Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-18 (section)

=== 18.4.1 Political Economy of Climate Resilient Development ===

<div id="h2-13-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Political economy studies (i.e., the origins, nature and distribution of wealth, and the ideologies, interests and institutions that shape it) explicitly addressing CRD are quite limited. Yet there is an extensive post-AR5 literature on political economy associated with various elements relevant to CRD including climate change and development ( [[#Naess--2015|Naess et al., 2015]] ); vulnerability, adaptation, and climate risk ( [[#Sovacool--2015|Sovacool et al., 2015]] ; [[#Sovacool--2017|Sovacool et al., 2017]] ; [[#Barnett--2020|Barnett, 2020]] ); energy, decarbonisation and negative emissions technologies ( [[#Kuzemko--2019|Kuzemko et al., 2019]] ; [[#Newell--2019|Newell, 2019]] ); degrowth and low-carbon economies ( [[#Perkins--2019|Perkins, 2019]] ; [[#Newell--2020|Newell and Lane, 2020]] ); solar radiation management ( [[#Ott--2018|Ott, 2018]] ); planetary health and sustainability transitions and transformation ( [[#Kohler--2019|Kohler et al., 2019]] ) ( [[#Gill--2020|Gill and Benatar, 2020]] ). Review and assessment of this literature reveals our key insights about the relationship between the political economy and CRD.

First, the political economy drives coupled development–climate change trajectories and determines vulnerability, thereby potentially subjecting those least responsible for climate change to the greatest risk ( [[#Sovacool--2015|Sovacool et al., 2015]] ; [[#Barnett--2020|Barnett, 2020]] ). The legitimacy, viability and sustainability of the prevailing political economy is being called into question because of its role in driving vulnerability in a changing climate ( [[#Barnett--2020|Barnett, 2020]] ), thus undermining the prospects for CRD.As underpinning political economy ideologies, interests and institutions change, the cause of the vulnerable is being appropriated, the drivers of vulnerability and the adaptation agenda are depoliticised, and market-based solutions advocated in ways that sustain the prevailing political economy at the expense of those most at risk. Political economy interests and institutions that drive vulnerability are thus themselves at risk because worsening climate change raises questions about their legitimacy and political and economic viability ( [[#Barnett--2020|Barnett, 2020]] ).

Second, assessment of this literature suggests four attributes of the political economy of adaptation influence development trajectories in diverse settings, from Australia to Honduras and the Maldives ( [[#Sovacool--2015|Sovacool et al., 2015]] ), as delivered through the Global Environment Facility’s Least Developed Countries Fund ( [[#Sovacool--2017|Sovacool et al., 2017]] ). These include enclosure (public resources or authority captured by private interests); exclusion (stakeholders are marginalised from decision making); encroachment (natural systems and ecosystem services compromised); and entrenchment (inequality exacerbated). These attributes hamper adaptation efforts, and reveal the political nature of adaptation ( [[#Dolšak--2018|Dolšak and Prakash, 2018]] ) and, by extension, CRD. Paradoxically, development initiatives labelled as ‘risk’ reduction or resilience building or ‘equitable and environmentally sustainable’, such as coastal restoration efforts in Louisiana, USA, can compound inequity and climate risk, and perpetuate unsustainable development ( [[#Gotham--2016|Gotham, 2016]] ; [[#Eriksen--2021b|Eriksen et al., 2021b]] ).

Third, a long-held view is that the effects of mitigation are global, while those of adaptation are local. A political economy perspective, however, underscores cross-scale linkages, and shows that local adaptation efforts, vulnerability and climate resilience are manifest in development trajectories that are shaped by both local and trans-local drivers, and defined by unequal power relations that cross scales and levels ( [[#Sovacool--2015|Sovacool et al., 2015]] ; [[#Barnett--2020|Barnett, 2020]] ; [[#Newell--2020|Newell, 2020]] ), including in key sectors such as energy ( [[#Baker--2014|Baker et al., 2014]] ) and agriculture ( [[#Houser--2019|Houser et al., 2019]] ), as well as emergent blocs such as Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) ( [[#Power--2016|Power et al., 2016]] ; [[#Schmitz--2017|Schmitz, 2017]] ); and sub-national constellations such as cities ( [[#Fragkias--2016|Fragkias and Boone, 2016]] ; [[#Béné--2018|Béné et al., 2018]] ).

Fourth, transitions towards CRD may be technically and economically feasible but are ‘saturated’ with power and politics ( [[#Tanner--2011|Tanner and Allouche, 2011]] ) ( [[#18.3|Section 18.3]] ), necessitating focused attention to political barriers and enablers of CRD ( [[#Newell--2019|Newell, 2019]] ). With a narrow window of time to contain dangerous levels of global warming, political economy research calls for CRD trajectories that counter the tendency of the prevailing political economy to compound climate change impacts and risk ( [[#Newell--2020|Newell and Lane, 2020]] ), especially given the opportunity to realise co-benefits through pandemic recovery efforts that take into account vulnerability and the intersection of economic power and public health, environmental quality, climate change, and human and indigenous rights ( [[#Bernauer--2020|Bernauer and Slowey, 2020]] ; [[#Schipper--2020b|Schipper et al., 2020b]] ).

Given these insights, CRD can be understood as the sum of complex multi-dimensional processes consisting of large numbers of actions and societal choices made by multiple actors from government, the private sector and civil society, with important influences by science and the media ( ''very high confidence'' ). These actions and social choices are determined by the available solution space and options, along with a range of enabling conditions ( [[#18.4.2|Section 18.4.2]] ) that are largely bounded by individual and collective worldviews, and related ethics and values. This view is consistent with sustainable development being a process constituted by multiple inter-related societal choices and actions that are often contested as the needs and interests of current and future generations are addressed. Development choices have path dependencies and context-sensitive synergies and trade-offs with natural and embedded human systems '','' and they are bounded by multiple and contested knowledges and worldviews ( [[#Goldman--2018|Goldman et al., 2018]] ; [[#Heinrichs--2020|Heinrichs, 2020]] ; [[#Nightingale--2020|Nightingale et al., 2020]] ; [[#Schipper--2020b|Schipper et al., 2020b]] ). Consequently, societal choices about the political economy underpin prospects for moving towards or away from CRD.

<div id="18.4.2" class="h2-container"></div>

<span id="enabling-conditions-for-near-term-system-transitions"></span>