The idea of justice in the Just Transition

The concept of ‘justice’ in the Just Transition, associated with processes such as Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs), should not be viewed as a splendid island of bliss from which justice will effortlessly emerge, as this is not feasible in reality.

There is also a common tendency among both proponents and opponents to view initiatives such as JETPs solely as projects. However, this approach limits their effectiveness, as their performance is intertwined with not only sector-based change processes but also the responsiveness of the rest of the economy to these processes. They are inseparable and entangled. What happens within a JETP is also influenced by what happens outside.

When examining the JETP investment pipeline, it primarily focuses on large-scale infrastructure investments designed to scale the clean energy transition.

As climate issues become more and more entangled in the maelstrom of the economy, they should not be treated merely as isolated projects. Instead, they must be integrated into the overarching worldview that governs the pursuit of inclusive economies, where the principles of justice are fundamental. The evidence of how practices of justice work in broader society determines whether or not they will succeed in sector-based energy transition processes. Past practice is likely to be an indicator of future outcomes.

The issue of achieving just outcomes, which can vary widely in interpretation among different parties, must be looked at from different angles or through different lenses. Here, it is worth exploring some key foundational elements that must be achieved within the general milieu for just transitions to be realised in sector-based transition processes. They may serve as some guide when determining the things we need to look at more closely.

The primary conditions for achieving just outcomes include protecting both first-order and second-order rights. State and non-State actors, especially those with the means and power, have a duty to protect the most vulnerable individuals who are likely to be harmed by actions justified in the name of development and economic progress.

Second-order rights are achieved through the conferring of capabilities that can be enjoyed as a result of good-quality education, healthcare, policing and other public services that give all citizens a fair chance to live reasonable, healthy and long lives. Both first- and second- order rights provide the basic framework for human potential and opportunity.

Economic rights are the hardest to achieve, especially in societies with significant disparities between the rich and the poor. In general, political elites and business and other organised formations have considerable influence over political and economic decisions. They will slant the world in the direction of their own worldview and extract from public choices what they can secure for themselves. Clearly, not all public choices favour the most marginal and vulnerable.

This is why the paradox of an open democracy coexisting with poverty and inequity can prevail: effective governance over the allocation and use of public resources requires vigilance and an active citizenry. At times, autocratic governments can perform better at redistribution than democracies that rely on redistribution through osmosis.

In the South African context, as highlighted in Chris Pappas and Sandile Mnikathi’s recent book, Saving South Africa: Lessons from the Umngeni Municipality Success Story, functioning local municipalities play a crucial role in the transition process – especially in South Africa’s coal belt regions. When basic responsibilities of politicians and the civil service are not accomplished, the impact is systemic, with richer households better able to cope, while poorer households are less resilient. The phenomenon of local service delivery ineptitude is a widespread problem across South Africa and will affect the implementation of the Just Transition.

Countries with minimum wages advocate for equal pay, but economies with high levels of inequality expose the stark disparity between the earnings of an unskilled worker and a CEO who runs a mining company and also benefits from owning shares within the company, thereby revealing the illusion of fairness.

Minimum wages within a broader context of failures in public service burden low-wage earners with increased precarity, intensifying their vulnerability to multiple shocks.

There are tools that can be applied within JETPs, such as the design of procurement processes that incorporate explicit community and labour conditions. These could be the first step towards enabling just provisions in the design of JETP roll-outs.

We must also consider income and how far it can carry households out of poverty in transition areas. In South Africa, most mineworkers in mining towns support extended family members, with ratios as high as 1:10 in some households, owing to high unemployment rates. This underscores the need for income support measures such as a transition basic income grant.

The official inflation rate does not take into account the effects of indirect inflation that come with the negative externalities resulting from poor public services. Poor public service means more out-of-pocket expenses for households already struggling to meet basic needs. This is evident in the additional cost borne by the poor as a result of failed rail necessitating more spending on private transport.

Most Just Transition concepts focus on jobs but often overlook whether these are satisfactory jobs. The number of jobs in the end is not an indicator of success; rather, the success of a Just Transition should also be measured by how well workers and the unemployed can lead satisfactory, healthy and safe lives. The quality of public amenities often serves as an indicator of wellbeing in poor towns and neighbourhoods.

The ‘just’ in the Just Transition will not be realised through large JETPs on their own; we need a much broader approach that extends beyond a sector-based approach.