Suchergebnisse

The following paper outlines some of the crucial aspects of education as well as changes in the institutional environment that are shaping with the rise of global capitalism. It is argued that the main purpose of education is to democratise the minds of students and help them become responsible and sensitive social beings. But the dominant market paradigm has subverted and co-opted education for its own benefits. The paper situates the education market in the political economy of capitalism and it is argued that the intensification of capitalism inevitably leads to such situations where education and consequently humanity becomes a commodity-a distinct and alienated form of capital. In the end the wider implications of such commodification for the democratic values and the future of the society are discussed.

"This book turns critical feminist scrutiny on national climate policies in India and examines what transition might really mean for marginalized groups in the country. A vision of 'just transitions' is increasingly being used by activists and groups to ensure that pathways towards sustainable futures are equitable and inclusive. Exploring this concept, this volume provides a feminist study of what it would take to ensure just transitions in India where gender, in relation to its interesting dimensions of power, is at the center of analysis. With case studies on climate mitigation and adaptation from different parts of India, the book brings together academics, practitioners and policy-makers who provide commentary on sectors including agriculture, forestry and renewables. Overall, the book has relevance far beyond India's borders, as India's attempt to deal with its diverse population makes it a key litmus test for countries seeking to transition against a backdrop of inequality both in the global North and South. This volume will be of great interest to students and scholars of climate policy, gender studies, sustainable development and development studies more broadly"--

This paper examines the Global Climate Action Agenda (GCAA) and discusses options to improve sub- and non-state involvement in post-2020 climate governance. A framework that stimulates sub- and non-state action is a necessary complement to national governmental action, as the latter falls short of achieving low-carbon and climate-resilient development as envisaged in the Paris Agreement. Applying design principles for an ideal-type orchestration framework, we review literature and gather expert judgements to assess whether the GCAA has been collaborative, comprehensive, evaluative and catalytic. Results show that there has been greater coordination among orchestrators, for instance in the organization of events. However, mobilization efforts remain event-driven and too little effort is invested in understanding the progress of sub- and non-state action. Data collection has improved, although more sophisticated indicators are needed to evaluate climate and sustainable development impacts. Finally, the GCAA has recorded more action, but relatively little by actors in developing countries. As the world seeks to recover from the COVID-19 crisis and enters a new decade of climate action, the GCAA could make a vital contribution in challenging times by helping governments keep and enhance climate commitments; strengthening capacity for sub- and non-state action; enabling accountability; and realizing sustainable development.

Countries must develop their capacity to credibly revise their nationally determined contributions (NDCs) proportionate to the global climate goal. This paper argues that long-lasting capacity is necessarily embedded in the institutions governing cooperation between state and non-state actors. This institutional capacity for cooperation is determined by the two interactive processes of conception and calibration, where the state plays a definitive role in mediating between competing interests. In conception, the state uses its discretionary power to set the long-term vision, whereas during calibration it exercises flexibility to accommodate concerns and capacity of other actors. We conclude that proportionality of policy response is better understood, and achieved, through the convergence of both these processes. Drawing on climate policy experiences of India and South Africa, we recommend that successful implementation and enhancement of NDCs would require a greater emphasis on capacity building for calibration in developing countries.

At the international level, India is emerging as a key actor in climate negotiations, while at the national and sub-national levels, the climate policy landscape is becoming more active and more ambitious. It is essential to unravel this complex landscape if we are to understand why policy looks the way it does, and the extent to which India might contribute to a future international framework for tackling climate change as well as how international parties might cooperate with and support India's domestic efforts. Drawing on both primary and secondary data, this paper analyzes the material and ideational drivers that are most strongly influencing policy choices at different levels, from international negotiations down to individual states. We argue that at each level of decision making in India, climate policy is embedded in wider policy concerns. In the international realm, it is being woven into broader foreign policy strategy, while domestically, it is being shaped to serve national and sub-national development interests. While our analysis highlights some common drivers at all levels, it also finds that their influences over policy are not uniform across the different arenas, and in some cases, they work in different ways at different levels of policy. We also indicate what this may mean for the likely acceptability within India of various climate policies being pushed at the international level.

Action-oriented summits like the 2018 Global Climate Action Summit and 2019 UN Climate Action Summit, have become a major feature of global climate governance. Their emphasis on cooperative initiatives by a host of non-state and local actors creates high expectations, especially when, according to the IPCC, governments' policies still set the world on course for a disastrous 2.7 °C warming. While earlier studies have cautioned against undue optimism, empirical evidence on summits and their ability to leverage transnational capacities has been scarce. Here using a dataset of 276 climate initiatives we show important differences in output performance, with no improvement among initiatives associated with more recent summits. A summit's focus on certain themes and an emphasis on minimal requirements for institutional robustness, however, can positively influence the effectiveness of transnational engagement. These results make an empirical contribution towards understanding the increasingly transnational nature of climate governance.