Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Energy Research & Social Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss Review Energy policy and transdisciplinary transition management arenas in illiberal democracies: A conceptual framework Eduardo Noboa a, ⁎ , Paul Upham b a Institute for Sustainability Governance (INSUGO), Leuphana University Luneburg, Universitätsalle 1, D-21335 Luneburg, Germany b Institute for Environmental and Sustainability Communication (INFU), Leuphana University Luneburg, Universitätsalle 1, D-21335 Luneburg, Germany ARTICLE INFO Keywords: Transition management Transdisciplinary research Illiberal democracies Policy windows ABSTRACT While the theory and practice of transition management has been articulated and tested in Europe, little work in this vein has been undertaken in illiberal democracies, where state institutions may be captured by commercial interests, clientelism may operate and democratic rights may be constrained. We argue that a combination of insights from transition management and transdisciplinary research offers a basis for developing local strategies by which informal institutions can nurture alternative energy policy visions and prescriptions, in order to exploit policy windows that periodically arise. We articulate a conceptual framework to underpin such strategies, which emphasises the role of academics or other knowledge brokers as policy entrepreneurs, helping to build knowledge and capabilities, create networks of social capital and establish alternative discourse coalitions. While our particular applied interest here is in arenas for the development of low carbon energy scenarios in Latin America, the framework is also intended to have wider applicability. 1. Introduction Notwithstanding progress on raising the profile of sustainability concerns within governments, the private sector and civil society, globally we continue on unsustainable pathways and are far from achieving inter- and intra-generationally just development that en- compasses ecological, social, and economic needs in a balanced manner [1,2]. Greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase; biodiversity loss is accelerating; global poverty reduction is lagging behind United Na- tions goals; social inequality has intensified over the past 30 years and economic instability threatens societal cohesion and political stability [3]. Overall, despite the continued growth of sustainability-awareness also within international political spheres, accompanied by global policy initiatives (e.g. the 2030 Agenda [4] and the Paris Agreement [5]), as well as national institutional and regulatory frameworks, to date the actions taken by states, companies and civil society around the world have not succeeded in reversing the unsustainable dynamics of contemporary systems of provision at an aggregated, global level. A key issue in this problematique is that unsustainability is as much a political problem as a technical one. From a (co-evolutionary) so- ciotechnical transitions perspective, socio-economic development, technological innovation and policy change are intertwined. Hence in the context of energy transitions and indeed in other contexts, a co- evolutionary perspective clearly implies the need to take account of the role of politics [6,7]. As a response, calls for more collaborative, in- novative and pluralistic policy-making [3] and the expression of a wider range of values [8], while not seen as a panacea, have long been widespread among a variety of academic literatures dealing with the societal and environmental consequences of development generally, including technological development specifically (e.g. [9,10]). Our aim here is to set out a rationale for fora by which the above plurality may be sought, specifically in contexts where state institutions are in some significant way weak, which often involves capture by commercial or clientelistic political interests [11]. Such contexts are often associated with illiberal democracies – where some form of de- mocracy is institutionalised, but the expression of which is significantly constrained, as in Latin America [12]. This type of political system is also referred to as anocratic, with a complex mixture of authoritarian and democratic elements [13]. We focus particularly on the conceptual rationale of fora intended for the exploration of alternative energy fu- tures, though the framework may also be capable of providing theo- retical support for the collaborative design of other sectoral futures. We base our framework on a key premise: that the involvement of aca- demics as policy and institutional entrepreneurs, while not guaran- teeing outcome-or process-related ‘success’ in terms of consensus or formal policy change, does offer potential through the catalysis and preparation of alternative environmental policy options [14]. The role of academics as policy entrepreneurs, among many other types of actors https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.014 Received 7 February 2018; Received in revised form 5 July 2018; Accepted 12 July 2018 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: eduardo.noboa@leuphana.de (E. Noboa), paul.upham@leuphana.de (P. Upham). Energy Research & Social Science 46 (2018) 114–124 2214-6296/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. T