Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences · The Social Science of Sustainability

The Social Science of Sustainability

Item

Title: The Social Science of Sustainability
Author: Urpelainen, Johannes
Research Area: Social Processes
Topic: Environmental and Climate Change
Abstract: The sustainability of socioeconomic systems is widely recognized as a key global challenge, and a social science of sustainable societies is now emerging. Social scientists have made commendable progress in quantifying the cost‐effectiveness of different environmental policy instruments, explaining their diffusion across nations, and documenting the phenomenon of historical and ongoing sustainability transitions. However, social scientists should pay much more attention to the political economy of environmental policy formulation, the challenge of building coalitions that support more ambitious policies to promote sustainability, and the development of analytical models and testable hypotheses about sustainability transitions. Owing to the inherently problem‐oriented nature of sustainability, the social science of sustainability must be strongly interdisciplinary, both among social sciences and with respect to the natural sciences. For the social science of sustainability to survive and thrive over time, academic researchers must both maintain the highest analytical standards and focus on research questions and answers that contribute to the solution of problems that practitioners face.
Related Essays: Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D. Aberbach; Rent, Rent‐Seeking, and Social Inequality (Sociology), Beth Red Bird and David B. Grusky; To Flop Is Human: Inventing Better Scientific Approaches to Anticipating Failure (Methods), Robert Boruch and Alan Ruby; Sociological Theory After the End of Nature (Sociology), Robert J. Brulle; Political Ideologies (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J. D'Amico; Lawmaking (Political Science), Jamie L. Carson and Mark E. Owens; Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi; The Inherence Heuristic: Generating Everyday Explanations (Psychology), Andrei Cimpian; Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.; Cities and Sustainable Development (Sociology), Christopher Cusack; Globalization: Consequences for Work and Employment in Advanced Capitalist Societies (Sociology), Tony Elger; Global Income Inequality (Sociology), Glenn Firebaugh; Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder; Food Sharing (Anthropology), Michael Gurven and Adrian V. Jaeggi; Behavioral Economics (Sociology), Guy Hochman and Dan Ariely; Modeling Coal and Natural Gas Markets (Economics), Franziska Holz; The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa B. Drell; Niche Construction: Implications for Human Sciences (Anthropology), Kevin N. Laland and Michael O'Brien; Why Do States Sign Alliances? (Political Science), Brett Ashley Leeds; Understanding Risk‐Taking Behavior: Insights from Evolutionary Psychology (Psychology), Karin Machluf and David F. Bjorklund; Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden; Domestic Political Institutions and Alliance Politics (Political Science), Michaela Mattes; Built Environments and the Anthropology of Space (Anthropology), Gary W. McDonogh; Rationing of Health Care (Sociology), David Mechanic; Below‐Replacement Fertility (Sociology), S. Philip Morgan; Natural Resources and Development (Political Science), Kevin M. Morrison; Economics of Renewable Energy Production (Economics), Gregory F. Nemet; Organizations and the Production of Systemic Risk (Sociology), Charles Perrow; Migration and Globalization (Political Science), Margaret E. Peters; Limits to Human Longevity (Sociology), Samuel H. Preston and Hiram Beltrán‐Sánchez; The Politics of Disaster Relief (Political Science), Alexander J. Oliver and Andrew Reeves; Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland; Ethical Decision‐Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self (Psychology), Lisa L. Shu and Daniel A. Effron; Sustainability (Archaeology), Joseph A. Tainter et al.; The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.; Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu
Identifier: etrds0351
extracted text: The Social Science of Sustainability
JOHANNES URPELAINEN

Abstract
The sustainability of socioeconomic systems is widely recognized as a key global
challenge, and a social science of sustainable societies is now emerging. Social scientists have made commendable progress in quantifying the cost-effectiveness of
different environmental policy instruments, explaining their diffusion across nations,
and documenting the phenomenon of historical and ongoing sustainability transitions. However, social scientists should pay much more attention to the political
economy of environmental policy formulation, the challenge of building coalitions
that support more ambitious policies to promote sustainability, and the development of analytical models and testable hypotheses about sustainability transitions.
Owing to the inherently problem-oriented nature of sustainability, the social science
of sustainability must be strongly interdisciplinary, both among social sciences and
with respect to the natural sciences. For the social science of sustainability to survive
and thrive over time, academic researchers must both maintain the highest analytical standards and focus on research questions and answers that contribute to the
solution of problems that practitioners face.

INTRODUCTION
In spite of remarkable technological progress, our societies have not achieved
a steady state of environmental sustainability. From the loss of biodiversity
to climate change and the pending collapse of oceanic fisheries, humans
are rapidly corroding the natural capital, which supports our well-being.
In response to these developments, both natural and social scientists have
sounded alarm and called for increased efforts to develop innovative
approaches to promote the development of more sustainability societies
(Rockström et al., 2009). This essay briefly reviews the state-of-the-art,
proposes a select set of central research questions for the future, and makes
the case for more interdisciplinary, problem-oriented research.
Today, three fields of research stand out in regard to contributions to the
study of the social science of sustainability. First, environmental economists
have made major strides in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of different

Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

types of policies. Second, the spread and diffusion of policies across countries is now understood much better than before. Finally, the emerging
science of sustainability transitions—transformative positive changes in the
way societies and economies use resources, mitigate pollution, and manage
waste—has, in a short period of time, become one of the most dynamic fields
of environmental policy.
Many open questions remain, however, as the social science of sustainability remains nascent and rudimentary. While scholarship on the logic of
sustainability transitions has made significant progress, analytical modeling and systematic hypothesis testing still lag behind a growing body of
individual, often descriptive, case studies. The political–economic approach
to understanding the formulation of environmental and energy policies has
become an increasingly sophisticated and rigorous field of inquiry, but this
research agenda has yet to generate practical guidelines for how policymakers and activists should evaluate the political feasibility of different types of
policy instruments without losing sight of their economic efficiency and environmental effectiveness. Little is known about the effectiveness of various
strategies of mobilizing the public and politically influential constituencies to
support better, more effective environmental policy. New research on these
issues is important for the social science of sustainability to thrive.
To answer these questions in such a manner that contributes to progress
toward increased sustainability, social scientists must strive to forge more
interdisciplinary collaborations and accept the need for problem-oriented
research. In the end, sustainable development is a quest for the creation of
social institutions that allow all living beings to lead fulfilling lives without
undermining the natural life-support systems that underpin our livelihoods.
The emerging social science of sustainability must draw on scientific knowledge about the natural world and ecosystems, while generating a new body
of knowledge that helps decision-makers identify threats to sustainability
and respond effectively to them.
RECENT ADVANCES IN THE STUDY OF SUSTAINABILITY
Since a short review of this kind cannot do justice to all the excellent research
that scholars have conducted and published, I focus here on three areas that
have made significant progress and are relevant to the core challenges of
making our societies more sustainable. First, there is a lot of new evidence
concerning the effectiveness of different types of environmental policies and
regulations. Second, the process whereby environmental policies spread and
diffuse across countries is now understood better than before. Finally, an
emerging line of inquiry is looking at the challenge of societal transitions to
sustainability.

The Social Science of Sustainability

3

By adopting quasi-experimental techniques, environmental economists
have in recent years made major progress in quantifying the benefits
and costs of different types of environmental regulations (Greenstone &
Gayer, 2009). Advances in econometric techniques of causal inference have
allowed scholars to draw more reliable inferences about the cost–benefit
ratio of different types of policy instruments. In the United States, economic analysis shows that the use of emissions trading allowed a dramatic
decrease in the cost of mitigating sulfur dioxide emissions (Stavins, 1998),
with significant implications for cost-effective climate mitigation strategies (Fischer & Newell, 2008). Other studies have shown that traditional
command-and-control regulations tend to be expensive, conforming to the
predictions of standard economic theory (Greenstone, 2002; Ryan, 2012).
Together, these studies are important because they provide compelling
empirical evidence for the significance of the choice of a policy instrument
in environmental protection.
While the above studies focus on the economic consequences of environmental policy, even more pressing is the need to understand how
governments actually select their policies. One of the most important observations of the past decade is the importance of learning and diffusion effects.
Almost two decades ago, Vogel (1995) proposed that environmental policies
often spread across national borders through trade channels, as key import
markets create environmental policies that other countries then mimic. Since
then, the evidence for this hypothesis has grown rapidly. Saikawa (2013)
showed that trade channels are critical to understanding the rapid spread
of automobile emission standards, while Aklin and Urpelainen (2014)
report that democratizing states tend to establish national environmental
ministries under external pressure. Holzinger, Knill, and Sommerer (2008)
documented the spread of environmental policies among 23 industrialized
countries during the 1970–2000 period. Overall, these and many other
studies suggest that learning, diffusion, and peer effects play an important
role in the formulation of environmental policy. New information and
reputational incentives push governments to enact new policies and create
new institutions. These results are important because they illuminate the
limits and possibilities of new policy innovations in an economically and
culturally interdependent world.
The third field of inquiry that has grown rapidly, with excellent results, is
the study of sustainability transitions. According to Aklin and Urpelainen
(2013, p. 644), for example, sustainable energy transitions can be defined
as “the extensive deployment of clean energy, such as wind and solar
power, to reduce the environmental burden of the national economy.”
While engineers and energy economists have described historical energy
transitions from biomass to fossil fuels (Smil, 2010), the social dimension of

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

today’s energy transitions remained understudied for a long period of time
(Smith, Stirling, & Berkhout, 2005). Verbong and Geels (2007) noted that
understanding societal transitions to a more sustainable system requires
the adoption of a multi-level perspective that accounts for technological
innovations, institutional structures, and structural factors. The study of
such transitions has produced a rich variety of case studies, ranging from
the Dutch electricity system (Verbong & Geels, 2007) to solar photovoltaics
in the United Kingdom (Smith, Kern, Raven, & Verhees, 2014) and the
development of modern biofuels in Finland and Sweden (Ulmanen, Verbong, & Raven, 2009). In a cross-national setting, Aklin and Urpelainen
(2013) emphasized the importance of partisan politics, international energy
prices, and path dependence for the growth of renewable energy. In my
opinion, these studies are particularly important for the social science of
sustainability, because they focus on the possibility of major transitions
toward more sustainable socioeconomic systems.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
In proposing research questions for the future, I adopt the premise that the
goal of the interdisciplinary social science of sustainability is to offer an analytical foundation for solving the world’s most pressing environmental problems. First, the political economy of the formulation of environmental policy
instruments deserves more attention. Second, I propose that there is a clear
need for new analytical models of transitions to sustainability. Finally, the
most pressing research need is the development of practical strategies to
build public and constituency support for better and more ambitious environmental policy.
On the theoretical level, both political scientists and economists have
already made distinct contributions to the political economy of the choice
of environmental policy instruments (Goulder & Parry, 2008; Keohane,
Revesz, & Stavins, 1998; Urpelainen, 2012). This field is important because
there is considerable variation in environmental and economic merits of the
quality of different types of arguments. However, the study of policy instruments suffers from a lack of compelling empirical evidence and analytical
guidelines into when and how more ambitious policies can be enacted. Some
individual case studies (Harrison, 2013) and correlational analyses (Lyon
& Yin, 2010) notwithstanding the political and economic conditions that
allow ambitious policy formulation remain poorly understood. If a primary
goal of the social science of sustainability is to identify opportunities for
new policy formulation, this oversight should be corrected. For example,
a body of rigorous theory on environmental policy formulation supported
by empirical evidence could help us identify jurisdictions and moments

The Social Science of Sustainability

5

that would allow better policies if a specific constraint, such as the lack of
grassroots mobilization, were removed.
This discussion brings me to the issue of sustainability transitions. As
noted earlier, the progress in the study of sustainability transitions has been
remarkable. However, the field is still young and unnecessarily narrow
in its outlook. Most key studies in the field are individual case studies or
comparisons of a small number of countries, and the hypotheses tested—if
any—are not based on systematic, parsimonious social science. While some
scholars have tried to develop and test analytical models of sustainability
´
transitions (Aklin & Urpelainen, 2013; Safarzynska
& van den Bergh, 2010;
Schilperoord, Rotmans, & Bergman, 2008), these models are not yet sufficiently informed by first principles of political economy and the empirical
evidence supporting their relevance remains limited. Moreover, much of the
recent case study research continues to ignore the political–economic side
of sustainability transitions. Given how central political processes are to
the decisions and behavior that determine the sustainability of the society,
correcting this oversight is the most important next step for the study of
sustainability transitions.
Finally, the social science of sustainability badly needs new research on the
determinants of political support for better, more ambitious policies. While
there is by now a lot of research on public opinion about environmental
policy (Aklin, Bayer, Harish, & Urpelainen, 2013; Aldy, Kotchen, & Leiserowitz, 2012; Klick & Smith, 2010; Rabe & Borick, 2009), this research does
little to identify when and how the public is mobilized to demand more
ambitious policies with such intensity that governments and bureaucrats
respond with real, nonsymbolic action. Studies of interest group influence
(Cheon & Urpelainen, 2013; Kim & Urpelainen, 2013; Michaelowa, 2005)
also focus on demonstrating the importance of economic interests, instead of
characterizing the conditions under which it is possible to create a powerful
“advocacy coalition” (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993) to support ambitious
policy formulation. This lack of attention to the challenges of coalition
building is particularly important if the social science of sustainability is
to have a genuine orientation toward solving problems. New knowledge
about effective strategies to create public and interest group support for
environmental policy is directly relevant to both advocacy by environmental
groups and policy formulation by interested policymakers.
INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND PROBLEM ORIENTATION
The need for interdisciplinary research on sustainability is indisputable.
Since sustainability depends on creating policies that allow human beings to
lead meaningful lives without undermining the environmental basis of life

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

on the planet, social scientists of all stripes must play a role in identifying
effective and politically feasible solutions to the problem of sustainability. To
harness clean technologies to promote sustainability, the contribution of the
engineering sciences is equally valuable. And since sustainability requires
the protection and maintenance of physical life-support systems, natural
scientists must also play a central role.
Deeper interdisciplinary collaboration is also necessary among different
social scientists. Whereas economists can shed light on the cost-effectiveness
of different environmental policies, economic theory does not—with the partial exception of political economy and public choice (Buchanan & Tullock,
1975; Oye & Maxwell, 1994)—shed much light on the issue of political feasibility in a world of imperfect political institutions, powerful special interests,
and uninformed publics. While economic theory provides an excellent foundation for the analysis of environmental policy, various other disciplines,
ranging from sociology to political science and social psychology, have an
equally important role to play.
For successful interdisciplinary research, a strong problem orientation is
important for two reasons. First, interdisciplinary collaboration is difficult on
the basis of the standard academic approach that emphasizes explanations
at the expense of solutions. Different disciplines have their own theoretical traditions and conventions, and it is difficult for scholars from different
disciplines to find a common ground. Even seemingly mundane practical
considerations, such as locating appropriate journals for article submission,
can prove insurmountable. Second, sustainability is itself a goal that cannot
be achieved without solving problems. If social scientists and other scholars
continue to focus on explaining our failures without offering constructive
proposals for new solutions, progress toward sustainability is improbable.
In the light of these considerations, the interdisciplinary study of sustainability must be based on a practical outlook. Problem orientation requires
that academic scholars reach out to practitioners at different levels to identify
the most important barriers to progress toward sustainability. Collaboration
between practitioners and academics combines the virtues of contextual
knowledge, practical relevance, and the rigorous conduct of academic
research.
On a final note, it is important for the social science of sustainability not
to conflate practical relevance with consulting for the current political elite.
From the perspective of a political scientist, today’s crisis of sustainability
largely reflects the neglect of environmental concerns among the powerful
and influential. While academic research can support effective policy formulation with clear analytical logic and systematic empirical evidence, it is
important to note that the people who need support and help the most are
found in marginalized communities, such as the victims of climate change

The Social Science of Sustainability

7

in the least developed countries. I believe it is the moral responsibility of the
academic community to support the efforts of the marginalized and powerless people to protect their natural life-support systems and deal with the
severe consequences of environmental change. Equally important, academic
researchers should not forget the need for a radical change in the outlook of
the global elite to achieve a truly sustainable world.
CONCLUSION
How can social scientists contribute to greater sustainability? This review has
sought to answer this question by reviewing recent advances in the social
science of sustainability, by identifying important research questions, and
by making a plea for increased interdisciplinarity and problem orientation.
These three components are intrinsically related. While much advance has
been made, the practical significance of this social science remains limited.
Also, the key research questions I have identified cannot be answered in a
practically relevant manner without deeper collaboration with practitioners.
Without any attempt at representativeness or generality, I have proposed
that the environmental economics of the cost-effectiveness of policy instruments, the study of policy diffusion across nations, and the literature on
sustainability transitions are three important advances in the literature
on environmental policy. However, much work remains to be done. The
literature on sustainability transitions itself relies too heavily on case studies
and lacks a firm analytical foundation for hypothesis testing. At the same
time, the general question of how governments formulate environmental
policies in a political–economic environment remains mostly unanswered.
Perhaps, most importantly, new knowledge on effective strategies of
coalition building for more ambitious environmental policy is needed.
While answers to these questions will be provided by social scientists, the
inherent problem orientation and normative emphasis of the social science
of sustainability necessitate interdisciplinarity and deep engagement with
practitioners.
For the social science of sustainability to sustain and thrive in the long run,
it is important that currently active academics recognize the most important research questions and focus their attention on answering them. Similar
to other social sciences, the social science of sustainability is prone to fads,
such as the increasingly sophisticated mathematical modeling of complex
global agreements that have no hope of being implemented. In choosing our
research questions, we must acknowledge the need to focus on the central
impediments to sustainability and emphasize the generation of knowledge
that offers innovative solutions to overcoming them. This challenge requires

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

the rare combination of analytical rigor and a practical emphasis on the context in which practitioners operate. The social science of sustainability cannot
afford to remain within the confines of the ivory tower, but it is also important not to throw the baby out with the bath water by compromising our
analytical standards in the pursuit of relevance.
REFERENCES
Aklin, M., Bayer, P., Harish, S., & Urpelainen, J. (2013). Understanding environmental
policy preferences: New evidence from Brazil. Ecological Economics, 96, 28–36.
Aklin, M., & Urpelainen, J. (2013). Political competition, path dependence, and the
strategy of sustainable energy transitions. American Journal of Political Science, 57,
643–658.
Aklin, M., & Urpelainen, J. (2014). The global spread of environmental ministries:
Domestic–international interactions. International Studies Quarterly. doi:10.1111/
isqu.12119
Aldy, J. E., Kotchen, M. J., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012). Willingness to pay and political support for a US National Clean Energy Standard. Nature Climate Change, 2,
596–599.
Buchanan, J. M., & Tullock, G. (1975). Polluters’ profits and political response: Direct
controls versus taxes. American Economic Review, 65, 139–147.
Cheon, A., & Urpelainen, J. (2013). How Do competing interest groups influence Environmental Policy? The Case of Renewable Electricity in Industrialized
Democracies, 1989–2007. Political Studies. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12006
Fischer, C., & Newell, R. G. (2008). Environmental and technology policies for climate
mitigation. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 55, 142–162.
Goulder, L. H., & Parry, I. W. (2008). Instrument choice in environmental policy.
Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, 2, 152–174.
Greenstone, M. (2002). The impacts of environmental regulations on industrial activity: Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 clean air act amendments and the census of
manufacture. Journal of Political Economy, 110, 1175–1219.
Greenstone, M., & Gayer, T. (2009). Quasi-experimental and experimental
approaches to environmental economics. Journal of Environmental Economics
and Management, 57, 21–44.
Harrison, K. (2013). The political economy of British Columbia’s Carbon Tax. OECD
Environment Working Paper 64.
Holzinger, K., Knill, C., & Sommerer, T. (2008). Environmental policy convergence:
The impact of international harmonization, transnational communication, and
regulatory competition. International Organization, 62, 553–587.
Keohane, N. O., Revesz, R. L., & Stavins, R. N. (1998). The choice of regulatory instruments in environmental policy. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 22, 313–367.
Kim, S. E., & Urpelainen, J. (2013). When and how can advocacy groups promote new
technologies? Conditions and strategies for effectiveness. Journal of Public Policy,
33, 259–293.

The Social Science of Sustainability

9

Klick, H., & Smith, E. R. (2010). Public understanding of and support for wind power
in the United States. Renewable Energy, 35, 1585–1591.
Lyon, T. P., & Yin, H. (2010). Why do states adopt renewable portfolio standards? An
Empirical Investigation. Energy Journal, 31, 131–15.
Michaelowa, A. (2005). The German wind energy lobby: How to promote costly technological change successfully. European Environment, 15, 192–199.
Oye, K. A., & Maxwell, J. H. (1994). Self-interest and environmental management.
Journal of Theoretical Politics, 6, 593–624.
Rabe, B., & Borick, C. (2009). Public opinion and climate change: Analysis of the
Virginia Climate Survey. Virginia Environmental Law Journal, 27, 177–203.
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., … ,
Foley, J. A. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.
Ryan, S. P. (2012). The costs of environmental regulation in a concentrated industry.
Econometrica, 80, 1019–1061.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.) (1993). Policy change and learning: An
advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
´
Safarzynska,
K., & van den Bergh, J. C. (2010). Demand–supply coevolution with
multiple increasing returns: Policy analysis for unlocking and system transitions.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77, 297–317.
Saikawa, E. (2013). Policy diffusion of emission standards: Is there a race to the top?
World Politics, 65, 1–33.
Schilperoord, M., Rotmans, J., & Bergman, N. (2008). Modelling societal transitions
with agent transformation. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 14,
283–301.
Smil, V. (2010). Energy transitions: History, requirements, prospects. Praeger: Santa Barbara, CA.
Smith, A., Kern, F., Raven, R., & Verhees, B. (2014). Spaces for sustainable innovation:
Solar photovoltaic electricity in the UK. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
81, 115–130.
Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable sociotechnical transitions. Research Policy, 34, 1491–1510.
Stavins, R. N. (1998). What can we learn from the grand policy experiment? Lessons
from SO2 allowance trading. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12, 69–88.
Ulmanen, J. H., Verbong, G. P. J., & Raven, R. P. (2009). Biofuel developments in Sweden and the Netherlands: Protection and socio-technical change in a long-term
perspective. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13, 1406–1417.
Urpelainen, J. (2012). How do electoral competition and special interests shape the
stringency of renewable energy standards? Environmental Economics and Policy
Studies, 14, 23–34.
Verbong, G., & Geels, F. (2007). The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a
socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960–2004).
Energy Policy, 35, 1025–1037.
Vogel, D. (1995). Trading up: Consumer and environmental regulation in a global economy.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

JOHANNES URPELAINEN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Johannes Urpelainen (PhD, University of Michigan, 2009) is an Associate
Professor of Political Science at Columbia University. His research focuses
on environmental policy, energy access, and international cooperation. The
author of a hundred refereed articles and a book with Oxford University
Press, Professor Urpelainen’s research has, among other outlets, appeared
in The American Journal of Political Science, Global Environmental Change, and
International Organization. He has extensive experience with the study of
energy access in India and is currently managing several major research
projects on the spread and socioeconomic benefits of solar power in rural
and urban India, with a particular emphasis on Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. He
is also currently working on a book manuscript on the political history of
renewable energy. Website:
http://www.columbia.edu/∼ju2178/

RELATED ESSAYS
Understanding American Political Conservatism (Political Science), Joel D.
Aberbach
Rent, Rent-Seeking, and Social Inequality (Sociology), Beth Red Bird and
David B. Grusky
To Flop Is Human: Inventing Better Scientific Approaches to Anticipating
Failure (Methods), Robert Boruch and Alan Ruby
Sociological Theory After the End of Nature (Sociology), Robert J. Brulle
Political Ideologies (Political Science), Edward G. Carmines and Nicholas J.
D’Amico
Lawmaking (Political Science), Jamie L. Carson and Mark E. Owens
Elites (Sociology), Johan S. G. Chu and Mark S. Mizruchi
The Inherence Heuristic: Generating Everyday Explanations (Psychology),
Andrei Cimpian
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Cities and Sustainable Development (Sociology), Christopher Cusack
Globalization: Consequences for Work and Employment in Advanced
Capitalist Societies (Sociology), Tony Elger
Global Income Inequality (Sociology), Glenn Firebaugh
Architecture of Markets (Sociology), Neil Fligstein and Ryan Calder
Food Sharing (Anthropology), Michael Gurven and Adrian V. Jaeggi
Behavioral Economics (Sociology), Guy Hochman and Dan Ariely
Modeling Coal and Natural Gas Markets (Economics), Franziska Holz
The Development of Social Trust (Psychology), Vikram K. Jaswal and Marissa
B. Drell

The Social Science of Sustainability

11

Niche Construction: Implications for Human Sciences (Anthropology), Kevin
N. Laland and Michael O’Brien
Why Do States Sign Alliances? (Political Science), Brett Ashley Leeds
Understanding Risk-Taking Behavior: Insights from Evolutionary Psychology (Psychology), Karin Machluf and David F. Bjorklund
Transformation of the Employment Relationship (Sociology), Arne L. Kalleberg and Peter V. Marsden
Domestic Political Institutions and Alliance Politics (Political Science),
Michaela Mattes
Built Environments and the Anthropology of Space (Anthropology), Gary W.
McDonogh
Rationing of Health Care (Sociology), David Mechanic
Below-Replacement Fertility (Sociology), S. Philip Morgan
Natural Resources and Development (Political Science), Kevin M. Morrison
Economics of Renewable Energy Production (Economics), Gregory F. Nemet
Organizations and the Production of Systemic Risk (Sociology), Charles
Perrow
Migration and Globalization (Political Science), Margaret E. Peters
Limits to Human Longevity (Sociology), Samuel H. Preston and Hiram
Beltrán-Sánchez
The Politics of Disaster Relief (Political Science), Alexander J. Oliver and
Andrew Reeves
Economics and Culture (Economics), Gérard Roland
Ethical Decision-Making: Contemporary Research on the Role of the Self
(Psychology), Lisa L. Shu and Daniel A. Effron
Sustainability (Archaeology), Joseph A. Tainter et al.
The Institutional Logics Perspective (Sociology), Patricia H. Thornton et al.
Recent Demographic Trends and the Family (Sociology), Lawrence L. Wu