Sustainable, renewable growth: forces of production, the Triple Helix, and environmental justice
Journal cover Society Register, volume 10, no. 2, year 2026
PDF

Keywords

Triple Helix
forces of production
green transition
entrepreneurial university
environmental justice
public sociology
scientific-technological revolution
Silicon Valley

How to Cite

Etzkowitz, H. (2026). Sustainable, renewable growth: forces of production, the Triple Helix, and environmental justice. Society Register, 10(2), e56507. https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.56507

Number of views: 19


Number of downloads: 17

Abstract

This essay examines the structural and institutional contradictions underlying contemporary technological transitions, energy policies, and the political economy of innovation. Drawing on the foundational divergence between Karl Marx’s emphasis on the material forces of production and Max Weber’s institutional analysis, the paper examines the global dynamics of the green transition—specifically the persistent extractivism in the Global South, the ecological costs of photovoltaic and semiconductor supply chains, and the geopolitical entanglements of state-sponsored energy strategies. Reflecting on the theoretical origins of the Entrepreneurial University and the Triple Helix model of university-industry-government relations, this paper links historical studies of academic commercialization with grassroots public sociology and environmental justice activism in Silicon Valley. Furthermore, the discussion contrasts Soviet-era conceptualizations of the Scientific-Technological Revolution (STR) with contemporary algorithmic governance, arguing that artificial intelligence increasingly functions as an ideological apparatus for elite political control. Ultimately, the essay advocates for horizontal, multi-intuitional arrangements over rigid vertical state hierarchies to advance democratic oversight and genuine socio-ecological transformation.

https://doi.org/10.14746/sr.56507
PDF

References

Ball, J., Reicher, D., Sun, X., & Pollock, C. (2017). The New Solar System: China’s Evolving Solar Industry and Its Implications for Competitive Solar Power in the United States and the World. Stanford University: Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2017-03-20-Stanford-China-Report.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.2172/1352021

Bell, D. (1976). The Coming of Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. Basic Books. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131727609336501

Block, F., & Keller, M. R. (Eds.). (2016). State of innovation: The U.S. government’s role in technology development. Routledge.

Burawoy, M. (2005). For public sociology. American Sociological Review, 70(1), 4–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000102

Etzkowitz, H. (1978). The Liberation of Technology. WIN Magazine, 14.

Etzkowitz, H. (1983). Entrepreneurial Scientists and Entrepreneurial Universities in American Academic Science. Minerva, 21(2/3), 198–233. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01097964

Etzkowitz, H. (1984). Solar Versus Nuclear Energy: Autonomous or Dependent Technology? Social Problems, 31(4), 417–434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/800388

Etzkowitz, H. (1995). Stages of CODETEC: Brazilian import substitution policy and the evolution of technology transfer at Campinas University, a report to IDRC. IDRC Research Results / Résultats de Recherches Du CRDI, 1–8.

Etzkowitz, H. (2008). The Triple Helix: University-industry-government innovation in action (1st Edition). Routledge.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1995). The Triple Helix—University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge-Based Economic Development. EASST Review, 14(1), 11–19.

Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4

Etzkowitz, H., & Schaflander, G. M. (1968). A Manifesto for Sociologists: Institution Formation—A New Sociology. Social Problems, 15(4), 399–408. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1968.15.4.03a00020

Marx, K. (1904). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (N. I. Stone, Trans.). Charles H. Kerr & Company. (Original work published 1859)

Merton, R. K., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. L. (1956). The Focused Inteview: A Manual of Problems and Procedures. The Free Press.

Merton Robert K. & Kendall Patricia L. (1946). The Focused Interview. American Journal of Sociology, 51(6), 541–557. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/219886

Pellow, D. N., & Park, L. S.-H. (2002). The Silicon Valley of dreams: Environmental injustice, immigrant workers, and the high-tech global economy. New York University Press.

Richta, R. (2018). Civilisation at the Crossroads: Social and Human Implications of the Scientific and Technological Revolution. Routledge. (Original work published 1969, International Arts and Sciences Press, Inc.) DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315177663

Riofrancos, T. (2020). Resource Radicals: From Petro-Nationalism to Post-Extractivism in Ecuador. Duke University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478012122

Svampa, M. (2019). Neo-extractivism in Latin America: Socio-environmental Conflicts, the Territorial Turn, and New Political Narratives. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108752589

Weber, M. (1930). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (T. Parsons, Trans.). Unwin. (Original work published 1905)

Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology (G. Roth & C. Wittich, Eds.). University of California Press. (Original work published 1922)