The pressures from human-made climate change are intensifying, yet the international institutions that could lead mitigation and adaptation efforts are facing severe headwinds. In a global environment marked by geopolitical tensions, a rising specter—or reality—of armed conflict and the ascent of populist political forces, international cooperation through institutions such as the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, or the organizations of the United Nations appears increasingly misaligned with the zeitgeist, as many institutions that once seemed unassailable now struggle to preserve relevance and legitimacy. These dynamics are also evident in the realm of agriculture, which is under acute pressure from climate change, while the broader backlash against multilateral governance reverberates through the international institutions tasked with supporting a transition toward more sustainable and resilient agricultural systems.
Against this daunting backdrop, Anthony Pahnke’s From ‘Climate-Smart’ to ‘Climate-Just Agriculture’: International Institutions and Challenging False Solutions to Our Ongoing Climate Crisis offers a more optimistic assessment of what the current moment in global politics could mean for international institutions and climate action. In his telling, heightened scrutiny and mounting pressure may create an opening for long-overdue reforms, and prompt institutions to reconsider the ideological foundations that have long guided their agendas. Forced to respond to the growing pressures, international institutions historically entrenched in capitalist logics—logics that have narrowed the range of acceptable policies and solutions—might be compelled to move beyond them and pursue more promising approaches to climate change, particularly in agriculture and food systems.
Over roughly 150 pages, Pahnke develops his account of the structural and ideological problems that have long marred development-oriented international institutions; how these problems have impeded the development and implementation of effective and just climate responses; and how recent political pressures could encourage alternative policy pathways. The analysis is grounded in Critical Theory (Chapter 1), which Pahnke uses to trace—and problematize—how the World Bank (Chapter 2) and the CGIAR consortium of agricultural research centers (Chapter 3) have approached climate change and agriculture. He argues that the policies they have promoted have been shaped by capitalist ideology and have often served selected corporate interests more than they have advanced a just transition. This critique is exemplified by their promotion of “climate-smart agriculture” (CSA): Pahnke problematizes how the focus on individual production practices and technological solutions under this paradigm has not only marginalized traditional approaches and practices but also sidelined questions of political economy and power asymmetries and largely precluded a meaningful role for public policy. An alternative approach is proposed in the form of “climate-just agriculture” (CJA) (Chapter 4), which seeks to move beyond reductionist, market-centered views of agriculture. Instead, CJA emphasizes policies that address structural issues, crucially the question of fair and stable financial returns to farmers as they transform their production to become more environmentally sustainable.
The book is part of Routledge’s Bridges to Another World series, which aims to present “thoughtful analyses of the roots of our current crises” that are “solutions and actions oriented.” Pahnke’s contribution achieves this by pairing analysis and critique with reform proposals. Throughout, the book highlights the role of civil society movements, which have long criticized and challenged international institutions and at times successfully pushed for reforms, and argues that the present moment might provide a window of opportunity for more far-reaching change. The analysis consistently ties these arguments back to key Critical Theory concepts, particularly immanent critique and the need to link theory with political action. Empirically, the book draws on secondary literature, research reports, and policy documents produced by international organizations and social movements. Together, these sources provide a convincing account of the dominant policy paradigms at the studied institutions, the critiques leveled against them, and signs of erosion in the dominance of neoliberal ideas in recent years.
Overall, the book offers a thought-provoking analysis of how narrow capitalist ideologies have shaped the policy outputs of many international institutions in ways that have proven detrimental to effective and just climate action, how these patterns have fueled growing dissatisfaction among civil society actors and, more recently, policymakers, and what the coincidence of the climate crises with mounting challenges to international institutions may imply for the future. These broader themes are highly relevant and extend well beyond the realm of agriculture and the specific institutions examined in the book. At stake are larger questions: how the climate crisis can be addressed through international institutions at all; what kinds of institutional and governance changes this would require; and whether these are achievable. By adopting an optimistic view regarding the opportunity for international institutions to improve in the face of daunting challenges, the book offers a welcome counterpoint to gloomier accounts of international institutions in decline.
And yet, as a reader of this account in early 2026, one cannot help but wonder if the optimism that underpins parts of the analysis may be so big as to be at odds with reality. The challenges that have been mounted to international institutions, and in particular to development cooperation and cooperation on climate change, probably go beyond what the author envisioned when writing the book in 2024. Many jurisdictions have slashed aid and development budgets; international institutions—including the CGIAR research centers—are facing severe budget cuts; the United States has withdrawn from several instruments of international cooperation, notably those focusing on climate change. While not all these developments could have reasonably been anticipated, they cast doubt on the author’s suggestion that populist challenges to international institutions will generate opportunities for progressive reforms. Populist movements, notably in the United States, and civil society groups critical of globalization may share a skepticism toward free trade orthodoxy and certain international organizations, but their motivations, objectives, and overall political projects differ starkly. While civil society critiques of climate governance and development institutions are typically oriented toward inclusion, justice, and institutional reform, populist challenges are often nationalist and destructive, favoring withdrawal and retrenchment from international institutions over supporting their transformation.
This tension becomes apparent in the discussion of climate justice, which the author rightly characterizes as foregrounding challenges to global hierarchies, colonial legacies, and the disproportionate impacts of climate change on marginalized populations. These commitments sit at odds with the agendas of contemporary populist movements in industrialized countries, which have shown little concern for such issues and are frequently hostile to the solidaristic and redistributive principles that climate justice entails. In this light, the book arguably overstates the “current moment’s emancipatory potential” and the likelihood that populist-driven contestation will translate into reforms aligned with climate-just agriculture.
Still, it is valuable for scholarship on international institutions to consider what could be, and to not lose sight of the opportunities that current upheavals might present. Pahnke’s book reminds us that international institutions and their capacity for reform should not be dismissed too lightly, and that advocating for them to adopt better policies remains a worthwhile endeavor. Hopefully, it will inspire both scholars and engaged stakeholders to treat these possibilities seriously while remaining attentive to the severity of the current challenges.
