Foregrounding the state in transdisciplinary urban sustainability research: a normative and analytical agenda
This paper argues that transdisciplinary urban sustainability research must move beyond treating the state as a passive stakeholder by adopting a new analytical framework—drawing on African urban studies and political science—that scrutinizes the state's internal complexities, scales, temporalities, and institutional compositions to effectively drive systemic change.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Cities are where the climate crisis is playing out most visibly, and solving it requires more than just better technology or scientific data. It requires action, and the primary engine for turning ideas into action is the state: the complex web of government agencies, laws, and public officials that manage everything from water and waste to energy and housing. For decades, scientists studying how to make cities sustainable have tried to work with these government bodies, often inviting officials to join research projects or asking for their advice. However, a new perspective suggests that this approach has been too shallow. Many researchers treat the state as a simple container or a passive customer waiting to buy the latest scientific findings, without truly understanding how the government actually works inside. This paper argues that to fix our cities, we must stop treating the state as a black box and start understanding its messy, historical, and often contradictory inner workings.
The authors, researchers from universities in South Africa, Italy, and the United Kingdom, draw heavily on decades of scholarship about African cities to build a new way of thinking. They argue that the state is not a single, uniform thing that acts the same way everywhere. Instead, it is a collection of different parts that often work at cross-purposes, shaped by long histories of colonialism and recent economic changes. To help sustainability scientists navigate this complexity, the team proposes a framework built on four specific lenses, or ways of looking at the problem. These lenses are scale, time, the mix of institutions involved, and the rules that define what is legal or illegal. By using these four tools, researchers can move beyond simple cooperation and engage with the state in a way that actually leads to real change.
The first lens is scale, which asks the question: which level of government actually has the power to fix the problem? In many places, the national government might have the money, while the local city council has the people, but neither has full control. The authors point out that data often gets confused by these boundaries. For instance, in Nairobi, the official county statistics cover about four million people, but the actual metropolitan area where people live and work includes nearly seven million. If a researcher only looks at the official county numbers, they miss the reality of the surrounding areas where climate risks and health issues are often most severe. The paper suggests that scientists must carefully map out which specific department or level of government holds the authority for a specific issue, rather than assuming that working with "the city" is enough.
The second lens is time, which reminds us that governments are not just what they are today, but also what they were yesterday and what they might become tomorrow. The current structure of many African cities is a direct result of past events, such as colonial rule or the policies of the 1980s that forced governments to cut spending. These historical layers create deep habits and barriers that cannot be ignored. For example, the way a city in South Africa manages water today is still shaped by the segregation policies of the apartheid era. The authors argue that sustainability projects must understand these historical roots to be effective. Furthermore, they warn that the future is not just a longer version of the present; it is uncertain. Governments often resist change until a crisis forces them to act, so researchers need to understand how to work with these slow-moving institutions while also preparing for sudden shifts.
The third lens looks at the internal composition of the government, recognizing that the state is made up of many different departments that often do not get along. A city's housing department might be measured by how many cheap homes they build on the edge of town, while the planning department is measured by how well they protect the environment and stop the city from spreading out too far. These two goals can directly conflict, making it hard to create sustainable neighborhoods. The paper notes that even when governments create new units to handle complex issues like climate change, these units often lack the real power or money to do their jobs. To make progress, scientists need to identify exactly which specific office or official has the mandate to act, rather than hoping that a general agreement between different departments will magically solve the problem.
The final lens concerns the rules that decide what is allowed and what is not, particularly regarding "informality." In many cities, a huge part of the economy and daily life happens outside of official rules, such as street vendors or people living in settlements without formal land titles. Governments often view these informal activities as a problem to be stopped, while others see them as a vital survival strategy for the poor. The authors argue that the state itself is often inconsistent, sometimes tolerating these informal systems and other times trying to erase them. For sustainability research to work, it must understand the logic behind these rules. It is not enough to simply try to make everything formal; researchers need to understand why the state acts the way it does toward these informal systems and how to work within those realities to improve lives.
The paper concludes by offering a clear path forward for scientists and policymakers. It suggests that the state should not be seen merely as a recipient of research or a static obstacle, but as an active, messy, and essential partner in creating a sustainable future. By using these four lenses to understand the specific scale, history, internal conflicts, and rules of a government, researchers can design projects that actually fit into the real world. This approach is not limited to Africa; the authors argue that these insights are useful for understanding governments everywhere, from the Global South to the Global North. The ultimate goal is to move beyond simple collaboration and engage with the state as a complex, living system that must be understood on its own terms to achieve the transformative changes needed to save our cities.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.