This essay draws conclusions from a quantitative analysis of the thousands of lead tablets from Dodona published by Dakaris, Vokotopoulou and Christidis in 2013. It argues that the use of lead tablets in the divination process grew rapidly in the fifth century due to the increased availability of lead in particular from Attika. The tablets would have been left in visible locations after use before being cleared away to be ready for reuse after a period of time. This practice of displaying low-value metal objects is compared to the modern phenomena of coin-trees and love-locks. The use of tablets appears to decline rapidly through the fourth century, with few inscriptions dating to the period after 300 BCE. A number of explanations are offered: the monumentalization of the sanctuary in the third century making the practice of leaving tablets on display less acceptable; the changing role of the sanctuary leading to a change in clientele and consultation practice; and the need for lead for the construction of the large stone buildings resulting in the melting down of lead tablets, with more recent tablets being disproportionately affected.

This chapter focuses on issues of justice in sustainability transitions. Although there is an increasing focus in academia, policymaking and practice on the importance making sustainability transitions not only environmentally and economically sustainable, but also just and fair so that costs and benefits are shared equally, this chapter illustrates that social inequities can often be exacerbated rather than alleviated in the context of sustainability transitions. Indeed, people who are vulnerable and marginalised do not often benefit from sustainability transitions: they may have limited opportunities to actively participate as citizens and suffer from negative consequences of climate and energy policies and projects. Such injustices are often the reason for contestations of developments, projects, policies and initiatives that are part of sustainability transitions. This underlines the importance of considering questions of distributional, recognition, procedural, restorative, cosmopolitan, spatial, postcolonial, intergenerational and multispecies justice when designing, developing, and implementing sustainability transition policies and projects across all socio-technical systems.

A targeted European welfare state emerged between 1950 and 1992, one that was referred to in the late 1980s as the ‘social flank to the internal market’. This chapter will begin with a chronological overview, including a first section on the slow development of this European social policy between 1945 and 1985, and a second one its heights under Jacques Delors (1985–1995). It will then proceed with a topical exploration of European measures in this area (protecting the weak, environmental policy, regional solidarity), before concluding with an analysis of the two most important alternatives that were later abandoned: planning, and comprehensive social and fiscal harmonisation. This relative weakness of social Europe can be explained by its late development, by the sheer difficulty of organising a transnational social movement, as well as by divisions among its supporters. Besides, Thatcher was a formidable obstacle, one that Delors sought to circumvent through greater use of qualified majority voting. Other important actors were European trade unions, gender and environmental activists, as well as members of the European Parliament.

This chapter assembles a wide range of evidence to demonstrate that the reputation of Corinth for sexual licentiousness was not, as is usually maintained, solely a thing of the past, relating to the population prior to the destruction of Ancient Corinth in 146 BCE. On this basis, the chapter shows how the influence of stereotypical views about Corinth and its inhabitants helps account for the major emphasis on illicit sex (porneia) in Paul’s correspondence with Corinth.

The Greek tragedy that unfolded during the eurozone crisis (2010–15) was the height of a period of ‘high neoliberalism’ that has been particularly prevalent since 1992. This dynamic has been visible in Europe in four specific areas, namely 1) the global rise of neoliberalism (including in internet regulation), 2) the Single Market (with the liberalisation of the football market, the Bolkestein directive, the role of the Court of Justice, and legislative Darwinism), 3) competition policy (with merger control, state aid control, and the liberalisation of new sectors), and 4) the monetary union, from its miraculous beginnings to the Greek tragedy of the eurozone crisis. However, neoliberalism was not exclusive. The epic debates surrounding the Bolkestein directive led to the protection of services of general interest. The eurozone crisis triggered a belated redistribution. In competition policy as well, the older approach of ‘public interest’(which struck a balance between liberty, solidarity and community) has made a comeback in a new guise under Commissioner Vestager, in what could be called an ‘excess of market power’ approach.

Although it is well-known that major technological change can impact multiple socio-technical systems and their patterns of interaction, the issue of multi system dynamics in transitions has until recently not attracted much attention. For new sustainability transition phenomena such as decarbonisation efforts across various systems or circular economy initiatives that involve entire value chains, it is vital to better understand the ways, in which multiple systems interact and shape each other’s transitions. The goal of this chapter is to provide overview and orientation for a rapidly emerging topic by taking stock of the current state of knowledge. We review contributions from three main conceptual frameworks in transition studies: the technological innovation systems approach, the multi-level perspective, and deep transitions. On that basis, we discuss similarities, differences, and open issues to identify a future research agenda for the emerging area of multi-system dynamics in transitions.

In today’s world of increasing spatial inequalities, geopolitical tensions and global shifts in value chains, having a solid grasp of the spatial and multi-scalar dynamics that condition transition dynamics is of ever more importance. Initial theories of sustainability transitions have been criticised for being insufficiently equipped to assess the benefits, conflicts and unevenness that are constituted by the territorial contexts in which transitions dynamics and pathways unfold. Questions how sustainability transitions emerge across places and scales were largely off the radar. Interest and engagement with geographical dimensions of sustainability transitions grew however quickly into a prominent sub-field, characterised by a fruitful trading zone populated by geographers, transition scholars and other social scientists seeking to better account for place specificity, multi-scalarity, and spatial unevenness. This chapter outlines the contours of the Geography of Sustainability Transitions (GeoST) wider theoretical research agenda and ongoing debates, framing these specifically around conceptualisations of place and scale.

The EU is more than a traditional international organisation such as the UN, because it has its own budget, currency, and directly applicable law. Yet it is not a state, for it lacks a police force, army, and criminal justice system. Its member states conserve a right of veto for all major decisions. It is therefore illuminating to explore the EU’s unique political and institutional features in order to understand how it has played such a large role in organising European capitalism, and to determine its compatibility with the three forms of capitalist governance (liberty, solidarity and community). The European Union’s dominant role in regulating capitalism emerged quite late, after the failure of numerous alternatives in both European and international organisations. As Brexit has shown, it is perfectly possible for the Union to shrivel, potentially due to nationalistic pressures. The European institutional system, while being easier to combine with the liberty aspect of capitalism, is also conducive to solidarity and community. The role of European institutions was to facilitate the combination of various national forms of solidarity and community capitalism in Europe.

This chapter examines the critical role of individual behaviour in sustainability transitions, a field traditionally focused on macro- and meso-level processes. While systemic changes in technology and policy are essential, individual actions and small-group dynamics significantly shape sustainable practices and social norms. The chapter explores the interplay between macro-level structural shifts and micro-level behaviour, moving beyond the structure-agency and macro-micro debates in social and behavioural sciences. Drawing on psychology and social practice theory, it highlights the need for interdisciplinary approaches to link individual actions with systemic transitions. Through an analysis of evolving individual roles in sustainability initiatives, particularly energy transitions, the chapter argues for a nuanced understanding of behaviour that includes both habitual actions and deliberate choices. Key research gaps include the need for multi-actor studies, the interrelationship between individual and collective behaviour, and the impact of sustainability transitions on social cohesion.

This chapter argues that reflexivity - an introspective process in which researchers turn their engagement into an object of research - is essential to sustainability transitions research (STR). Reflexivity in STR encompasses not only the non-neutrality of its normative categories, such as ‘sustainability’ and ‘radical’, but also its descriptive categories, including ‘regime’ and ‘system’. This inherent social embeddedness, or ‘engagedness’, positions transition researchers with both an inescapable responsibility and a unique opportunity to shape their engagement reflexively. Reflexivity, which is relevant at every stage of STR, is illustrated in terms of research orientation, role and positionality. It highlights that much of reflexivity lies in the question of how - and with what kind of awareness - you are personally doing what you are doing. As a transition researcher, you are in a comparatively powerful societal position. Your choices matter and make a difference in the world.

Innovation systems take a holistic view of the dynamics shaping innovation, emphasizing actors, institutions, and networks as key structural elements. These interact to create positive or negative feedback loops. Initially, innovation systems focused on national competitiveness and were 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. The introduction of TIS ‘functions’ marked a key milestone in the field. Over time, TIS has evolved, addressing context, geography, and system interactions. Scholars continue to expand innovation system frameworks, exploring missions, life cycles, and destabilisation. This work increasingly integrates both technological and social innovation, supporting pathways towards sustainability.