declaration on Professional Ethics. https://www.isi-web.org/about/policies/professional-ethics/isi-declaration

Just Transition Research Collaborative (2018). Mapping Just Transition(s) to a Low-Carbon World. http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/wp-content/files_mf/reportjtrc2018_1129.pdf

KOCH, Max, & Martin FRITZ (2014). “Building the Eco-social State: Do Welfare Regimes Matter?”. Journal of Social Policy, 43(04), 679–703. https://doi.org/10.1017/S004727941400035X

KUSCHAN, Marika, Uta BURGHARD, Kiara GRONEWEG, & Annika STREBEL (2022). “Is the German energy transition perceived as gender-and socially-just?” (No. S09; Sustainability and Innovation). https://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/isi/dokumente/sustainability-innovation/2022/WP09_2022_Akzept_working_paper_fv.pdf

MACHT, Janine, Jeanette Leila KLINK-LEHMANN, & Johannes SIMONS (2022). “German citizens’ perception of the transition towards a sustainable bioeconomy: A glimpse into the Rheinische Revier”. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 31, 175–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2022.02.010

MORGUNOVA, Maria, & Katerina SHATON (2022). “The role of incumbents in energy transitions: Investigating the perceptions and strategies of the oil and gas industry”. Energy Research & Social Science, 89, 102573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102573

OTTO, Adeline, & Dimitri GUGUSHVILI (2020). “Eco-social divides in Europe: Public attitudes towards welfare and climate change policies”. Sustainability, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12010404

PANARELLO, Demetrio, & Andrea GATTO (2023). “Decarbonising Europe – EU citizens’ perception of renewable energy transition amidst the European Green Deal”. Energy Policy, 172, 113272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113272

POSCHEN, Peter (2017). Decent Work, Green Jobs and the Sustainable Economy: Solutions for Climate. ILO.

SCHLOSBERG, David, & Lisette B. COLLINS (2014). “From environmental to climate justice: climate change and the discourse of environmental justice”. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 359–374. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.275

THOMAS, Melanee, Brooks DECILLIA, John B. SANTOS, & Lori THORLAKSON (2022). “Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition”. Energy Policy, 162, 112777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.112777

THORNDIKE, Robert L. (1953). “Who belongs in the family?”. Psychometrika 1953, 18(4), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289263