The underlying assumption of the discourse about technology transfer is that government intervention is legitimate. Little scholarship has examined whether this assumption is valid or not and on what basis. Legitimacy is an important construct in the context of public policy. Government intervention can only be sustained if the public views such action as legitimate. The creation and transfer of technologies to the private sector is an area where there is significant government intervention. This paper reconceptualizes political legitimacy in the context of technology transfer policy. The analysis illuminates several concerns and challenges regarding the traditional approach to understanding whether specific government interventions in technology transfer are legitimate. It subsequently applies social constructionism and the notion of morality tales to describe an alternative conceptualization of political legitimacy that integrates aspects of other frameworks. In doing so, it reimagines political legitimacy as less of an unattainable normative principle of limited practical value to policymakers and more of a descriptively understood social phenomenon that policymakers can apply while formulating not only technology transfer policy, but other kinds of public policy as well. The paper demonstrates that there is a broader basis for claims of political legitimacy for government intervention in technology transfer, there is likely a more expansive range of technology transfer problems with which the government can rightly concern itself as well as possible solutions that policymakers can justifiably consider for addressing those problems, and that the political consequences of potential overreach in technology transfer policy are likely minimal.

Sweden has long been hailed as a role model in climate policy. But the new right-wing government supported by a far-right populist party is undertaking a paradigm shift in Swedish climate policy and governance. This paper critically analyses this paradigm shift and its impacts on legitimacy, accountability and justice. These are democratic norms important in the analysis of a just transition to climate neutrality. Severe democratic deficits of the policy process and the policies proposed and adopted are identified, suggesting ‘nasty politics’ characterised by populist, divisive, and contentious rhetoric that entrenches polarization and us/them narratives. Climate scientists and the climate justice movement are discriminated in the policy process, the latter also being accused of terrorism and seen as a threat to democracy by the government. The deficits are partly explained by the neo-corporatist political system of Sweden and the dominance of the (neo)liberal discourse of ecological modernization in Swedish environmental policy, but primarily with the ongoing process of autocratization driven by anti-democratic far-right populist parties throughout Europe. The anti-democratic climate policy reforms in Sweden are foreboding an unwelcome development in the EU given the boost of far-right populist parties in the upcoming elections to the European Parliament in June 2024.

The concept of policy entrepreneurs has gained increasing attention in studies of climate policy and governance since it foregrounds the role of agency in understanding policy change. However, agency of policy entrepreneurs in the policy process is largely political and conceals the power that shapes how public problems and policies are framed and defined. Thus, policy entrepreneurs should be confronted with the challenge of generating legitimacy, accountability and justice of their actions and the implementation of their targeted policy change. Drawing on political-philosophical theories of liberal and deliberative democracy this paper outlines a conceptual framework for critical analytical as well as normative research on strategies and impacts of policy entrepreneurs. Empirical research on the strategies and impacts of policy entrepreneurs in recent policymaking on climate policy and governance in the EU and Sweden identifies several democratic deficits. In all, the paper brings ideology and politics into research on policy entrepreneurs. It is suggested that not only the strategies used, but also the ideologies of actors that use them, is the causal mechanism that links the policy entrepreneurs to the outcomes, and thus if their advocacy will facilitate or hamper a just transition to climate neutrality and sustainability.

Sweden has long been hailed as a role model in climate policy. But the new right-wing government supported by a far-right populist party is undertaking a paradigm shift in Swedish climate policy and governance. This paper critically analyses this paradigm shift from perspectives of legitimacy, accountability and justice. These are democratic norms important in the analysis of a just transition to climate neutrality. Severe democratic deficits of the policy process and the policies proposed and adopted are identified. The deficits are explained by the neo-corporatist political system of Sweden, the dominance of the (neo)liberal discourse of ecological modernization in Swedish environmental policy, and an ongoing process of autocratization driven by anti-democratic far-right populist parties throughout Europe. The paper ends by suggesting how climate policy and governance can be democratized and re-politicized, that also give room for climate justice advocates to take part in policy processes.