FROM ‘POLITICAL ECONOMY’ TO ‘POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY’ OF THE CLIMATE CATASTROPHE: WHY THE ECONOMY NEEDS TO BE BLOWN UP TO BE BORN AGAIN?

Main Article Content

MARIUSZ BARANOWSKI

Abstract

The conceptual approach to real social phenomena and problems, as well as factors influencing and shaping them, although theoretical in nature, has momentous practical consequences. The issue of nature, and in a narrower sense of climate, constitutes a telling and representative example of the implications of the theoretical and methodological orientation adopted to study society and its relationship with the environment and its resources. This short paper aims to highlight the consequences of the shift in research perspective from ‘political economy’ to ‘political sociology’ in the context of climate change and its challenges. The article’s main argument is to outline the implications of the change of reference point for the conceptualisation and operationalisation of theoretical frameworks related to social problems and challenges, which, nota bene, are conditioned directly and indirectly by the state of the ecosystem. And the central thesis is that a fundamental reorientation towards nature and climate change within the dominant capitalist system will only be camouflaged maintenance of the status quo (accompanied noisily by a series of technological and fiscal solutions that solve nothing).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
BARANOWSKI, M. (2021). FROM ‘POLITICAL ECONOMY’ TO ‘POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY’ OF THE CLIMATE CATASTROPHE: WHY THE ECONOMY NEEDS TO BE BLOWN UP TO BE BORN AGAIN?. Society Register, 5(3), 7-16. https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2021.5.3.01
Section
Introduction
Author Biography

MARIUSZ BARANOWSKI, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań

Mariusz Baranowski is assistant professor of sociology at the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland.

References

  1. Abercrombie, Nicholas. 2020. Commodification and Its Discontents. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  2. Amin, Samir. 2003. Obsolescent Capitalism: Contemporary Politics and Global Disorder. New York: Zed Books.
  3. Amin, Samir. 2011. Maldevelopment: Anatomy of a Global Failure. Cape Town: Pambazuka Press.
  4. Baranowski, Mariusz. 2011. “The Property Rights Theory Approach from a Socio-Economic Viewpoint.” Studia Historiae Oeconomicae 28-29: 3–16. https://pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/sho/article/view/29215
  5. Baranowski, Mariusz. 2019. “The struggle for social welfare: Towards an emerging welfare sociology.” Society Register 3(2): 7–19. https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.2019.3.2.01
  6. Beck, Ulrich. 1992. Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. Transl. M. Ritter. London: SAGE Publications.
  7. Burawoy, Michael. 2005. “For Public Sociology.” American Sociological Review 70(1): 4–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000102
  8. Cichocki, Piotr & Piotr Jabkowski. 2019. “Immigration attitudes in the wake of the 2015 migration crisis in the Visegrád Group countries: Comparative insights of ESS7 and ESS8.” Intersections 5(1): 27–47. https://doi.org/10.17356/ieejsp.v5i1.480
  9. Danecki, Jan, Jerzy Krycki, & Danuta Markowska, eds. 1993. Insights Into Maldevelopment: Reconsidering the Idea of Progress. Warsaw: University of Warsaw, Institute of Social Policy.
  10. de Montchrestien, Antoine. 2017. Traité de l’oeconomie politique. Paris: Classiques Garnier.
  11. Hickel, Jason. 2020. Less is more: How degrowth will Save he World. London: Random House.
  12. IPBES. 2019. Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, edited by E. S. Brondizio et al. Bonn: IPBES secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673
  13. Jackson, Tim. 2009. Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. London and Sterling, VA: Earthscan.
  14. Kassner, Maciej. 2021. „Jak opisać dynamikę polityczną polskiej transformacji?” Przegląd Krytyczny 3(1): 19–50. https://doi.org/10.14746/pk.2021.3.1.2
  15. Keen, Steve. 2011. Debunking Economics – Revised and Expanded Edition. The Naked Emperor Dethroned? London and New York: Zed Books.
  16. Klitkou, Antje et al. 2017. Bioeconomy and digitalization. Stockholm: MISTRA (The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research).
  17. Kopnina, Helen, et al. 2021. “Ecodemocracy in practice: exploration of debates on limits and possibilities of addressing environmental challenges within democratic systems.” Visions for sustainability 15: 9–23. https://doi.org/10.13135/2384-8677/5832
  18. Lekkai, Ina. 2020. “Unaccompanied refugee minors and resilience: A phenomenological study.” Przegląd Krytyczny 2(1): 33–54. https://doi.org/10.14746/pk.2020.2.1.03
  19. Lemańczyk, Magdalena & Mariusz Baranowski. 2021. Die deutsche Minderheit als (Mehr-)Wert: Analysen aus der Woiwodschaft Oppeln. Göttingen: V&R unipress.
  20. Marx, Ive & Karel van den Bosch. 2008. “How poverty differs from inequality on poverty measurement in an enlarged EU context: Conventional and alternative approaches.” Retrieved September 18, 2021 (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/1001617/4577263/1-1-I-MARX.pdf).
  21. Mills, Charles Wright. 2000. The Sociological Imagination. With a new Afterword by Todd Gitlin. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
  22. Norman, Jesse. 2018. Adam Smith: Father of Economics. New York: Basic Books.
  23. The Mint. 2017. “Interview with Christian Felber: The Common Touch.” September 15, 2017. Retrieved September 18, 2021 (https://www.themintmagazine.com/interview-with-christian-felber-the-common-touch).
  24. O’Brien, Martin & Sue Penna. 1998. Theorising Welfare: Enlightenment and Modern Society. London: SAGE.
  25. OECD Income Distribution Database. 2021. Retrieved September 18, 2021 (https://www.oecd.org/social/inequality-and-poverty.htm?fbclid=IwAR3qJPTIkFq0_k4yMLF6uhkqGq7QunJxG8se6zg0vMlo13HomEsjqFm2Eds&utm_content=&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_term=PAC).
  26. Parenti, Michael. 2010. Democracy for the Few. 9th edition. Boston: Wadsworth.
  27. Rockström, Johan et al. 2009. “Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity.” Ecology and Society 14(2): 32. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/
  28. Romano, Onofrio. 2020. Towards a Society of Degrowth. London and New York: Routledge.
  29. Smith, Adam. 2003. The Wealth of Nations. Introduction by Alan B. Krueger. New York: A Bantam Book.
  30. Smith, Thomas S. J., Mariusz Baranowski, & Benedikt Schmid. 2021. “Intentional degrowth and its unintended consequences: Uneven journeys towards post-growth transformations.” Ecological Economics 190: 107215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107215
  31. Veseth, Michael A. & David N. Balaam. 2020. “Political economy.” in Encyclopedia Britannica, 22 May. 2020. Retrieved September 5, 2021 (https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-economy).
  32. Von Heimburg, Dina & Ottar Ness. 2021. “Relational welfare: A Socially just response to co-creating health and wellbeing for all.” Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 49: 639–652. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494820970815
  33. Walker, Christine C., Angela Druckman, & Tim Jackson. 2021. “Welfare systems without economic growth: A review of the challenges and next steps for the field.” Ecological Economics 186: 107066. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107066
  34. Wolf, Martin. 2018. “Foreword.” Pp. xiii–xiv in Rethinking Economics: An Introduction to Pluralist Economics, edited by L. Fischer, J. Hasell, J. Ch. Proctor, D. Uwakwe, Z. Ward-Perkins, & C. Watson. London and New York: Routledge.
  35. Wray, L. Randall. 2015. Modern Money Theory: A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary Systems. 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  36. Zinn, Howard. 1980. A Peoples’s History of the United States. London and New York: Longman.
  37. Ziółkowski, Marek. 2021. „Postmonocentryczny ład społeczny i jego dynamiczny charakter: Dwie przeciwstawne konstelacje kulturowe.” Przegląd Krytyczny 3(1): 7–19. https://doi.org/10.14746/pk.2021.3.1.1
  38. Ziółkowski, Marek, Mariusz Baranowski, & Rafał Drozdowski. 2020. “On the Multiple Varieties, Consequences and Paradoxes of the Commodification of Nature.” Polish Sociological Review 211(3): 281–300. https://doi.org/10.26412/psr211.02