Normal View Dyslexic View
Conversation
The university as landscape for learning, innovation and social justice: a conversation with Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli
Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli†
, 
Abstract
Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli is now, in 2025, stepping down as Vice-Chancellor of University of Glasgow after sixteen years in the post. This interview provides the opportunity to hear his views on some of the leading issues affecting higher education today from the viewpoint of Glasgow, Scotland, but with wider significance. In three parts, the interview reflects first on questions of expansion and ambitious building schedules, and their impact on the city’s political economy and beyond. In the second part, the focus is on questions arising from leading a Scottish university and being in effect answerable to two governments, and finally in the third part of the interview, attention is paid to sector crisis, including fears for key subjects such as Modern Languages. Sir Anton stresses the importance of access, social justice and the university as an institution that retains a vision for worldwide learning and research, collaboration and impact.
Keywords
higher educationGlasgowScotlandaccesssocial justicePart 1: Landscapes for learning
Thank you for agreeing to do this interview Sir Anton.1 I think as a kick off, our readers would be interested to know about the growth and the actual expansion of the campus that you have overseen during your term in office. There seem to have been several new buildings. How were they planned and then constructed? In many ways, they have changed the landscape of Glasgow’s West End neighbourhood, tipping down into former working-class Partick and Yorkhill. Was this all a smooth pathway or did you face opposition? The old Western Hospital was demolished and the whole lower part of the campus is now angled downwards towards the Kelvingrove Gallery, with some usage also of the famous Kelvin Hall building. This must all have taken time and considerable finance. How did you oversee these developments? To what extent has the expansion across the university been a growth factor for the city and employment? How do these developments reach more widely across the city, including the much-discussed ‘student accommodation’ blocks that one sees rising up across the cityscape?
The expansion of our campus has been transformational for the University and for the city.
It began in tandem with NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde’s Masterplan to consolidate hospital services and develop the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital (QEUH), vacating the old Western Infirmary site, which was adjacent to our main Gilmorehill campus. At the same time the University had, as part of its strategy, an ambition to expand its research and innovation footprint and its postgraduate provision.
Recognising the opportunity for a mutually beneficial acquisition of the existing Western Infirmary site, we worked closely with the Health Board, also to ensure that our links with the Health Board would continue by ensuring a strong University presence at the new QEUH.
Securing this 14-acre site was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reimagine our estate and spaces. Our vision was to create a modern, inclusive and welcoming campus, one that reflects our global ambitions while remaining deeply rooted in the fabric of the West End. We engaged extensively with Glasgow City Council and local community groups to ensure the development was informed by the community and sensitive to the surrounding neighbourhoods of Partick and Yorkhill. The acquisition of the site took place between 2010 and 2012 and in 2014 we engaged in a Masterplan for the site in consultation with the City Council.
We’ve invested £1.8 billion in our campus to date, which includes the construction of landmark facilities, such as the James McCune Smith Learning and Teaching Hub, which has dramatically expanded our teaching capacity and access to modern technology-enabled active learning spaces; the Mazumdar-Shaw Advanced Research Centre, a hub for cutting-edge, interdisciplinary research; the Clarice Pears Building, home to our School of Health and Wellbeing, which addresses public health challenges locally and globally; and lastly a building for our Adam Smith Business School, which also provides dedicated space for our wider taught postgraduate community.
We’ve also prioritised landscaping and public realm improvements to create more open and accessible routes, connecting the campus more naturally to Byres Road and the surrounding areas.
Of course, such a transformation over the last decade wasn’t without its challenges. We went through a global pandemic months before we opened our first building, but we’ve adapted and evolved our plans over time.
Financing such a large-scale development was a huge decision. We were fortunate to benefit from favourable borrowing conditions in 2016–17, and we appointed Multiplex as our Project Delivery Partner, with a clear emphasis on quality over cost. To date, Multiplex estimates that our campus development has generated over £56 million in social and local economic value and over 150 apprentices and 42 graduates have been employed to support the campus development.
We’re proud of the development: the expansion has had a ripple effect across Glasgow, creating jobs, attracting talent and stimulating growth in sectors like construction. Looking ahead, the Keystone development is our exciting next step, which will allow us to continue this legacy. This latest Keystone project is not just about expanding capacity; it’s about enhancing the quality of our facilities to meet the needs of our world-class education and research and ensuring the sustainability of our campus.
Figure 1.
Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli. Courtesy of University of Glasgow.
Sir Anton, formally dressed, sits on the edge of a bench in the Mazumder Shaw Advanced Research Centre. Behind him are large floor-to-ceiling windows, through which the tower of Glasgow University’s Gilbert Scott Building can be seen.
The university is well known for the many programmes introduced to break down the barriers of access for those sectors of the population for whom higher education has never been within reach. There also remain so many local areas and regions in the West of Scotland that suffer from enormous deprivation. At the same time, Scottish universities have been pushed to expand the international student cohorts. Could you flesh out the details of the programmes you have overseen for social engagement and access to learn pathways? How have you got the message across that this is a university for first-generation students?
The University has long been committed to widening access; we believe all applicants should have an equal chance of entry and we strive to identify talent and potential, regardless of background or life circumstance. Our mission is rooted in social justice. We were founded on this very principle to benefit our City in 1451, and over the last twenty years, we’ve developed several programmes that actively dismantle barriers to entry for students from underrepresented backgrounds, particularly in the West of Scotland, where deprivation remains a significant challenge. As part of our approach to Widening Access, we work with over 160 local schools across the West of Scotland and our team works with more than 30,000 students each year.
The University runs a variety of outreach programmes, including Summer Schools and top-up and transition programmes for applicants to law, dentistry, veterinary studies and medicine. One of our flagship initiatives is the Access to Higher Education Programme, which provides a flexible, part-time route into university for adult learners and those who do not meet traditional entry requirements. This programme is tailored for individuals who have been out of formal education for three years or more, or who meet specific widening participation criteria, including living in postcodes of deprivation, being care-experienced, estranged, or having refugee or asylum seeker status.
In recent years, we’ve also partnered with IntoUniversity, a charity which brings vital educational support to young people in some of the city’s most disadvantaged areas. There are three centres in Glasgow and Edinburgh, each capable of supporting over 1000 pupils each year. These centres provide academic help, mentoring and university preparation to pupils, and advice and guidance to families, helping to raise aspirations and attainment levels.
Through sustained outreach, tailored support and working with charities, community groups and government partners, we’re proud to welcome students from all backgrounds and life experiences.
Part 2: Working with two governments
Your post at GU requires, as is the case with all Scottish university Principals, that you are in a sense answerable to two different governments: the Scottish government and Westminster. How would you describe your experience of juggling between the two? There must also, over the years, have been tensions and contradictions according to who is in office. How have you navigated this political terrain. How have you found the right minister at the right time? Readers will be interested to hear about how working within this complex scenario actually operates. In what respects are you accountable to one government more than the other?
During my time as Principal both at Glasgow and Heriot-Watt, and as Convenor of Universities Scotland and then Chair of the Russell Group of Universities, I’ve worked with many different governments in Scotland and the UK. Higher education is primarily funded by Scottish Government, as education is devolved; however, we operate a dual support system for research funding. Navigating the dual accountability to both the Scottish Government and Westminster is one of the more complex aspects of leading a Scottish university. Each government brings distinct priorities, which requires constant adaptation. In particular, we need to ensure that Scottish universities like Glasgow remain competitive at a global level. That is not always easy: the unit of resource for undergraduate teaching is lower in Scotland than in England. On the other hand, traditionally the Scottish Government has been very supportive of our efforts to recruit students internationally.
Universities like Glasgow play a vital role in delivering on government ambitions, and widening access is a great example of this. We also play a crucial role in driving innovation and economic growth through research, as a major employer and from our spin-outs. But we also face tensions. Immigration policy is a prime example of how decisions made at Westminster can directly affect our capacity to attract international talent, which in turn influences our research and teaching environment. Ultimately, our responsibility is to society, to deliver world-class research and teaching, regardless of political shifts, and that means working collaboratively with both governments.
As an economist in 2018/19 you undertook a major report for the Scottish Government on skills, growth and the role of the university sector.2 Could you briefly summarise your conclusions? Have conditions changed since then and have some of your proposals been implemented?
In 2018, I was commissioned by the Scottish Government to lead a review on how Scotland’s universities could better support inclusive economic growth. The resulting report, Driving Innovation in Scotland, called for a more coordinated approach between universities, industry and government to unlock Scotland’s potential as a world-leading innovation economy.
I made a number of recommendations, including the need for universities to work more closely together, to align efforts with enterprise agencies and to attract greater investment from UK-wide innovation funds. The report also emphasised the importance of translating research excellence into tangible economic benefits, through spin-outs, industrial partnerships and regional development initiatives.
Since then, there has been some progress, although the pandemic did hamper implementation of some elements of the report. The Scottish Government has embraced the idea of a shared national mission, and we’ve seen stronger collaboration across sectors, particularly through City Deals and Innovation Hubs. However, some challenges remain and there’s much more to be done, especially around securing external R&D investment, and ensuring that public funding for innovation is sustained.
The report’s central message still holds. Scotland’s universities are a national asset, and their full economic potential can only be realised through strategic, joined-up action.
The University also occupies a key place in the city and region’s political economy. During your term of office how have your interactions with the City Council proceeded? Along what kind of lines are there broad agreements and also disagreements? Does the emphasis on the potential of the arts and cultural industries as drivers for growth find a positive response in the city halls? To the outsider, there does seem to be some opacity around the role of the mayor and his or her office in Glasgow unlike in, for example, London or Manchester. Why do you think this is the case?
I’ve been fortunate to enjoy a constructive and collaborative relationship with Glasgow City Council throughout my term. It’s a vital partnership, not only for our campus development as I mentioned earlier, but because the University plays a central role as an anchor institution in the city’s economy. We help shape the future workforce, invest in physical infrastructure and contribute to placemaking and innovation.
Glasgow is home to thriving innovation sectors—in life sciences, advanced manufacturing, energy and the creative arts. While the cultural and creative industries are sometimes overlooked, we’ve consistently championed their potential as drivers of inclusive growth. The Glasgow Riverside Innovation District (GRID), where we are based, is a hub for this kind of cross-sectoral collaboration, bringing together institutions like the Hunterian Museum, Kelvingrove Gallery, SWG3 (a southside independent arts centre) and the BBC. These cultural assets are not just part of the city’s identity, they play a key role in an inclusive and innovative economy. GRID is also one of the most dynamic innovation districts in the UK, with impressive statistics for job creation and return on public investment in innovation and economic development.
We’ve found broad agreement with the Council on the importance of innovation, skills development and regeneration. As for city governance, Glasgow’s structure does differ from cities like Manchester, where the combined mayoral authority offers a clearer framework for bringing together industry academia and local government. But what’s important is strong civic leadership and partnership can accelerate growth and infrastructure planning. There’s a lot of good practice that we can build on. For instance, if Glasgow is to keep its momentum in economic development, it will be crucial for it to be more like Manchester and focus on diverse strengths across the major IS-8 sectors identified in the UK industrial strategy rather than focusing too narrowly on one or two. This will make our regional economy more resilient.
How has your experience as Vice-Chancellor shaped your understanding of how the sector as a whole can amplify its voice to government? Are our existing associations and organisations sufficient? In times of so many influential think-tanks, is the university sector sufficiently galvanised to gain the full attention of governments, both Holyrood and Westminster? Often, for example, professors and Fellows of the British Academy like myself feel that the ministers and Whitehall prioritise the school sector, and they are just less attentive to key issues, such as the losses to the future of research, knowledge and innovation as well as income to the universities with Brexit. Is there room for improvement here? Is there a different way of getting the issues fully on the table?
This is a very challenging time for the Higher Education sector across the UK. Although our funding models for undergraduate teaching differ between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we all rely on major public investment for both teaching and research and innovation. The fiscal constraints that both the UK and devolved governments face, mean that we absolutely need to gain public support for investment in Higher Education. Given the post-pandemic pressures on health and social care and the continued fiscal constraints, we cannot assume that HE will be at the top of our governments’ priorities. Evidencing our economic and our social impact will be crucial. Here the national academies, such as the British Academy, the Royal Society or indeed the Royal Society of Edinburgh, of which I am currently President, have an important role to mobilise the evidence of how important universities are to society. We should not only rely on arguments around our positive impact on the economy and productivity: e.g. our contribution to the UK Government’s growth mission. Although important, the reality is that we are essential to many dimensions of our delivery of government priorities, from societal cohesion to the health of the nation, to tackling climate change.
The expansion you have overseen has attracted attention in regard to the recruitment of international students. What are your views on the geopolitics of this flow-in? Can it last? What further scope is there for expansion? There are clear obstacles in regard to the visa system and the pushing together of international students with the migration statistics. Can we find a way of insisting on this cohort being seen as a separate feature of the growth and knowledge economy? How can we make the case boldly for this in-flow as a key to the ‘talent-led economy’?
The UK has a truly world-leading HE sector, which is why it has consistently attracted students from across the world at a scale unmatched by many other European nations. This global appeal has generated significant funding streams for universities over the past decade and beyond. These resources have not only strengthened the UK’s research and innovation base, but have also helped subsidise the cost of teaching domestic undergraduate programmes, ultimately easing pressure on the public purse. It has also attracted fantastic talent into the UK, which is important if we are to remain competitive as an economy. You cannot have a successful growth mission by blocking off access to the world’s talent. This is an immensely positive position to be in, but we know that many other countries—especially in Asia—are proving to be increasingly attractive destinations.
The key question for me is how we ensure that the sector works closely with the government as it addresses the political pressures on immigration. Ultimately, the answer lies in calibrating carefully what the country needs in terms of international student flows, to deliver its aspirations to be a magnet for global talent, and to boost its growth mission. We must then understand the implications of this policy to safeguard the sustainability of the HE sector and ensure we continue to signal clearly to talented students worldwide that the UK remains open and welcoming.
During your tenure you have had to navigate Covid, post-Covid shifts in the student demographics, perhaps greater competition across the sector with falling birth rolls, new employment scenarios especially for ECRs, job precarity and the spectre and reality of cuts and of VSS schemes. Dwelling less on the downside here, how have you managed these challenges, and what would you say are your proudest achievements if that’s not too bland a question? What has been enjoyable and rewarding?
As a community, I think one of our proudest achievements at the University of Glasgow is exactly that: resilience during major shocks, such as the aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis, the pandemic and the most recent shocks to inflation and geopolitics.
The University has not only maintained its position throughout these challenges, it has continued to grow and evolve, both in terms of its academic strengths, reputation and impact. What has been both enjoyable and rewarding? We are proud of our role as a ‘University for the world’ and this mission is a golden thread through all that we do—I have found that the most enjoyable and rewarding part of my role.
Part 3: Crisis in the sector?
We have all been living through some of the biggest shake-ups that the sector has experienced. Sometimes it feels like a driverless truck running amok. The fee system in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland has de-motivated low-income first-generation students. The excessive competition between the institutions in the context of role of market forces, audits and metrics, and ratings, not to forget the more emphatic role of parents, has created quite nightmarish scenarios for many universities as the ‘choice’ factor, along with the lifting of capping of student numbers, has produced a very skewed picture. Is there scope for scaling down competition and encouraging more partnerships and cooperations? What might this look like? If the lifting of the caps is unlikely to be reversed back to how it was originally, is there scope for cross-university co-teaching models, which might protect the now more vulnerable universities?
Your question paints a pessimistic scenario, but I am optimistic about the future. I think that there is recognition that, whilst a competitive model (outside Scotland) might have helped to expand overall participation in HE, the absence of number controls and a central funding council like HEFCE do not make it easy to manage the system. However, there is also recognition in Scotland that close number controls have not led to a rational outcome in terms of student choice and the shape of the system.
Going forward, I think that there is scope for greater cooperation, and to some extent financial and market pressures will drive that. But to enable collaboration fully, we are likely to need to have a clearer articulation of what Scotland’s optimal size, shape and geography of the sector for the next twenty to thirty years, looks like.
Very soon, I suspect that there will be a recognition that all governments in the UK will need to review what the right shape and size of the sector should be in each of the four nations.
Do you have some ideas about protecting subject areas that have become less popular? We have noted a kind of ‘massing’ effect that perhaps only four or five UK universities will remain well known for their German departments or for Italian, but this does reduce the chances for students unable to move perhaps hundreds of miles from home. Are there any strategies for maintaining a range of provision, by pooling across the Humanities and Arts?
Indeed, I am worried about the falling popularity of some subjects like Modern Languages. A country like the UK aspires to play a global role through its economic and cultural influence; therefore, we cannot allow its provision to be diminished.
Ultimately in these subjects, the problem lies in how we structure our school qualifications system, and I genuinely hope that governments will act to ensure that strategically important subjects are protected in the school curriculum and not just left to the vagaries of pupil choice.
But meantime, yes, universities can collaborate more in this area through pooling provision to ensure that we do not lose coverage in important subject areas.
Short courses and new programmes of adult education or return to learn/lifelong learning remain unfunded and so only a further cost on existing budgets. Can you imagine an economic model that might make this a strong pathway for growth? And linked with this, do you think government or the relevant body might come up with a scheme for international PhD training carried out mostly online with an obligation to attend in person perhaps only twice a year? This would be socially beneficial to talented students who cannot afford to move home and family to the UK. Do we need to explore possibilities that were not seen as realistic but could with online pedagogy be both lucrative and of social value?
I recall being on a panel with the late great Lord Kerslake, where we both championed the vital role civic universities have played in expanding lifelong learning opportunities across UK cities. As other providers, such as local authorities, have stepped back, universities have often remained a consistent presence, helping to widen access and drive social mobility.
Countries like Singapore are already recognising that demographic pressures and the need for re-skilling will require universities to be active in this area. But in order for that to work, lifelong learning cannot be funded as an incidental activity. In Scotland, for a period of time the Scottish Funding Council also funded access to online learning through a specific Upskilling grant. If this is an important economic imperative then, as part of any future review of the shape and scope of HE in the four nations, we should consider how lifelong learning should be funded.
When we prepared for this interview, you floated the idea of the need for a full-scale review of the HE sector, a kind of independent inquiry. Is this something that could be tabled as a matter of urgency? Last question, more personal, Brexit brought the wonderful experiences for young people of a year here and there across the EU countries also with some chances to work for set hours a week and thus make studying viable when only charged ‘home’ fees. Parents also really supported these exchanges. Is there scope for reversing the shutting down of all of these opportunities? In my own university we have seen a reduction, where there might have been thirty EU nationals on a single MA course, there are nowadays one or even none at all. The cohort reduced almost instantly. As someone with personal experience of living and working across EU countries, what do you think we must do to persuade government about the urgency of this issues and the losses that have accrued?
There are different strands to your question: let me unpack them.
On the issue of a review of HE, I do think that all of the UK’s governments need to look at the size and scope of the sector in each of the four nations, and how it is funded sustainably. The politics of this is difficult and so it would not surprise me if this might not happen for another electoral cycle. Ideally, these considerations are best made as part of a comprehensive review which is expert-led and independent of government and which has cross-party support. Ideally before an election, as was the case for the Browne review.
However, the current fractious nature of UK politics might make that difficult and so I would not be surprised if in each of the four nations the future of HE ended up being reviewed in due course as part of a government-commissioned review, or indeed simply as an act of government policy. We shall see. My one hope is that in any such policy developments there is a recognition that, despite the differences across the four nations, the UK still benefits from having a single UK university system. Policy divergence should not impact on student flows across the UK, and indeed the existence of a single UK research and innovation system.
The issue of EU students is an important one. I’ve already said that international students bring huge benefits to the UK, and that holds a fortiori for European/EU students, given our geographic proximity and our social, cultural and economic links. When Brexit happened, I indeed stressed that the University of Glasgow was founded as a proud European university in 1451 and that it would continue to see itself as one of Europe’s great universities. We have continued to engage in European university networks (through the Guild of European Research-Intensive Universities and as a member of the CIVIS European University Alliance).
Personally, I think that it’s very likely that the UK will move closer to Europe again in the education space. If some form of the Youth Mobility Scheme is adopted through the current UK–EU negotiations on our post-Brexit relationship, I can imagine a world where we see more European students studying in the UK and vice versa, not least if we associate with Erasmus+.
I certainly look forward to a world when we will see the UK as a closer part of the European HE area.
Figure 2.
The Mazumder-Shaw Advanced Research Centre, University of Glasgow. Courtesy of University of Glasgow.
A modern multi-story building with vertical red and white stripes, large glass windows, and a flat roof. The entrance, marked by a glass canopy, has a sign reading “ARC.” The surrounding area includes paved walkways, street lamps, and landscaped greenery.
Sir Anton, it would be interesting for readers to hear about your future plans. Where will you be investing your energies? What do you particularly look forward to? What public roles will be a priority? What, if any, leisure activities will be more available? (Many of us followed your former Twitter Italian cuisine with keen interest.)
As I mentioned, I am delighted to have been elected as President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Scotland’s National Academy), and in that context I look forward to working with the British Academy and the other national academies in the British Isles and Europe. Beyond that, I will continue to be an Honorary Professor in our Adam Smith Business School, with a link to our new Centre for Public Policy at the University. Through these roles, I hope to remain active in current debates in both economics and public policy.
That will hopefully leave time for leisure activities. Yes, that will certainly include more time for cooking, travelling (including back to Italy where I was born) and to attend music events. Last year I was able to attend the Jazz festival in Vienne and I recently saw West Side Story in Barcelona—I am hoping to do much, much more of that!
But whatever happens I will continue to be a huge supporter of the University of Glasgow. The University is in a strong position in terms of its global reputation and it has a strong foundation for its future development. It has been an important part of my life since I joined as an undergraduate in 1980, and I look forward to its future success.
Thank you Sir Anton for your time and we will be wishing you all the best for the next phase.
1
The format for this interview was discussed in May 2025, followed by a face-to-face meeting in July 2025. Sir Anton provided his answers by email in September 2025.
2
See The Muscatelli Report: Driving Innovation in Scotland—A National Mission (November 2019, https://www.gla.ac.uk/media/Media_700300_smxx.pdf).
Cite
DOI: 10.5871/jba/013.a41
Published on: 6 November 2025
Volume: 13
Issue: Issue 4
Article view count: 260
Article download count: 12
Copyright statement
© The author(s) 2025. This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International LicenseCite this article
Muscatelli, A. with McRobbie, A. (2025), ‘The university as landscape for learning, innovation and social justice: a conversation with Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli’, Journal of the British Academy, 13(4): a41 https://doi.org/10.5871/jba/013.a41Crossref
Dimensions
Altmetric
Article metrics
View count: 260
Download count: 12
No Data Found
No Data Found
No Data Found
Received
October 2022
Accepted
May 2023
Published
July 2023
Trusting the permanence of self for people with Alzheimer’s disease Gloria Frisone
Although informed consent is rooted in the growing affirmation of the subject’s autonomy, medical anthropology has highlighted the inherent limits of this procedural notion. My ethnographic research in neurological and geriatric clinics between France and Italy showed the triangular (dis)trust relationship—between older people with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), their doctor, and their caregiver. Following their cognitive decline and loss of autonomy, people with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) could be victims of epistemic injustice in two specific moments of the illness: the diagnostic disclosure and the institution of legal protection. If the diagnostic information diminishes the patient’s credibility, the institution of legal protection undermines the patient’s social identity and legal status. However, when caregivers preserve an unconditional trust in the permanence of the patient’s subjective identity, this trust may be conveyed to clinical teams, significantly improving the therapeutic relationship, the course of the disease, and the quality of life for all the actors involved.
19 December 2023
The Grangemouth oil refinery closure: lessons for ‘just transition’ governance Riyoko Shibe, Ewan Gibbs
In November 2023, Petroineos announced the closure of Scotland’s only oil refinery at Grangemouth by 2025. Grangemouth is widely perceived as a ‘litmus test’ for the Scottish Government’s commitment to a ‘just transition’ for workers in the oil and gas industry to steer them on an orderly movement towards suitable employment in green energy production. The announcement came as a shock and disrupted just transition planning developed in Scotland since the late 2010s. Power imbalances between Petroineos and the Scottish Government and the workforce and trade unions demonstrate the difficulties of organising transition in a sector dominated by large multinationals subject to minimal accountability or transparency. This paper demonstrates the value of historically, economically and politically grounded policy analysis for achieving net zero. It assesses the Grangemouth closure announcement, focusing on governance mechanisms, UK, Scottish and local policy coordination, transparency and long-term planning challenges, particularly for net zero, energy policy, renewables and deindustrialisation. This article is published in the thematic collection ‘The critical role of governance for decarbonisation at pace: learning the lessons from SHAPE research’, edited by Sarah Birch, Hilary Graham, Andrew Jordan, Tim O’Riordan, Henry Richards.
20 March 2025
No Data Found
