While the section aims to uncover the generative mechanisms behind a ‘transition to a Natural Social Contract’, it lacks focus and thread.
Fourth, the section on co-evolution warrants serious re-thinking. Rather than elaborating the notion and development of NSC, this section largely discusses co-evolutionary approaches, with emphasis on discursive aspects (e.g., metaphors, open concepts and master signifiers). While the section aims to uncover the generative mechanisms behind a ‘transition to a Natural Social Contract’, it lacks focus and thread. In the section, NSC is presented as a ‘master signifier’ (345) and the orientation of governance actors (536) towards the ‘well-being economy’ (Table 1); NSC is also associated with alternative business models (443) and integral and robust forms of transition (554-581); NSC is said to need horizonal governance as well as Transformative Social-Ecological Innovation (TSEI). This raises two basic problems. One, the definition and position of NSC in this conceptual medley remains vague. Two, the nature and form of evolutionary variation, selection and dynamics remain unclear. Co-evolution is now associated with all kinds of change-in-tandem, social-sustainable, different institutional actors, discursive items, etc. One wonders whether the notion of transformative change really warrant this evolutionary perspective.