We live in a time of multiple, overlapping, mutually reinforcing ecological and social crises that pressure states, markets and citizens to adapt. Responding adequately to such multiple crises requires deep and broad social-ecological transformations in the economy and society. However, although the existing mode of governance of environmental and welfare concerns needs to change, academics know that a ‘well-trodden path’ is hard to leave, as institutionalised solutions – in terms of established norms, modes of organising and formalised policies and routines – often result in stability, rather than change. Drawing on the concept of sustainable welfare, which stresses the need to analyse the connection between ecological and social dimensions of sustainability and to explore models that can reconcile them, this book explores the extent to which Western society is about to embark upon a path towards sustainable welfare, or whether welfare and environmental concerns and practices remain separate entities. The book is situated in an urban context as cities play critical roles in developing new policies and solutions linked to the social-ecological crises, where much of welfare policy and sustainability governance is manifested in practice.

Caught in the silo?

Reports by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2023) demonstrate that human activities are the main drivers of climate change and that we are on a pathway that will cause us to fail to achieve the goal of restricting global warming to 1.5°C at some point between 2030 and 2050. The planetary/boundaries framework identifies thresholds for nine critical Earth system functions that should not be transgressed. However, several planetary boundaries have already been crossed, such as those relating to climate change and land-system change, while others show a negative trend but are still within the safe operating space, such as freshwater use and ocean acidification (Rockström et al, 2009; Steffen et al, 2015; Persson et al, 2022).

At the same time, the world is facing many social crises and problems that are at least partly driven by increasing inequalities and failed redistributive policies. Although worldwide poverty is declining, people still live in absolute poverty in many parts of the world and lack access to basic human needs such as food, shelter, clean water and sanitation, energy, education and means of living. Industrialised countries face problems such as unemployment, homelessness and poverty, alongside extensive and rising inequalities (IPCC, 2022). Wealth and income inequalities are accelerating between and within countries, resulting in a small number of wealthy individuals owning a large part of global wealth. Such disparities give rise to declining trust in public institutions and social policies as welfare states fail to redistribute welfare across generations, groups and social classes (Savage, 2021).

To address the double challenge of responding to the ecological crisis while providing critical amounts of social welfare, economies and societies need to find ways of staying below critical planetary boundaries (the ecological ceiling) while keeping above the sufficiency level required to meet people’s basic needs (the social foundation or ‘floor’) (Khan et al, 2023), which is illustrated by Kate Raworth’s (2017) ‘doughnut model’. The situation is gloomy, as industrialised countries in the Global North perform well on social thresholds but transgress most biophysical boundaries, while the poorest countries tend to do the opposite. In a study of over 150 countries, O’Neill et al (2018) found that no country met ‘basic needs for its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use’ (p 88) based on calculations of the performance of countries concerning staying below per capita biophysical thresholds and above critical social thresholds. Moreover, we know that high-income earners and wealthy groups have significant ecological footprints compared to people lacking financial resources. Kenner (2019) introduced the notion of a ‘polluter elite’, connecting extreme wealth concentration and ungeneralisable ecological footprints.

More fundamentally, the ecological crisis calls into question the expansionary economic model upon which contemporary welfare states rest. This model presupposes continuously rising material living standards and economic growth as a way of providing jobs and generating tax revenues, thereby providing wealth distribution (Fitzpatrick, 2011; Gough and Meadowcroft, 2011; Koch and Mont, 2016; Creutzig et al, 2022; Murphy, 2023). There is a relatively clear-cut and close link between a country’s environmental and economic performance: the richer a country is, the worse its performance on environmental indicators (Fritz and Koch, 2016; Fanning et al, 2020; Gössling and Humpe, 2023). Despite this reality, mainstream policy responses to the climate crisis have been based on ideas about ecological modernisation and ‘green growth’, which assume that continued GDP growth can be decoupled from carbon emissions at a sufficient rate to maintain current levels of prosperity and meet decarbonisation goals (see Hickel and Kallis, 2020). However, there is little evidence that an economy-wide decoupling of GDP growth from carbon emissions can occur at a rate that is sufficient to prevent dangerous climate change (Haberl et al, 2021), and even less evidence regarding the possibility of decoupling growth from unsustainable use of natural resources (Vadén et al, 2020a, 2020b). Given the lack of evidence for an absolute decoupling of GDP growth and environmental resource use in any existing welfare state, the traditional reliance of welfare states on the provision of growth has started to be questioned (Corlet Walker et al, 2021; Hirvilammi et al, 2023; Paulsson et al, 2024).

Beyond the problem of having to decouple welfare from growth (Büchs et al, 2024), the ecological crisis challenges existing welfare arrangements in several other ways (Gough and Meadowcroft, 2011). Welfare societies will have to deal with an expanded set of eco-social risks, including those that follow directly from changes in environmental systems, such as heatwaves or droughts related to human health, human security, employment and housing and so on, as well as those that emerge more indirectly as a result of climate mitigation policies (Schaffrin, 2014; Johansson et al, 2016; Hirvilammi et al, 2023). The required active management by public institutions in terms of adaptation and mitigation measures could result in conflicts in the struggle to reconcile different policy goals. Mitigation measures, or the lack of them, could, for example, undermine social objectives because poor households and individuals will be financially burdened by remedies to counteract climate change, as illustrated in discussions on fuel poverty (for example, Sherriff et al, 2022). This could lead to budgetary tensions concerning the limited ‘public purse’ when mitigation responses require more significant expenditure (Gough and Meadowcroft, 2011), potentially conflicting with the possibilities of providing for welfare needs.

Sustainable welfare beyond the silo divide

The concept of sustainable welfare, a topic of increasing interest among scholars and the central focus of this book, underscores the urgent need to understand better the intricate connection between the ecological and social dimensions of sustainability and models that can reconcile them (Koch and Mont, 2016; Schoyen et al, 2022; Hirvilammi et al, 2023). In the 1980s, social policy scholars started discussing and questioning the expansionary economic model on which Western welfare societies are founded (see Fitzpatrick, 2001, for a resumé). Twenty years ago, it was stated that: ‘Green social policies require an ethical rethinking so that material growth and consumerism are no longer regarded as the yardstick of well-being and “welfare sustainability” becomes an organising principle of welfare reform’ (Fitzpatrick, 2001, p 187; Fitzpatrick, 2014; Gough, 2017; Murphy, 2023).

Advocates of sustainable welfare argue that welfare systems should meet human needs and well-being while also preserving the planet’s life-support systems (Koch and Mont, 2016; Matthies and Närhi, 2017; Gough, 2017; Hirvilammi, 2020; Büchs, 2021). Sustainable welfare (for example, Koch and Mont, 2016; Büchs and Koch, 2017; Koch et al, 2023) delves into the intersection of the environment and welfare, integrating the previously distinct research traditions of environmental sustainability research on one hand, and social policy and welfare research on the other. This interdisciplinary research agenda (Hirvilammi et al, 2023) acknowledges that production and consumption patterns and welfare provisions are all within a finite natural environment. The term envisions a future where ecological and social issues are harmoniously resolved, offering a hopeful and inspiring vision. However, achieving sustainable welfare will necessitate significant social-ecological transformations, including new discourses, policies and mobilisation strategies that consider both social and environmental policies and concerns (for example, Fitzpatrick, 2011; Gough, 2017; Ripple et al, 2020; Emilsson, 2023).

Aim and purpose of the book

This book contributes to the still emerging but rapidly growing scholarly interest that explores the interplay between sustainability and welfare studies, linked to concepts such as ‘sustainable welfare’, ‘eco-social policies’ and ‘eco-social work’ (Gough et al, 2008; Koch and Mont, 2016; Emilsson, 2022; Khan et al, 2023; Hirvilammi et al, 2023). We explore patterns of inertia, emergence and transformation in sustainable welfare governance at an urban level and investigate how and to what extent Swedish cities are about to overcome the separation between social welfare and environmental concerns and practices. Hence, while we use the concept of sustainable welfare in a visionary sense – that is, as a guide to identify when societies can meet human needs within planetary boundaries – we empirically operationalise and investigate it in connection with institutional stability and change across environmental and welfare divides in an urban context.

Our combination of theoretical approaches contributes to debates concerning the barriers and opportunities for transforming societies towards sustainable welfare models. Welfare state and public policy research has highlighted the resilience of existing institutional solutions despite significant pressures, indicating the relevance of theories of institutional inertia and path dependency. Sustainability studies have relied on theories of transition and transformation to examine patterns and drivers of change in economic, political, social and environmental systems. This book combines insight from both as we build on the concepts of inertia, emergence and transformation.

Path dependence theories suggest that change is rare and that inertia prevails despite the pressures of climate change and social concerns. Path emergence theories suggest that change occurs in a gradual, incremental process, partly because innovative practices explore new ways of thinking and doing in urban governance. While these two theories allow us to explore the complex interplay between a dominant order and a new path in the making, the addition of transformation theories opens an analysis of establishing a new order as a potential integration or amalgamation of environmental and welfare concerns in urban governance. By synthesising research from both fields, we can better understand actual changes and the persistence of compartmentalised thinking and actions. Integrating established theories from various academic disciplines enables us to identify the drivers of change and stability associated with concepts such as inertia, emergence and transformation.

Cities as sites for experimentation

It is crucial to recognise cities as dynamic sites for experimentation, where innovative solutions to pressing social, economic and political issues are developed and mobilised. This understanding of cities as accelerators of change towards sustainability is a crucial aspect of our research (Emilsson and Koch, 2022). Urbanisation is ‘the most powerful macro-mechanism of change in coupled human-environment systems observed so far’ and has enormous environmental effects (Wolfram, 2016, p 121; see also UN DESA, 2019). Cities cover less than 2 per cent of the Earth’s surface, but they contribute to more than 70 per cent of global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions (Seto et al, 2014; UN Habitat, 2018). While cities and urban residents generate ecological and climate pressures (for example, caused by urban lifestyles), they also experience inequality, poverty, segregation and vulnerability, and social risks associated with climate change. They will likely become even more polarised than Fainstein and Harloe predicted (Fainstein and Harloe, 1992). At the same time, urban residents are vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as air pollution, heat waves and potential rising sea levels, owing to the concentration of infrastructure, economic activities and communities in cities (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2013).

The study of cities is moreover essential because they are exposed to the localisation and decentralisation processes taking place in many European countries. Central governments have delegated responsibilities ‘downwards’ to local governments (for example, Kazepov, 2008, 2010; Johansson and Panican, 2016). Therefore, problems such as unemployment, poverty and social exclusion are seen as localised social problems beyond national governments’ reach and responsibilities (Kazepov et al, 2022).

The mounting pressure on local governments and urban actors to adapt justifies an empirical focus on urban transformation, but cities are also essential to study for other reasons. Urban sustainability research often emphasises the transformative potential of cities (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2013; Vojnovic, 2014; Wolfram, 2016; Fenton and Gustafsson, 2017; UN Habitat, 2017; IPCC, 2018), with the assumption that cities constitute sites for action where solutions to pressing social, political and economic issues are mobilised and developed. Cities can ‘help bridge the gap between the aggregate national intended contributions agreed in Paris and the actual requirements of emissions reductions needed to keep temperature changes under 1.5 degrees’ (Castán Broto, 2017, p 1).

As social, cultural, economic and political entities, cities can thus be seen as accelerators of change towards sustainability, encompassing sites where people and decision makers meet to deliberate, take action and mobilise support for (or against) urban transformations towards sustainable welfare (for example, McCormick et al, 2013; Wolfram et al, 2019; Hölscher and Frantzeskaki, 2021; Grainger-Brow et al, 2022). Recent academic interest in urban experimentation describes cities as places for disruptive or radical change (Bulkeley et al, 2019). Urban experimentation reconciles with the long-standing idea of cities as being vibrant and continually in the making (Karvonen et al, 2014; Karvonen, 2018) and forms ‘an antidote to modern ideals of rational and comprehensive planning’ (Ehnert, 2023, p 77), suggesting that cities are the places where new paths emerge, and are explored, tested and embarked upon.

Three sites of urban transformation

Empirically, this book explores the transformation towards sustainable welfare in connection with three sites of urban governance: local government, civil society and public attitudes. We deploy the site concept, assuming that transformation towards sustainable welfare at the urban level is a contested process (for example, Fainstein, 2010; Blokland et al, 2015). Since sustainable welfare is not (yet) an institutionalised model of governance, it is of significance to acknowledge the multi-site, multi-actor and potentially conflictual nature of environmental and welfare governance at the urban level, which encompasses relationships between state and non-state actors (Bulkeley and Betsill, 2013; Bulkeley and Newell, 2015; Hajer et al, 2015), including actors such as local governments and civil society organisations (hereafter CSOs), as well as communities and citizens. The concept follows a shift in the theorising of urban politics and governance, from focusing on local political institutions to emphasising urban governance as practised and shaped by its multi-level and multi-actor environment. In studies of urban climate governance, ‘site’ is often used to reflect the kinds of places and spaces where climate governance takes place and is shaped by a multitude of actors and where these actors come together to deliberate and debate, to contest and challenge and to express agency and exercise their power to act (Bulkeley et al, 2015; van der Heijden et al, 2019). In the following, we introduce the three sites that form the basis of our empirical studies of sustainable urban welfare transformations.

Local government

Local government reflects a dominant order in urban governance but also includes elements of innovation and change as decision makers and civil servants develop new policies and practices that cut across policy domains. Studies of urban sustainability governance have explored the institutional capacities of local governments to adapt to current crises and the need for change, pointing to the challenges posed by the multi-level character of public governance (Bridges, 2016). The focus of these studies includes developments concerning the built environment (van der Heijden, 2014; Smedby, 2016), transportation (Stead, 2016) and ecosystem services (Haase et al, 2014; Frantzeskaki et al, 2016). Urban climate governance has emerged as a particularly important subfield, as climate action cuts across almost all aspects of sustainability governance (Lee and Painter, 2015; Hughes, 2017). Recent studies have furthermore focused on urban climate change experimentation, where climate governance is framed as a series of experiments in cities with low-carbon technologies and practices involving a diverse set of actors (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013; Bulkeley et al, 2015; Evans et al, 2018; Kronsell and Mukthar-Landgren, 2018; Marvin et al, 2018).

When envisioning local government as a site, we expect this to include tensions between priorities and policy goals. Despite climate change and welfare concerns being two critical challenges for local governments, with an increasing number of interconnections, there have so far been few studies examining whether, how and with what consequences these are integrated or kept as separate in urban governance. We will explore whether local governments have embarked on a new path treating environmental and welfare concerns in combination, what we term eco-social integration (Khan et al, 2020). The study draws on analyses of policy documents and interviews with urban policy makers and civil servants (see Chapter 3).

Civil society

Civil society plays a vital part in transformation processes, holding the potential to bring about significant change. It serves as an arena for citizens to unite, express and engage in collective action on shared issues and concerns (Diamond, 1994). This potential for change is particularly evident in its role as a sphere for citizen mobilisation and participation between political elections and alongside political institutions (Rosanvallon and Goldhammer, 2008; Keane, 2009). It functions as an intermediary between governments and citizens, and its engagement in deliberation and influence on policies through advocacy and campaigning is a testament to its transformative power.

By conceptualising civil society as a site, we acknowledge the existence of a heterogeneous set of actors competing over resources and positions vis-à-vis others (for example, Crossley, 2003; Johansson and Kalm, 2015; Florea et al, 2022). The site of civil society is furthermore likely to include both contentious and collaborative practices and networks of cooperation (for example, Plüschke-Altof and Sooväli-Sepping, 2022), and actors such as local associations, urban movements and urban activists who seek to ‘achieve some control of their urban environment’ (Pruijt, 2007, p 5115) and target the ‘problems, needs and lifestyles typical for the urban environment’ (Domaradzka, 2018, p 609; see also Mayer, 2012, 2013). We address both established and radical elements of urban mobilisation to understand practices of stability and change.

Therefore, this part of the book investigates whether and how civil society actors organise and mobilise across social welfare and environmental concerns. Our discussion draws on studies with protest participants and interviews with leading representatives of environmental and welfare-oriented civil society groups (see Chapter 4).

Public attitudes

To capture transformations towards sustainable welfare at an urban level, we investigate the support expressed by urban residents regarding attitudes to environmental and welfare concerns and the degree to which we can identify synergies and integration across attitudinal divides. We identify different patterns of support and discuss how they can be explained as a means to study inertia, emergence and transformation in urban governance. Public opinion and the expression of ideas are at the same time separate and interconnected with formal policy making, based on the assumption that policy follows the public (for example, Jacobs and Shapiro, 1994; Tjernström and Tietenberg, 2008; Burstein, 2010; Beyer and Hänni, 2018; Schaffer et al, 2022). Seen from this perspective, public opinion and ideas can either provide legitimacy for or challenge different policies and institutional arrangements and can therefore be part of the drivers or the blockers of change (Svallfors, 2010, 2012; Hemerijck, 2013; Lindvall and Ruead, 2018; Rosenbloom et al, 2019).

A focus on urban public attitudes and ideas becomes specifically important as urban residents are often seen as an avant-garde who are, compared to their counterparts in suburbs, smaller cities or rural areas, willing to embrace change (McGrane et al, 2017; Gimpel et al, 2020; Huijsmans et al, 2021). It has been shown in Western contexts that urban residents express higher levels of knowledge and awareness about climate change (Mildenberger et al, 2016), less climate scepticism and stronger environmental beliefs and concerns than rural residents (Berenguer et al, 2005; Weckroth and Ala-Mantila, 2022). Despite this, the assumption that urban residents hold more cosmopolitan, liberal, tolerant, left-leaning and progressive cultural values and are more open to change and transformations towards sustainable welfare will be empirically investigated. In addition, we will explore the degree to which there is resistance and opposition towards sustainable welfare among urban residents. We do this through an in-depth survey of urban residents regarding their attitudes to environmental and welfare concerns (see Chapter 5).

The case of Sweden

This book focuses on Sweden, which provides a suitable case for studying transformations towards urban sustainable welfare. Sweden is often described as a social democratic welfare regime with comparatively universal welfare arrangements (Esping-Andersen, 1990, 1999; Blomqvist and Palme, 2020) and as an early pioneer in environmental governance (Lundqvist, 1980, 2004; Andersen and Liefferink, 1997). It has a well-developed and institutionalised environmental governance regime with relatively progressive environmental policies (Hildingsson and Khan, 2015; Duit, 2016).

Although the incremental progress of the past and relatively positive public attitudes of the present suggest that Sweden is a potential candidate for embarking upon the path towards sustainable welfare, the actual picture is far more complex. In the literature on social policy and climate change, it has been suggested, for example, that social democratic welfare states will be better at managing the intersection between social and environmental policies because these states have institutions and a political culture that ‘enable an interventionist state acting to promote the public good’ (Gough and Meadowcroft, 2011, p 498).

This view has subsequently been questioned as Sweden and other Western countries tend to score high on environmental indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions per capita and ecological footprints of production and consumption (for example, O’Neill et al, 2018; see also Koch, 2022). In addition, the standard narrative of Sweden as having strong redistributive institutions and features to fight inequalities has significantly been challenged – for example, by rising inequalities in wealth and housing (for example, Lundberg and Waldenström, 2018; Christophers, 2021; see also Johansson, 2022). At the same time, far from breaking what Hausknost (2020) refers to as the ‘glass ceiling’ of environmental states, the Swedish welfare state – as all Northern welfare states (Raphael et al, 2024) – has been demonstrated to be mainly dependent on the provision of economic growth. This ‘glass ceiling’ is primarily formed by the policy priority of providing economic growth, or the superiority of the economic imperative of the modern state (Hildingsson et al, 2019; Koch, 2020a). Not only is this indicative of a long-lasting tradition of stable institutions and an interventionist state in welfare and environmental domains, but it also suggests patterns of change in political and public priorities.

Regarding local governments, Swedish cities and municipalities are among the most capacitated and best equipped to engage in societal transformation processes (Johansson, 2022). Compared to many other countries, Swedish local governments have far-reaching autonomy, self-governance and significant responsibility and authority regarding social welfare, environmental management and urban planning. This includes local mobilisation, encompassing a tradition of welfare and environmental movements, and, more recently, a new wave of climate activism with the birth of the Fridays for Future campaign as the then 15-year-old Greta Thunberg, in 2018, sat down in front of the Swedish parliament to protest against the lack of action on the climate crisis. In addition, it has been demonstrated that Swedish residents tend to be supportive of the welfare state and concerned about both social welfare and environmental issues (Franzen and Vogl, 2013; Svallfors, 2015; Fritz and Koch, 2019; Otto and Gugushvili, 2020; Sivonen and Kukkonen, 2021; Heggebø and Hvinden, 2022; van Oorschot et al, 2022). Urban residents, in particular, express a dual concern for social welfare and environmental issues (for example, Otto and Gugushvili, 2020; Emilsson, 2022).

This book draws on several empirical studies mainly focused on Sweden’s three largest metropolitan cities: Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö. Although the cities in the study are by far the largest in Sweden, they are, by international comparison, small or medium-sized. Stockholm is the capital of Sweden, with a population of around one million inhabitants. However, it struggles with problems similar to those of other large European cities, such as segregation and housing shortages (Johansson, 2022). The political majority in Stockholm has shifted over the years. Between 2014 and 2018, a left–green coalition ruled with a Social Democratic mayor. Between 2018 and 2022, when the primary empirical material for this book was collected, Stockholm was governed by a right-wing majority government based on an alliance between the Conservative Party, the Christian Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Centre Party, with the support of the Green Party. After the elections in 2022, the majority shifted again, and a new left–green coalition of the Social Democratic Party, the Left Party and the Green Party took over local government in Stockholm.

Gothenburg is the second largest city in Sweden, with around 600,000 inhabitants. The city has long been governed by left-wing political parties, with the Social Democratic Party traditionally being the dominant one. In the past decade, however, the city council has increasingly resembled a typical coalition government, where the Green Party and the Left Party have had considerable influence. Between 2018 and 2022, this coalition was challenged by a local protest party, the Democrats, the second largest party in the elections. During these years, the city was governed by a conservative minority with shifting majorities in the city council. In the 2022 elections, the Democrats lost much of their support, and a left–green coalition of the Social Democratic Party, the Left Party and the Green Party returned to power and currently govern the city.

Malmö is the third largest city in Sweden, with a population of around 350,000. During the past two decades, the city has faced high unemployment and challenges related to an increase in its population. Malmö has long been governed by the Social Democratic Party, except for two periods in the 1980s and the early 1990s. At the time of our study, the city was governed by a coalition of the Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Party, which the Green Party has supported since the elections in 2022.

Outline of the book

This introduction is followed by a chapter that explores the theoretical basis for our analysis. We engage with theories of inertia, emergence and transformation, which form the framework for our study of transformation towards sustainable welfare at the urban level. Chapter 2 reviews and combines political and sociological approaches to institutional stability and change and debates in sustainability sciences on societal transitions and transformations.

The subsequent three chapters present the results from the empirical analyses of each site. In Chapter 3, we investigate the integration of ecological sustainability and social welfare concerns in local city politics and public governance. Based on an analysis of policy documents and interviews with policy officials, we show how and to what extent ecological and social concerns are addressed and integrated into the three cities’ local government and urban planning. Chapter 4 analyses patterns of integration or separation across environmental and welfare spheres in urban mobilisation. This chapter draws on a survey study of participants in the Swedish Fridays for Future demonstrations (2019) and an interview study with leading representatives of both environmental and welfare CSOs regarding collaboration, mutual frames and vested interests. Chapter 5 addresses urban residents’ attitudes to environmental and social welfare concerns and towards specific eco-social policies. Our analysis draws on an original cross-sectional survey study, which followed a stratified random sampling strategy targeting residents of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö, including Sweden. Finally, the three empirical chapters are followed by a conclusion, which interprets stability and change across the sites and discusses the potential pathways to sustainable welfare at an urban level.