This chapter explores the multi-level perspective (MLP), a key framework in sustainability transitions research. It highlights how the MLP bridges social science dichotomies (e.g. stability-change, agency-structure) by integrating insights from evolutionary economics, innovation sociology, and institutional theory. The chapter outlines the MLP’s three levels - niche innovations, socio-technical systems, and landscape developments - and their interactions across four transition phases: experimentation, stabilisation, diffusion, and institutionalisation. An empirical case study of Germany’s electricity transition (1986-2022) illustrates these dynamics. The chapter also examines developments such as four transition pathways (substitution, transformation, reconfiguration, de-alignment/re-alignment) and evolving actor roles. It concludes by identifying seven key research topics: niche-regime interaction, regime destabilisation and phase-out, diffusion and acceleration, multi-system interaction, whole-system reconfiguration, incumbent reorientation, and trade-offs between transition speed and depth.

Chapter 3 explores and historicises attempts to revise the 1983 Mental Health Act of England and Wales. I focus on the traffic between: first, clinical affirmations about the need to enhance access to treatment – increasingly understood to be psychological therapy – for people diagnosed with a personality disorder; and, second, political aims to detain criminal offenders living under this diagnosis for longer periods. The rewriting of the Act, and the significance of personality disorder among these, represent a key yet underacknowledged moment in the unfolding story of access to psychological care, while also demonstrating how improved access is not an unproblematic social good. The chapter demonstrates how legal and professional discourses contoured each other such that an understanding of personality disorder as treatable through psychological intervention was produced. This improved the accessibility of therapy for some people; however, this was often as a consequence of their involuntary confinement.

Which form of capitalist governance best fosters peace, prosperity, social cohesion, and environmental protection? I argue that making sense of this complexity calls for revisiting the three different principles of capitalist governance: liberty (freeing the market to unleash growth), solidarity (reining in the free market to protect the weak and the environment), and community (safeguarding the group through protectionism and military might). I contend that studying the European Union helps provide insight into how a compromise between liberty, solidarity, and community capitalisms is struck, as the Union is in a constant process of negotiation among bickering members. Dealing with community capitalism, in particular with protectionism and nationalism, has been the most pressing challenge for Europe in the past, not just today. This book will focus on the interaction between capitalism and European integration between 1945 and 2025, drawing on studies from areas of scholarship that rarely enter into dialogue with one other (history, political science, comparative political economy, international relations), as well as through new archival research.

In this short Coda, I describe some of the ambivalences that come with an ethic of access. I reflect on the procedural and ethical challenges that can be propelled by ostensibly progressive healthcare initiatives, and consider what could perhaps be done about these. In light of the arguments made throughout the preceding chapters, I decline to advance discrete recommendations in what is already an overdetermined policy space. Rather, I urge an ethos of reconfiguration within mental healthcare that fosters variability and mutability in services through direct and ongoing engagement with communities. In so doing, psychological practitioners might be enabled to better comprehend, articulate, and serve the needs of those with whom they undertake therapeutic work.

Chapter 4 examines the parallel historical development of American and Nordic capitalism through key figures Henry Ford and N. F. S. Grundtvig. Through their contrasting approaches – Ford’s efficiency-driven industrial innovation versus Grundtvig’s democratic vision – the chapter illuminates how different historical paths shaped distinct varieties of capitalism. It traces how American capitalism evolved toward oligarchic concentration of power, while Nordic nations developed democratic institutions that dispersed power more broadly. The chapter explores critical historical periods including industrialization, the New Deal era, and modern developments, highlighting how initial choices and institutional arrangements influenced long-term outcomes. By examining these divergent historical trajectories, the chapter demonstrates how democratic foundations became essential to Nordic capitalism’s success while their absence increasingly challenges American capitalism.

Chapter 9 proposes a fundamental paradigm shift in American capitalism from a “Me-Me-Me” to a “Me-We-Me” mindset, drawing on insights from Nordic societies. Through personal cases of healthcare access and workplace safety, it demonstrates how American capitalism’s hyper-individualistic paradigm creates systemic harm, while Nordic capitalism’s balanced approach enables both individual freedom and collective well-being. Using Multilevel Selection theory, the chapter shows how societies that effectively balance competition with cooperation outperform those focused solely on individual self-interest. It argues that Nordic capitalism’s success stems not from rejecting individualism but from recognizing how collective action enhances individual freedom. The chapter concludes that addressing global sustainability challenges requires shifting from destructive hyper-individualism to a paradigm that enables effective cooperation while preserving individual initiative.

Through the metaphor of Nordic strawberries (jordbær), this opening reflection introduces core themes of Nordic capitalism. The modest yet consistently high-quality berries serve as a symbol for Nordic societies’ approach to shared prosperity – not luxury for the few, but reliable well-being for the many. The reflection illustrates how thoughtful democratic design and efficient capitalism can create systems where good things are broadly accessible, which in aggregate produces something exceptional at the societal level, setting up the book’s exploration of Nordic capitalism’s distinctive features.

In the past decade, the geographical and conceptual breadth of sustainability transitions has expanded, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Increasing attention is paid to social, economic and environmental issues in the ‘Global South’, where decades of colonial rule have shaped infrastructures and institutions. In recent years, the literature has taken a ‘decolonial turn’, underlining the risks of reproducing colonial ways of control, power, privilege, domination, and disassociation with Nature. This chapter reviews this emerging literature, articulating why and how contexts differ between Global South and North and how sustainability transitions theories could be more meaningful in Global South contexts. The central research question is: how could we analyse and enact sustainability transitions in the Global South in a way that transcends historical challenges of colonial modernity and undesired development while pursuing just futures? The review is organised around five themes: niches, regimes, change, justice, and knowledge diversity. The chapter proposes ways to go deeper into these themes in setting a research agenda for future sustainability transitions in the Global South.

Dodona is among the best-known Greek oracles, with thousands of lead lamellae relating the questions asked to Zeus. But understanding how they were used, relying on epigraphy, with the literary tradition and its usual stereotypes about oracles, proves impossible. Literary sources emphasise the ambiguity of questions and answers, while the engraved questions, ignored by the literary tradition, are obviously formulated to be answered by ‘yes’ or ‘no’. From this basis, this essay explores when these questions (and the answers that we do not possess) were written and used in some ritual way(s). This could have been at the beginning or the end of the consultation, or somewhere in between. We do not know if the texts transpose the question asked orally verbatim, nor if all the consultants were following a strict procedure. Most of the questions are too short to be understood by the officials, and the consultation was partly if not fully oral. Some detours about quasi-identical questions, abecedaries and lot oracles clarify this picture, but this enquiry highlights our ignorance about the procedure and warns against simplistic interpretations drawn from incomplete documentation.

Against recent alternative interpretations, this chapter argues that Col 3:11 utilizes and hence confirms a derogatory stereotype of the Scythians. It proposes a fresh reading that argues that the point of Col 3:11 is not that there are no longer any social distinctions, but that there are no moral distinctions: the author argues that everyone, including even the notoriously barbaric Scythian, is capable and hence called upon to adhere to the moral standard that is advocated in the letter.

Transition governance explores how societal transitions can be accelerated towards just and sustainable futures. This chapter presents an explorative and engaged approach, helping actors navigate complex, uncertain ‘transitions in the making’. It highlights the interplay between analytical and action-oriented, transdisciplinary methods. The chapter first outlines diverse analytical perspectives on actor interactions in transitions, from resistance to transformation. It introduces the X-curve framework, which identifies key actors and roles in both build-up and phase-out dynamics. The chapter then explores transformative and transdisciplinary approaches under Transition Management, a cyclical process involving strategic, tactical, operational, and reflexive activities. Methods such as transition arenas, reflexive monitoring, backcasting, and transition experiments facilitate social learning in multi-actor settings. The chapter concludes by reflecting on the challenges and opportunities for advancing transition governance amid growing resistance and the urgent need for transformative change.

This chapter critically surveys the many twentieth and twenty-first-century attempts to absolve the author of Titus 1:12 (“Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons”) of the charge of ethnic stereotyping. It further demonstrates that for much of the history of interpretation this derogatory, sweeping generalization of the Cretans did not raise any qualms, but rather served to support and legitimize ethnic stereotyping of this and other ethnic groups.

Chapter 6 examines how Nordic companies implement stakeholder cooperation to achieve superior sustainability outcomes. Through detailed case studies of companies like Rambøll, IKEA, Novo Nordisk, and Ørsted, it demonstrates how Nordic institutional structures and cultural norms enable effective stakeholder engagement. The chapter documents Nordic companies’ sustainability leadership, noting how Denmark-based firms have been recognized as the “World’s Most Sustainable Company” more than any other nation and Nordic based companies are disproportionately well represented in global sustainability rankings. It traces the theoretical foundations of Nordic stakeholder theory to Eric Rhenman’s pioneering work in the 1960s, contrasting this cooperative approach with American capitalism’s more competitive orientation. It also explores how enterprise foundation ownership, democratic governance structures, and cultural emphasis on cooperation create the “Nordic cooperative advantage.” The chapter concludes by arguing that realizing sustainable capitalism requires both structural foundations and cultural support for stakeholder cooperation, not just voluntary commitments.

What is the best form of governance for capitalism? It is a balance between three types of capitalist governance, namely liberty capitalism, solidarity capitalism, and community capitalism, i.e. a trinity. In any given society, leaders emphasise liberty if they believe that freeing markets will unleash plenty; solidarity if they prioritise protecting the weak (the poor, minorities, nature); and community if they emphasise the power of the group to which they belong (through protectionism and military might). Each of these three types has a radical variant, such as neoliberalism for liberty capitalism, or Nazi Germany for community capitalism. This trinity is useful in making comparisons across time and space. Capitalism is not solely based on a compromise between liberty and solidarity. Community capitalism must also be taken into consideration. Community capitalism emphasises protectionism, restrictive migration policy, cartelisation and unilateral foreign policies. The chapter examines these three types of capitalist governance one by one (including the question of neoliberalism, of ordoliberalism, of neomercantilism, of the Commons), and then explores how they have applied to various countries.

Innovation systems take a holistic approach to understanding innovation dynamics, emphasizing the role of actors, institutions, and networks as key structural components. These interact to create feedback loops that can either accelerate or hinder innovation. Initially, innovation systems focused on national competitiveness and remained technology-neutral. The introduction of technological innovation systems (TIS), the focus of this chapter, shifted attention to the emergence of specific technologies, particularly sustainable ones that face market barriers. This made TIS a foundational framework in sustainability transitions research. A major milestone in its development was the introduction of TIS ‘functions’, which capture key system dynamics. Over time, TIS has evolved, incorporating factors like geography, policy, and system interactions. Scholars continue to expand the framework, exploring missions, life cycles, and destabilisation. These advancements increasingly integrate technological and social innovation, offering insights into the transition towards more sustainable futures.