Political settlements theory helps us understand the drivers of systemic change, holding that the ambition of elites who control a country’s political and economic apparatus to decarbonise economies is as deep as the extent to which they see changes benefiting themselves.

Another way to think of political settlements is to draw on Luke Kemp’s seminal book, Goliath’s Curse, which takes a close look at the reasons why States flourish or collapse. Kemp suggests that most States and empires arose because someone figured out how to extract surplus from the rest of the populace. It may be suggested that if all States are extractive, what makes them stand out is their degree of humanity or lack thereof.

Hierarchical systems can be resilient, in that the concentration of power means power constantly adapts to disturbances within the system. The reasons why States collapse include infighting among the elite, elite overproduction, competition for power, wars, pandemics or catastrophic events.

In some respects, political settlements theory essentially seeks to understand how powerful actors or agents in society cooperate or disagree amongst themselves. This determines development trajectories and outcomes for society. This is a much better lens than the aid industry’s traditional lens, which focuses on ‘good governance’ and is obsessed with normative theory and centres on power dynamics and contestation.

Understanding the nature of a country’s political economy should inform the strategy and tactics for decarbonisation transitions. It is a far more nuanced approach than the usual campaign strategies for change, which assume that if you provide the powers that be with the relevant facts and figures (in quasi-evangelical style), you will bring about change.

I found it rather absurd that when Pakistan experienced a surge in solar panels – no doubt, impressive – every environmentalist and climate campaigner suddenly attributed this to their doing and ‘preaching’.

The key driver of the surge was the growing need for energy security and surplus Chinese solar panel production. All good things, but the moral imperative was not decarbonisation – just look at Pakistan’s position regarding gas and its future intent despite the surge in solar panels.

We can identify about four typologies of political settlements. In a harmonious system, there is a sufficient balance of forces to ensure a stalemate that gives rise to a social contract between the political, business and labour elites, leading to pragmatic settlements. The most famous one that comes to my mind is the Saltsjöbaden Agreement in Sweden and the Rehn Meidner wage pact. These were agreed to in recognition of the fact that, for the Swedish economy to work and flourish, the capitalist elite had to buy into a welfarist model, where markets are more social than antisocial.

The second system is one where a country can be ruined by perpetual conflict and competition for resources may not end well. The peace dividend is not attained. The resource curse prevails. All resource conflicts are both local and global in nature. We see this in the various mineral conflicts, such as conflicts over diamonds (which necessitated the Kimberley Process), cobalt, oil, gas and gold. Access to these resources often involves the menacing and greedy hands of outsiders.

Extractive models are built around exclusive enclave economies where there is control over the State and natural resources by political and business elites that operate as self-serving overlords exercising some control over globally relevant commodities. The arrangements tend to be tightly controlled, with the rest of the population subject to repressive measures or disregard of their interests, at best. Extractive hierarchical States inevitably experience discord, political disturbance and geopolitical interference, especially if the resource has great military or energy-security value.

The ideal course of action is to work towards a solidarity economy, and here we can draw inspiration from the work of the philosopher Michael Sandel.

Solidarity economies in the current climate are the hardest to achieve. However, they are what most utopians (in the positive sense of the word) want. Sandel also draws from the work of Aristotle, who argues that political and economic life are a means to achieve the good society and are not ends in themselves. Aristotle’s work focuses on how to nurture virtue and the idea that political participation is there to cultivate good citizenship.

A solidarity culture is required to achieve such a society. We cannot achieve decarbonisation and the just transition without a broader vision of society – what we want to become. The main thrust of this thesis is that political economies define the pace, texture and manner in which decarbonisation is embodied – from politics and the economy to society as a whole.