transitions thinking and the multi-level perspective...
TRANSCRIPT
Transitions thinking and the multi-level perspective: Deepening, broadening and scaling up
Professor Frank Geels Manchester Institute of Innovation Research
Manchester university
Climate-KIC summerschool, Frankfurt, 2 September 2014
Structure
1. Introduction: New topic of sustainability transitions
2. Multi-level perspective (MLP)
3. Brief empirical assessment (‘big picture’) of low-carbon transitions in global electricity domain
4. Deepening, broadening and scaling-up
1. Introduction
New environmental problems: Climate change
biodiversity, Peak Oil, resource problems (water, forests, fish, rare metals)
Characteristics of problems: • Global
• ‘wicked’: no single cause, but anchored in societal deep structures
• Consumption, production, policy, culture
Time horizon (years)
Improvement inenvironmental efficiency
Factor 10
Factor 5
Factor 2
5 10 20
Function innovation= new system
Partial system redesign
System optimimisation
Requires transitions to new systems (in
energy, transport, agro-food, housing)
Partial views on transitions 1) Neo-classical economics: Get prices right (macro)
2) Psychology: Attitude, behaviour, choice (ABC) (micro)
3) Deep ecology: Values and lifestyles, de-growth, new economic system (macro)
4) Industrial ecology: Clean technology, eco-efficiency, closing material loops
5) Political science: Treaties, goals, targets and policy programs (macro)
We need a multi-dimensional framework spanning different levels
Research questions
1) How to understand overall dynamics of socio-technical transitions?
2) What about project-level dynamics?
2. Conceptual framework of transition dynamics
2.1. Underlying socio-technical assumptions (micro-dynamics) 2.2. Multi-level perspective (overall dynamics)
2.1. Three related conceptual dimensions
Socio-technical systems
Rules, institutions
Human actors,organisations,social groups
2. Actors operate in the context of rules. Their perceptions, and (inter)actions are guided by rules.
1. ST-systems do not work on their own, but through the involvement of human actors, and organisations.
5. Rules are not just embedded in heads of actors, but also in artefacts (e.g. Latour’s ‘script’)
4. ST-systems, artefacts and material conditions forma context for action. They enable and constrain (actor-network theory).
6. ST-systems, artefacts and material condition shaperules, frames, standards etc.‘Interpretative flexibility’ is constrained bytechnical/material possibilities.
3. A ctors carry and (re)producethe rules.
Socio-technical system
for transportation
Culture and symbolic
meaning (e.g. Freedom, individuality)
Regulations and policies
(e.g. traffic rules,parking fees,emission standards, car tax)
Road infrastructureand traffic system
(e.g. lights, signs)
Vehicle (artefact)
Markets and user practices
(mobility patterns, driver preferences)
Industry structure
(e.g. car manufacturers,suppliers)
Maintenance and distribution network
(e.g. repair shops, dealers)
Fuel infrastructure
(oil companies, petrol stations)
Socio-technical systems
Actors involved: Organizational field
Supply chain:
* material supliers * component suppliers * machine suppliers
Users
Production,
industry:* firms* engineers,
designers
Research:* universities
* technical institutes* R&D laboratories
Policy, public authorities:
* European Commission, WTO, GATT* Government, Ministries, Parliament* Local authorities and executive branches
Societal groups:(e.g. Greenpeace,
media, branchorganisations)
Institutions/rules (regimes) (Geels, 2004; Burns and Flam,
1987)
Social rule systems and
regimes: Cultural frames,
social institutions, interaction norms, reward and cost structures
Decisions and actions in
concrete interaction settings: tactical moves in strategic games (e.g. investments, partnerships, introduction of innovations), group formation and socialization of actors, efforts to maintain or change cultural frames or rule systems
Intended and
unintended effects in material,social and cultural worlds
Exogenous factors:Truly exogenous factors.
Material and environmental conditions, external agents, larger socio-cultural context
Actors, their knowledge,
preferences, perceptions, strategies, power and authority relations, learning capacity, role relationships, control over resources (money, political networks, tools, plants, natural resources)
Actor structuring: evaluation of actions, learning (adjustment
of strategies, perceptions, preferences), change in resource positions(e.g. gaining market shares or better resource control)
Social learning: reproduction
or transformation of cognitive, normative and regulative rules,e.g..adjustment of user representations, routines,shared expectations
2.2. Static multi-level perspective (nested hierarchy) * Radical innovation in niches (variation/novelty) * Struggling against existing regimes * In context of broader ‘landscape trends’
Niches
(novelty)
System/regime
Landscape
Increasing structuration
of activities in local practices
a) Problem: Existing regime is locked-in path dependent
Economic: a)vested interests
b)sunk investments (competence, infrastructure)
c)scale advantages, low cost
Social: a)cognitive routines make ‘blind’ (beliefs)
b)alignment between social groups (‘social capital’)
c)user practices, values and life styles
Politics and power: a)Opposition to change from vested interests b)Uneven playing field + policy networks
•Nurturing of ‘hopeful monstrosities’ (Mokyr)
•Protection from mainstream market selection
•Carried by entrepreneurs, outsiders, small social networks
Time
Product performance Invading product
Established product
T (1) T (2)
b) Niches for radical innovation
Invention Innovation Time lag (years) electronic digital computers
1939 1943 4
float glass 1902 1943 41
fluorescent lighting 1901 1938 37
helicopter 1904 1936 32
jet engine 1928 1941 13
magnetic tape-recording
1898 1937 39
radar 1925 1934 9
radio 1900 1918 18
synthetic detergents 1886 1928 42
television 1923 1936 13
transistor 1948 1950 2
zipper 1891 1923 32
Time lag between invention and innovation (Clark, Freeman, Soete, 1981)
c. Situated in exogenous socio-technical landscape
•Exogeneous backdrop
•Slow-changing secular trends (demographics, macro-economics, ideology, climate change)
TimeTime
Landscape developments put pressure on existing regime, which opens up, creating windows of opportunity for novelties
Socio-technical regime is ‘dynamically stable’.On different dimensions there are ongoing processes
New configuration breaks through, takingadvantage of ‘windows of opportunity’. Adjustments occur in socio-technical regime.
Elements are gradually linked together,and stabilise in a dominant design.Internal momentum increases.
Small networks of actors support novelties on the basis of expectations and future visions.Learning processes take place on multiple dimensions.Different elements are gradually linked together in a seamless web.
New socio-technicalregime influences landscape
Technological
niches
Socio-technical’
landscape
Socio-
technical
regime
Technology
Markets, user preferences
CulturePolicy
ScienceIndustry
External influences on niches(via expectations and networks)
Multi-dimensional struggles between niche-innovations and existing regimes (in context of wider landscape change)
• Business: New entrants vs. incumbents
• Economic: Competition between ‘grey’ and ‘green’ products/technologies (uneven playing field)
• Political: Struggles between incumbent ‘elites’ (politicians, big firms) vs. other actors (cities, social movements, green entrepreneurs).
• Cultural: Neo-liberal discourse vs. sustainability transition (vs.
de-growth, lifestyle change)
3. Empirical application and assessment of low-carbon electricity transition
3.1. Positive developments in (global) renewable electricity niches 3.2. Negative developments in (global) electricity regimes
Overall MLP-interpretation: Niche-innovations are gaining momentum, but regimes are not (yet) falling apart Resilient regimes hinder transition
3.1. Positive developments in (global) renewable electricity niches
World-wide growth in installed capacity of renewable electricity options (in GW): wind, solar-PV and bio-power
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Wind
Solar-PV
Bio-power
- Most investments (cumulatively) in Europe (2004-2012), but 29% decrease in 2012
- China single largest country investor - US: boom and bust pattern
New investment in renewable energy (excluding large hydro) (Frankfurt School, 2013): billion $
Cumulative world-wide investment ($ billion) per type (data from Frankfurt School, 2013) - Most investments in wind and solar-PV - Global investment decreased in 2012
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Marine
Geo-thermal
Small hydro
Bio-power
Biofuels
Solar
Wind
Investment in Europe led to substantial rise in renewable electricity
From 12.2% in 1990 to 19.6% in 2010: - Old renewables (hydro, biomass/wood)
- New renewables (wind, solar, biogas)
- Global renewable electricity = 20.5% - ‘old’ renewables dominate - Europe is global leader in ‘new’ renewable electricity - Germany one of European leaders in new renewables, after Portugal (41.2%),
Denmark (32.9%) and Spain (29.5%) - China relatively small % new renewable (despite investments)
Relative composition (%) of electricity in 2011
So, there are positive niche- developments
Driving factors
1) Price/performance improvements in wind turbines and PV-modules (China)
2) New political discourse (‘green growth’, ‘transitions to green economy), targets (e.g. Europe 2020 goals) and some favourable policies, e.g. generous feed-in tariffs
3. Rising public concerns after 2005: Hurricane Katrina (2005), All Gore’s movie (2005), Stern Review (2006) , IPCC report (2007), Nobel Prize (2007) Public attention to climate change (UK)
normalized: max=1
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011*
The Guardian
The Times
The Independent
Daily Express
4. Green stimulus packages (2009): $522 billion
Varying country commitments
- Korea + China
- UK low green stimulus
But also some weakening of drivers
1) Decline in public attention for climate change
2) Decline of global investment in 2012
3) Weakening of green policies
a) Reductions in feed-in tariffs (UK, Germany, Spain, Italy)
b) No successor of Kyoto; no international action until 2020 c) Green stimulus packages winding down (2011-2012) d) EU ETS is not (yet) working: carbon price is low and variable
3.2. Negative developments in (global) electricity regimes
1) Shale gas revolution • started in US and now spreading to China, UK, Poland • IEA (2011) predicts ‘golden age for natural gas’ Lower gas prices in US
Double edged sword
• Positive: gas replacing coal in US (gradually)
US power generation (IEA, 2013)
Negative effects
a) Immediate risks (groundwater, tremors) controversial debates
b) May wipe out renewables investment wave
c) May lock us into a fossil fuel (for next 30 years)
d) Has led cheap US coal to flood world-market, leading to 6% increase in coal use in Germany in 2012 and 32% increase in UK
2) Nuclear renaissance?
• Nuclear seemed on its way out (expensive, risky)
• But made comeback as low-carbon option + energy security
• Nuclear phase-out in Germany, Japan, Belgium
• But ‘nuclear renaissance’ in UK, China, India, Russia
• Also IPCC, IEA argue for doubling of nuclear capacity to address climate change
• This will be quite a challenge given recent stagnation
Worldwide installed nuclear capacity (in GW(e))
Actual decrease since 2006 (Schneider and Froggatt, 2013)
- New nuclear expansion would compete with renewables - Probably requires public subsidies (to cover risks)
3) Coal expansion
“For all the talk about natural gas and renewables, coal unquestionably won the energy race in the first decade of the 21st century” (IEA, 2011)
• South Africa (93%), Poland (90%), China (79%), Australia (70%), India (69%), US (45%), Germany (44%)
• Coal-fired generation grew 45% between 2000 and 2010
• Projected to keep growing in line with 6-degree climate change
• Coal regime actors defend themselves with ‘clean coal’ discourse and promise of CCS
• Slow CCS progress (90 Mt CO2 is less than 1% of power sector CO2 emissions)
• Leads to ‘capture ready’ promise (contested)
CCS capacity by region and project status, 2012 (IEA: 2013: 25)
4) Conclusion about regimes
Existing regimes are resilient + adaptive (promoted as ‘low carbon’)
There is organised fightback against radical reorientation (political economy)
Renewables mainly additional to fossil fuels (no absolute replacement yet)
4. Project-level: Deepening, broadening and scaling-up
Making-Transitions-Happen: on-the-ground
Two ‘modes of innovation’ (Jensen, Lundvall, 2007)
1) STI (Science, Technology and Innovation) - Upstream R&D + ‘trickle down’ - Big firms, universities, research institutes - Risk of hype-disappointment cycles + industrial ‘capture’ - Dominant policy model
2) DUI (Doing, Using, Interacting) - Reconfiguring concrete systems ‘on the ground’ (project-based) - Technical, institutional, social innovation - Wider set of actors - Cities are an important driver/facilitator - Many local projects happening
Bulkeley (2010): 627 climate change experiments in 100 global cities
Pioneer Cities analysis (Fred Steward)
• We have identified 93 existing low carbon innovation projects
• Investment approx. €2000m
How do these local projects this fit in MLP?
What further ‘lessons’?
Local projects carry niche-innovation
… is carried byprojects in differentlocal practices
Global niche-level(e.g. the emerging field of PV solar cells)
- Niche development trajectories emerge through sequence of projects (Geels/Raven, 2006)
Trajectories emerge through: a) up-scaling: more and larger projects, linking to wider processes b) deepening: articulation of rules/best practices by aggregating lessons and circulating ideas and people between projects c) broadening: include more actors, expand application domains
Shared rules ( search heuristics,expectations, abstract theories, technical models)
problem agendas,
Aggregation,learning
Global level(community,field)
Local projects,carried by localnetworks,characterisedby local variety
Emergingtechnologicaltrajectory
Framing, coordinating
Accepted visions and expectations (on functionality) form agenda of emerging field
Resources + requirements(finance, protection,specifications)
Artefact-activity: Projects in local practices R&D projects, pilot projects)(
Global network of actors (emerging community)
Outcomes and new promises by local actors
Cognitive, formal and normative rules(knowledge, regulations, behavioural norms)
Local practices
Global level (emerging field)
Learning,articulationaggregation
Enrol more actors
Adjust expectations
Different ‘rounds’ of niche projects a) Articulate and adjust visions b) Expand social networks and enrol more actors c) Learn and articulate generic ‘rules’
Further lessons for Making Transitions Happen
Governance (lead) of 182 UK urban energy projects (Rydin et al, 2013)
Rydin, Y., Turcu, C., Guy, S. and Austin, P., 2013, ‘Mapping the coevolution of urban energy systems: Pathways of change’, Environment and Planning A., 45, 634-649
Only 2% led by private sector
1) Change coalitions
2) Most projects need some protection/support/nurturing Often subsidies/grants from various sources (e.g. European Commission, utilities, local authority, central government schemes)
3) Many projects are too technology-push/engineering oriented Public involvement in 182 UK urban energy projects (Rydin et al, 2013)
Rydin, Y., Turcu, C., Guy, S. and Austin, P., 2013, ‘Mapping the coevolution of urban energy systems: Pathways of change’, Environment and Planning A., 45, 634-649
57% did not involve wider publics Limited social learning (not really ‘transition projects’)
4) Many projects too singular and solution to specific local problem.
Need for ‘transitionizing’ local projects:
a) Single projects as stepping stones in sequence of projects
b) Single projects in context of vision of wider system change
c) Focus not only on direct outcomes (‘solutions’), but also on learning processes, network building and vision articulation
5. Concluding comments
• New academic debate on Sustainability transitions and system transformation
• MLP as overall heuristic (sense-making) framework (not ‘truth-machine’)
• Concrete projects as ‘transitions-in-the-making’ (but several real-world challenges)
join Sustainability Transitions Research Network (STRN): www.transitionsnetwork.org/
4. Policy and politics
MLP-Prescription: Two-pronged policy strategy:
1) Niche-level: Stimulate variety/innovation - Long-term visions + short-term action (projects)
- Technical + social/behavioural change (system innovation)
- Incumbents + outsiders
2) Regime-level: Tighten selection environment (taxes, regulations, incentives)
TimeTime
Increase pressure onregime using landscapedevelopments(e.g. link up with cultural ideographs or macro-problems)
Put pressure on regime(e.g. regulations, taxes, internalization of externalities)
* Technology-forcing (e.g. regulations)* Adoption subsidies to make technology morecompetitive* Policies for adjustments and structural change* Monitor impacts and adjust
* Experiment with alternative new technologies* Look for interesting combinations between multiple new technologies* Experiment with new functionalities and user practices* Articulate transition visions* Learn from experiments and adapt visions* Network management (e.g. introduce outside actors) * Make transition visions more specific (e.g. strategic conferences)
* Increase popularity of technology (e.g. endorse in policy plans)* interest and include more actors (bandwagon)* R&D subsidies to stimulate technical development
* Contribute to creation of newST-regime (e.g. infrastructure, maintenance)* Monitor impactsand adjust
Technologicalniches
Landscape developments
Socio-technicalregime
Problems in practice:
1) Much attention for ‘green’ niche-innovation. But weak pressure on regimes. Taxes, emissions trading, regulations are lax and provide insufficient incentive.
Lack of political will to engage vested interests.
2) Incumbent industries only tentatively engage in radical green innovation (‘hedging’). They also use corporate political strategies to resist major reorientation:
Corporate political strategies (Hillman and Hitt, 1999)
1. Information and framing strategy - industry research institutes to build expertise
- contest the science
- commission research reports
- testify as expert witness in hearings
2. Financial incentives strategy - make contributions to political parties
- pay fees to politicians for speeches
- offer politicians lucrative jobs at the end of
their career
3. Organized pressure strategy - create fake grassroots organizations
(‘astroturf’)
- create industry associations that speak for the
industry
- mobilize employees, suppliers, customers to
pressure their representatives
4. Direct lobbying strategy - hire lobbyists to work politicians
- mobilize CEOs to speak with politicians
5. Confrontational strategies - oppose laws through litigation
- threaten policy makers with plant closures
- refuse to implement or obey policies
3) Decline in public attention to climate change makes radical policy change more difficult possible.
normalized: max=1
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011*
The Guardian
The Times
The Independent
Daily Express
Historical examples of radical policies supported by public concern
1) US Clean Air Act (1970)
2) National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (1966)
3) UK Climate Change Bill (2008)
Public attention to air pollution in US newspapers (Penna and Geels, 2012)
Public attention to auto safety in US newspapers (averaged) - Ralph Nader scandal (1965) - Ribicoff hearings (1965-1966)
Political attention to auto safety (US)
Public attention to climate change (UK)
normalized: max=1
0,0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1,0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011*
The Guardian
The Times
The Independent
Daily Express
Varieties of capitalism: different policy styles
• No single policy recipe for system innovation
• Different policy styles : a) Liberal Market Economies (e.g. USA, UK, Canada).
b) Coordinated Market Economies (e.g. Germany, Denmark)
c) State-influenced Market Economies (e.g. France, Japan, Korea) d) State capitalism (China, Russia)
Different policy mixes and instruments
Command-
and-control
(top-down
steering)
Market model
(incentivize bottom
up agents)
Policy networks (convening,
orchestrating processes)
Governance
instruments
Formal rules,
regulations,
laws
Financial
incentives
(subsidies,
taxes)
Learning processes,
projects/experiments,
vision/scenario workshops,
strategic conferences, public
debates, platforms
Foundation
scientific
disciplines
Classic political
science
Neo-classical
economics
Sociology, innovation
studies, neo-institutional
political science
Transition pathways
1. Technological substitution
2. Regime transformation (endogenous)
3. Regime reconfiguration
4. De-alignment and re-alignment
1. Technological substitution
Landscape developments
Technology
Markets, user preferences
CulturePolicy
Science
Industry
Niche-level
Socio-technicalregime
Increasing structurationof activities in local practices
Specific shock
Time
Landscape developments
Socio-technicalregime
Niche level
Adoption ofsymbioticniche-innovation
Landscape pressure
Increasing structurationof activities in local practices
Time
2. Transformation pathway
3. Reconfiguration pathway
1) Novelties emerge in techno-scientific niches in contextof stable system architecture
2) Diffusion and adoptionof innovations inexisting system
3) Reconfiguration ofelements leads to
new system architecture
Niche level
Regime/systemslevel
Landscape level
4. De-alignment and re-alignment
Technology
Markets, user preferences
CulturePolicy
Science
Industry
Landscape developments
Niche-level
Socio-technicalregime
Increasing structurationof activities in local practices
Time
Visibility in societal and policy debates
1990 2000 201020051995
Battery-electric
Hybrid-electric
Fuel cell
Biofuel
Battery-electric
Hype-cycles in debates of ‘green’ car propulsion systems