transitions to sustainable development: new directions in the study of long term transformative
TRANSCRIPT
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Transitions to Sustainable Development
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Routledge Studies in Sustainability TransitionsSERIES EDITORS JOHN GRIN JAN ROTMANS AND JOHAN SCHOT
1 Transitions to Sustainable DevelopmentNew Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative ChangeJohn Grin Jan Rotmans and Johan SchotIn collaboration with Frank Geels and Derk Loorbach
Since around 1970 many groups in society have expressed strong concerns about social and environmental risks climate change and the modernization path pursued by many around the world In recent years these concerns are transformed into a widely shared sense of urgency This sense of urgency includes an awareness that our entire social system is in need of fundamental transformation But like the earlier transition between the 1750s and 1890s from a pre-modern to a modern industrial society this second transition is also a contested one Sustainable development is only one of the options This book series addresses the issue on how to understand the dynamics and governance of transition dynamics towards sustainable development
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Transitions to Sustainable Development
New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change
John Grin Jan Rotmans and Johan Schot
In collaboration with Frank Geels and Derk Loorbach
New York London
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
First published 2010by Routledge270 Madison Avenue New York NY 10016
Simultaneously published in the UKby Routledge2 Park Square Milton Park Abingdon Oxon OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor amp Francis Group an informa business
copy 2010 Taylor amp Francis
All rights reserved No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic mechanical or other means now known or hereaf-ter invented including photocopying and recording or in any information storage or retrieval system without permission in writing from the publishers
Trademark Notice Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trade-marks and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Grin John Transitions to sustainable development new directions in the study of long term transformative change by John Grin Jan Rotmans and Johan Schot in collaboration with Frank Geels and Derk Loorbach p cmmdash(Routledge studies in sustainability transitions) Includes bibliographical references and index 1 Sustainable development 2 Change I Rotmans Jan 1961ndash II Schot J W III Title HD756G75 2010 338927mdashdc22 2009035625
ISBN10 0-415-87675-3 (hbk)ISBN10 0-203-85659-7 (ebk)
ISBN13 978-0-415-87675-9 (hbk)ISBN13 978-0-203-85659-8 (ebk)
This edition published in the Taylor amp Francis e-Library 2010
To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor amp Francis or Routledgersquoscollection of thousands of eBooks please go to wwweBookstoretandfcouk
ISBN 0-203-85659-7 Master e-book ISBN
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Contents
List of Figures ixList of Tables xiList of Textboxes xiiiForeword xv
CARLOTA PEREZ
Preface xvii
Introduction From Persistent Problems to System Innovations and Transitions 1JOHN GRIN JAN ROTMANS AND JOHAN SCHOT
PART I The Dynamics of Transitions A Socio-Technical Perspective
FRANK W GEELS AND JOHAN SCHOT
I1 Introduction Exploration of the Research Topic 11
I2 A Multi-Level Perspective on Transitions 18
I3 Theoretical Backgrounds Science and Technology Studies Evolutionary Economics and Sociology 29
I4 A Typology of Transition Pathways 54
I5 Managing Sustainable Innovation Journeys 80
I6 Refl ections Process Theory Causality and Narrative Explanation 93
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
vi Contents
PART II Towards a Better Understanding of Transitions and Their Governance A Systemic and Refl exive Approach
JAN ROTMANS AND DERK LOORBACH
II1 Introduction 105
II2 A Complex Integrated Systems Perspective 114
II3 Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Transitions 126
II4 Research into the Governance of Transitions A Framework for Transition Management 140
II5 Case Study I Parkstad Limburg Regional Transition Management 161
II6 Case Study II The Dutch Energy Transition 180
II7 Self-Evaluation of the Development and Prospects of Transition Management 199
PART III Understanding Transitions from a Governance Perspective
JOHN GRIN
III1 Introduction 223
III2 Contemporary Processes of Institutional Change 237
III3 Modernization Processes in Dutch Agriculture 1886 to the Present 249
III4 The Governance of Transitions An Agency Perspective 265
III5 Modernization as Multilevel Dynamics Lessons from Dutch Agriculture 285
III6 Governance of Transitions An Analytical Perspective 315
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Contents vii
Conclusion How to Understand Transitions How to Infl uence Them Synthesis and Lessons for Further Research 320JOHN GRIN JAN ROTMANS AND JOHAN SCHOT
Notes 339References 345About the Authors 379Index 383
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Figures
I11 Different historical time-developments 15
I21 Multiple levels as a nested hierarchy 19
I22 Co-evolution between multiple trajectories in a socio-technical regime 21
I23 Topography of development trajectories 23
I24 Multi-level perspective on transitions 25
I31 Social system and social structures 45
I32 Two conceptualisations of micro-macro interactions 48
I33 A recursive diachronic model of structural change and reproduction 49
I34 Trajectory as fi eld-level event chain resulting from morphogenetic cycles 52
I35 Basic elements and theories that underlie the multi-level perspective 53
I41 Types of environmental change 56
I42 Transformation pathway 59
I43 Insiders and outsiders in the waste-disposal regime around 1850 59
I44 De-alignment and re-alignment pathway 64
I45 Technological substitution pathway 69
I46 Tonnage of steamships and sailing ships in Britain 69
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
x Figures
I47 Reconfi guration pathway 72
I48 Socio-technical system in factory production 73
I49 Percentage of sources of mechanical drive in US manufacturing establishments 76
I51 From niche dynamics to regime shift 81
I52 Local projects and global niche-level 86
I53 Emerging technical trajectory carried by local projects 87
I61 Two approaches to explaining processes 94
II11 Transition as a shift in structure culture and practices 110
II12 A typology of transitions 112
II31 The different phases of a transition 130
II32 Alternatives for S-shaped curve 131
II33 Complex systemsrsquo model based on the MLP 134
II41 Activity clusters in transition management 156
II51 SCENE-model Parkstad Limburg as presented on February 17 2002 164
II52 First (ten-step) version of the transition management cycle 166
II61 Sketch of the energy system 183
II62 Process design energy transition 187
III21 The institutional rectangle of state market science and civil society and their mutual alignment and its co-evolution with societal development patterns 238
III41 Different kinds of governance activities to be discussed in the sections indicated in the boxes 266
III42 Internal and external structures surrounding practices according to Stones 278
III51 An intermediary project in heterogeneous landscape 305
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Tables
I31 Relative Importance of Different Structures in Institutional Domains 43
I41 Attributes of Change and Resulting Typology 55
I42 Annual Car Sales in the United States 66
I51 Policy Dilemmas for Niche Development 90
I61 Variance and Process Approaches 93
II41 Linking Complexity Characteristics Theoretical Principles of Transition Management and Systemic Instruments for Transition Management 147
II42 Linking Complexity Characteristics Theoretical Principles of Transition Management and New Governance Concepts 154
III41 Three Layers of Power 283
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Textboxes
II51 Summary from ldquoSynthesis Analysis Parkstad Limburgrdquo 165
II52 Initial Arena Selection Criteria 167
II53 Key Elements of the Parkstad Limburg Vision ldquoOp Hete Kolenrdquo 171
II61 Examples of Possible Transition Experiments 188
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Foreword
Carlota Perez
To understand transitions and know how to infl uence them is imperative in todayrsquos turbulent times of profound and wide-ranging changes While we are learning to live in an information-intensive society we are moving from the national to the global space and from a Cold War world to one speckled with ldquonew warsrdquo The fi nancial meltdown of 2008 has questioned the free market certainties of the last few decades and has brought back to the fore the need for an active role of the state Civil society is fi nding innumerable ways of organizing and communicating that go far beyond the traditional political parties and increase the able participants in collective decision making Globalization itself is also widening the decision stage eventu-ally requiring the setting up of supra-national bodies In the midst of these profound changes the environmental constraints that were the concern of some groups in society have now become the mainstream Sustainability is already understood as a goal that must accompany all these transforma-tions We are thus in a major transition to a world with different values a transition that cannot wait for spontaneous change to happen but that must somehow be socially and collectively guided with a sense of urgency
The hard sciences and engineering are intensely facing the task of devel-oping alternative energies methods for carbon capture recycling and other technical ways of facing the environmental challenges the social sciences must confront the task of understanding transitions and how to infl uence them That is what the Dutch Knowledge Network on Systems Innovation and Transition (KSI) Project set out to do and what they present in this book is in my judgment a major contribution to this end Besides being opportune it is academically courageous profoundly honest and directly policy relevant
It is academically courageous because the authors fully recognize the diffi culty of the task and do not pretend to have the fi nal answer or model or methodology neither do they allow disciplinary boundaries to constrain their exploration of the problem As true scientists the authors let their work be guided by all the complexity of the problems to study not by the artifi cial frontiers erected by the needs of the academic world The results presented in this book are not only interdisciplinary they are inter-interdisciplinary The authors bring together the relevant theories and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
xvi Foreword
enrich them individually and in their inter-relations This reality-bound approach also led them to do case-study work and action research By par-ticipating in transition processes directly they deepened their comprehen-sion of the diffi culties involved in transitions and in their management The infi nitely rich understanding that emerges combines knowledge from history sociology evolutionary economics complex systems theory gov-ernance theories and experimental fi ndings The authors not only pro-duce new theoretical insights but they also open vast new areas for further research and experimentation
It is a profoundly honest research effort because it makes no attempt at self-complacent unanimity In recognizing the complexity of the task the KSI project dared to put together three groups of top scholars from different schools of thought to collaborate in the challenge With profound respect for each otherrsquos work and that of all their predecessors they confront the questions from different angles identify the similarities and differences and arrive at a pluralistic understanding which is more powerful and all embracing for being open It offers no recipes no fi nal answers and it can welcome new perspectives The current text can be seen as a temporary halt on the way in order to take stock of what has been learned connect with the user world receive its feedback and continue the exploration
The book is policy relevant precisely because it is rooted in case stud-iesmdashfrom history and from the presentmdashand in the direct observation of the processes involved The questions the authors set out to answer are on the one hand the nature of transitions and on the other the possibili-ties of infl uencing their course And these two questions are strongly inter-twined in the sense that the second does not just follow the fi rst but actually infl uences the way the fi rst is analyzed The KSI team is committed to the usefulness of their research and deeply conscious of the potential applica-tion of their work While being theoretically rigorous they were constantly aware of the practical implications of what they produced
I am convinced that the fi ndings that the authors present in this book are capable of having a profound impact on the many actors involved in the current transitions Their pluralistic understanding of the complex matter at hand and their wealth of insights and methods of analysis will provide a stimulating space for social scientists policy makers and the multiple groups of civil society to engage in further research and practical experi-mentation It is a pioneering effort in a crucially important area and a bril-liant example of the necessary link between academia and society
Carlota PerezJuly 2009Universities of Cambridge Sussex UK and Tallinn University of Technology EstoniaAuthor of Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Preface
This book emerged out of the ambition to develop a new inspiring perspec-tive on sustainable development We felt that both academic and practical discussions failed to deal with the dynamics and governance of long-term transformative change The time seemed ripe to bring together our work in one book and by doing so to sketch out common elements of a fi rst theory of transitions towards sustainable development Although a greater under-standing is still needed signifi cant progress has been made The concept of transition has been studied for decades in several disciplines eg in biology and population dynamics in economics in sociology in political science in science and technology studies and systems sciences All these interpre-tations have their (multi)disciplinary function and added value but none of them is applicable to the complex nature and multiple dimensions of societal transformations implicated in sustainable development This appli-cation is explored in this volume which inaugurates a new book series on Sustainability Transitions
In this book we seek to present a state of the art of understanding transitions from three different angles complex systems analysis a socio-technical perspective and a governance perspective They refl ect the three pillars of the research program of the Dutch Knowledge Network on Sys-tem Innovations and Transitions (wwwksinetworknl) which we estab-lished in 2005 upon receiving a major grant from the Dutch government We owe a lot to discussions with the 85 researchers participating in this network Together they cover a large variety of approaches in a wide range of scientifi c fi elds (history sociology political science economics com-plexity studies science and technology studies environmental studies) It is worth emphasizing the close linkage between theoretical discussions and research in this network and the development of transition policies in the Netherlands Several of the people involved in the network were and still are actively involved in the making of these policies Thus the knowl-edge produced in the KSI network and (partly) presented in this book is not only highly interdisciplinary but also transdisciplinary It emerged out of interactions with the stakeholders of transitions research (policy mak-ers citizens businessmen activists) Although this book is a product of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
xviii Preface
the KSI network and we benefi ted enormously from this environment the authors present their own perspectives on transitions albeit an attempt is made to relate it to the work of others within the KSI network Important perspectives within the KSI network include the social-practices approach advanced by Gert Spaargaren and Hans Mommaas and his colleagues and the Technological Innovation Systems approach elaborated by Marko Hekkert Ruud Smits and their colleagues
The study of transitions is not a Dutch affair As will become visible in the pages to follow much of the progress has resulted from efforts outside the Netherlands We owe a lot to intellectual exchanges with international colleagues facilitated by workshops which they (co-)organized and which sometimes were (co-)funded by sources from their respective countries These encounters have led to several edited volumes and special issues of scholarly journals such as Technological Analysis and Strategic Manage-ment Research Policy and Policy Sciences It is our hope that this book proves a valuable contribution to further exchange within and beyond the newly established European network on Sustainability Transitions in which many of the scholars we feel related to are engaged We can only mention here some of those from whose work and comments we have sig-nifi cantly benefi ted In the UK scholars like Alex Haxeltine Fred Stewart Andy Stirling Elisabeth Shove Florian Kern and Adrian Smith have done interesting studies as has Ken Green who died much too young earlier this year In Germany we could mention for instance Armin Grunwald Jan-Peter Voβ and Dierk Bauknecht Claudia Pahl-Wostl and Franziska Wolff Other names include Marina Fischer-Kowalski and Bernhard Truffer (Switzerland) Erik Paredis (Belgium) Matthias Weber and Philip Spaumlth (Austria) Valeacuteerie Thomas Philip Vergragt and Paul Raskin (USA) John Robinson and James Meadowcroft (Canada) Carolyn Hendriks (Austra-lia) and Raaimo Lovio and Erja Vaumlyrynen (Finland) On a global level a signifi cant share of the work in the Industrial Transformation program of the International Human Dimensions Programme provides insight in these issues We thank many of its members and especially Frans Berkhout and Anna Wieczorek for promoting many occasions for intellectual exchange
The writing of this book itself was a long undertaking with many pleas-ant stops It has taught us the pleasures (and agonies) of working with three different personalities It grew out of the many discussions we have had since we met at the beginning of this century and decided to work together In particular we have nice memories of our rich and exciting discussions at the Villa Schifanoia in Florence where we met twice for several days during the academic year 2007ndash2008 Both these meetings and the KSI network as a whole would have been far less effective and enjoyable without our Marjan Minnesma whose sharp mind and no-nonsense attitude helped moreover us to sharpen and sensitize our own thinking Many elements in this book were discussed in a wide range of KSI network meetings Espe-cially important were the workshops we had in 2006ndash2008 which led to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Preface xix
the defi nition and elaboration of the content of what has become the Rout-ledge Sustainability Transitions book series We benefi ted greatly from the comments and criticism by the editors and authors of fi ve planned follow-up volumes Jacqueline Broerse Reneacute Kemp Anne Loeber Derk Loorbach Peter Oosterveer Gert Spaargaren and Geert Verbong
For their comments on an earlier draft and contributions to discussions we acknowledge Jeroen Van den Bergh (Autonomous University of Barce-lona Spain) Aat Kortekaas (Chamber of Commerce The Hague) Lau-rens Hessels (Utrecht University) Gill Seyfang (University of East Anglia) and Anna Wesselink (Leeds University) as well as members of our own groups especially all researchers at the Dutch Research Institute for Transi-tions (Drift) at the Erasmus University Rob Raven Geert Verbong Bram Verhees Johanna Ulmanen Niels Schoorlemmer and Marloes Dignum at the Technical University Eindhoven and Lydia Sterrenberg Anne Loe-ber Victor Toom Tjerk-Jan Schuitmaker at University of Amsterdam We are grateful for the positive and critical comments received from the four reviewers which encouraged us to fi nish this book in the midst of all our other work We owe a lot to stimulating discussions with members of the International Scientifi c Council of KSI Prof Dr Frank Fischer (Rutgers University NJ USA) Prof Ray Hudson (Durham University UK) Prof Michel Callon (Ecole des mines de Paris France) Prof Hans Joachim Schellnhuber (Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research Germany) Prof Fred Steward (Brunel University London UK) Dr Carlota Perez (University of Cambridge UK) and Dr Brian Walker (CSIRO Australia) Finally we wish to acknowledge the in-depth co-operation and important discussions with our co-authors Frank Geels (Part I) and Derk Loorbach (Part II) John Grin acknowledges Emily Miltenburg for research support Although their contributions focused on a specifi c part in this book their scholarship is highly infl uential and important for the development of tran-sition studies at large
For assistance in the fi nal preparation of the manuscript we thank Ingrid van Toor Lidwien Hollanders-Kuipers Mieke Rossou-Rompen Helmi Hansma and Sonja Beekers We thank Terry Clague Ben Holtzman and Robert Langham of Routledge who were prepared to listen to us when we presented the ideas for this volume and the entire book series Subsequently Ben guided us through the various stages from external review to contract negotiation We discovered that there are still publishers in this world who care about their authors
John Grin Jan Rotmans Johan SchotApril 2009
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
IntroductionFrom Persistent Problems to System Innovations and Transitions
John Grin Jan Rotmans and Johan Schot
1 THE FOCUS OF THIS STUDY
This book concentrates on transitions More specifi cally it deals with radi-cal transformation towards a sustainable society as a response to a number of persistent problems confronting contemporary modern societies These persistent problems express themselves into crises such as food water mobility and health crises as well as energy and climate crises Accord-ing to the IEA (International Energy Agency) in its World Energy Report (2008) the latter two are interrelated and will require a massive transi-tion from conventional energy to sustainable sources These crises are non-cyclical and will worsen as time progresses and can lead to profound societal turmoil and tension The problems they might bring as well as the opportunities they offer have been backgrounded in 2008 due to the pervasiveness of the economic and fi nancial crisis As many commenta-tors have pointed out however sometimes referring to a New Green Deal (eg Perez in her introduction to this book see also Perez 2009ab) this is unfortunate since integrating a search for sustainability into a new develop-ment path might also be the best way to solve the economic crisis We wish to add that without such a shift to a more sustainable economy we might also not be able to solve the fi nancial and economic crisis in the long run We live in transitional times in search for new value systems This goes along with turmoil uncertainty lack of confi dence fear and impotence From the transitions perspective advanced in this book crises are a chance for change since existing institutions are pushed and many embark on a quest for new values and norms We see the current economic crisis as a symptom of a deeper-lying systems crisis which is rooted in the disbalance between unsustainable consumption and production patterns If we ana-lyze the current crisis from a transition viewpoint we can distinguish three different levels of analysis
(i) Financial and banking crisis This is about the fi nancial supervi-sion and regulation of fi nancial markets On the national European and global level attempts are made to organize this supervision and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
2 Transitions to Sustainable Development
regulation to combat excesses and to protect consumers and investors against fraud and too risky fi nancial constructions
(ii) Relations between market government and society Responding to current crises will prompt and require innovation in this relationship In particular a return to more government intervention but in a new role as a facilitator and a guarantee that we are looking for lasting solutions not short-term fi xes We agree with much of what Giddens in a recent book on climate change said about the need for an ensuing state (Giddens 2009 91ndash95)
(iii) Values and their expression in life-styles This regards a new sustain-able economic order that is based on different virtues norms and values more in tune with sustainable development
Our book does not deal with the fi rst level while the second and third levels are central to our analysis Although we do not say much about val-ues and the notion of sustainable development in our book ultimately this is what the transition perspective we offer is about We might there-fore defi ne sustainability transitions also as a quest for new value systems While the notion of sustainable development has been debated a lot and many question its value (eg Giddens 2009 62ndash63 for a summary see Meadowcroft 2000) we see it as an open-ended orientation for change Its open-endedness is a strength since it allows pluralistic appropriation in a deeply political and participatory process (Grin 2006) Furthermore there are ways to make sustainable development operational in a context-specifi c participatory manner (see eg Weaver and Rotmans 2006) At the same time we should also not ignore that the ongoing debate on the meaning of sustainable development resulted in a specifi c content which will help to orient transitions Sustainable development is seen by many as aimed at ldquopromoting the human well-being meeting the basic needs of the poor and protecting the welfare of future generations (intra- and inter-generational justice) preserving environmental resources and global life-support systems (respecting limits) integrating economics and environment in decision-making and encouraging popular participation in development processesrdquo (Meadowcroft 2000 73) Although sustainable development is crucially linked to the issue of poverty and development in a global sense we focus on Western Europe Since people in this area of the world caused many of the crises we referred to they must also take a lead in fi nding solu-tions We do not imply that other countries such as China or India are not capable of doing so We just want to stress that we are not in the position to require them to change without making transitions ourselves
The various crises we referred to have in common that they (1) repre-sent the dark side of dominant patterns of socio-economic-technological development and (2) appear to be very diffi cult to resolve One point of departure of this book is that the persistence of the problems involved (2) may be explained by the fact that (1) implies that these problems are caused
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Introduction 3
by processes which are fi rmly embedded in societal structures The second point of departure is that as a consequence their resolution is bound to involve both innovative practices and structural adaptation Such profound processes of change which we will more elaborately discuss below we call system innovations and transitions
Transitions involve mutually coherent changes in practices and struc-tures and because of their multilayeredness and inevitable entrenchment in society and culture at large they are very complex and comprehensive phenomena Moreover shaping transitions towards a specifi c normative orientationmdashin this case sustainable developmentmdashis far from a trivial task because the pitfalls of any assumption associated with social engi-neering or the notion of a malleable society are obvious This is why these concerns warrant extensive academic refl ection and careful theory build-ing rooted in actual social practices It is this challenge which we take up in this book
This study is divided into three parts that focus on respectively histori-cal transitions a complexity-theory view on contemporary transition and a governance perspective on transitions Although we discuss their contents more extensively in the fi nal section of this introduction here we wish to stress that each of these three approaches to the subject involves a variety of scientifi c fi elds As such in this study we mobilize a wide array of disci-plines (especially history economics sociology and political science) and interdisciplinary fi elds (technology assessment systems theory integrated assessment globalization studies and science and technology studies) In each of our three approaches attention is paid to a proper understanding of the material dimensions of the issues involved and in this sense we sig-nifi cantly draw on science as well Aside from developing the complexities of the individual approaches we will address several major similarities and differences as well as areas where they may complement each other
Given its scope this study also aims to be an exercise in interdisciplin-ary analysis In order to deal with its challenges we will pursue a certain measure of common ground in various respects First in each part attention is geared to the same two central questions how to understand transition dynamics and how to shape transitions towards a sustainable society Sec-ond we will employ several common defi nitions of three key units of analy-sis in our argument persistent problem system innovation and transition Third major conceptual notions used throughout the three parts of this volume include co-evolution multilevel perspective multi-phase perspective and learning Below we will briefl y elaborate this conceptual framework
2 COMMON CONCEPTUAL NOTIONS
As noted the three parts of this study should be seen as three different approaches of its central concerns Each part has its own internal coherence
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
4 Transitions to Sustainable Development
and is autonomous in terms of its conceptual focus research methods units of analysis and case studies However several overarching concepts that are deployed in each of the separate arguments serve to bridge the diver-gent concerns Moreover they also allow us in the fi nal chapter to explore similarities and the merits of cross-learning
A fi rst common concept is co-evolution In a biological or economic context co-evolution refers to mutual selection of two or more evolving populations In the transition context however we speak of co-evolution if the interaction between societal subsystems infl uences the dynamics of the individual societal subsystems leading to irreversible patterns of change (Perez 1983 Callon 1991 Nelson 1994 Oudshoorn and Pinch 2003 Kemp et al 2007) Economic cultural technological ecological and institutional subsystems co-evolve in many ways and can reinforce each other to co-determine a transition
In transition research co-evolution is an important concept because it refers to different aspects of transitions As described above it relates to co-evolving determinants of transitions and as such it may help to understand the dynamics of past and ongoing transitions But it also refers to co-evolutionary aspects of managing transitions where envisioning experimenting and learn-ing co-evolve in a cyclical iterative process (Kemp et al 2007)
A second overarching concept is the multilevel perspective It conceives of a transition as interference of processes at three levels innovative practices (niche experiments) structure (the regime) and long-term exogenous trends (the landscape) (Schot 1998 Rip and Kemp 1998 Geels 2005) The scale levels are intended as functional scale levelsmdashdegrees of structurationmdashand not as spatial or geographical scale levels This is why they represent func-tional relationships between actors structures and working practices that are closely interwoven The higher the scale level the more aggregated the components and the relationships and the slower the dynamics are between these actors structures and working practices Only when these different dynamics come together in particular ways may a mutual reinforcement effect emerge as a necessary condition for achieving a transition
The multilevel perspective roots in a variety of theoretical traditions on understanding technical and societal change synthesized from the perspec-tive of evolutionary theory It may thus function as a framework to depict transitions in a way that second may inform attempts to infl uence them It may also be seen as referring to a wider insight from social theory (eg Gid-dens 1984 Bourdieu 1977) and history (eg Braudel 1958) that chang-ing practices structural change and exogenous tendencies occur parallel to each other and may sometimes interact so as to produce non-incremental change in practices and structures Precisely for this reason (Grin 2008) it may serve as a boundary object between work from various scientifi c fi elds and between scientifi c studies and practice
A third overarching concept is multi-phase The multi-phase concept describes a transition in time as a sequence of four alternating phases (i) the pre-development phase from dynamic state of equilibrium in which the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Introduction 5
status quo of the system changes in the background but these changes are not visible (ii) the take-off phase the actual point of ignition after which the process of structural change picks up momentum (iii) the accelera-tion phase in which structural changes become visible (iv) the stabilization phase where a new dynamic state of equilibrium is achieved It is rooted in the theory of complex adaptive systems (Rotmans et al 2001 Rotmans 2005 Loorbach 2007)
The manifestation of alternating phases is the so-called S-curve but other manifestations in time are also possible such as lock-in situations as a result of increasing path dependence (Garud and Karnoslashe 2001) The sequence of phases does not follow a set pattern the transition is surrounded by great uncertainty and complexity so the degree of predictability is rela-tively small But the transition pattern does imply specifi c generic patterns such as path dependency that indicate the future transition path
The purpose of ordering the phases in research andmdashespeciallymdashprac-tice is not to forecast the course of the transition through time but to create an opportunity to recognize the various phases and as such to provide some guidelines to those who seek to infl uence them into a desirable direc-tion such as sustainable development
A fi nal shared concept is that of co-design and learning This means that knowledge is developed in a complex interactive design process with a range of stakeholders involved through a process of social learning (for reviews cf Bennett and Howlett 1992 Loeber et al 2007 Grin and Loeber 2007) The underlying rationale is that a synthesis can take place only through frequent interactions between theoretical knowledge prac-tical knowledge and practical experience as a result of which innovation can penetrate and take root at the societal system level Social learning is crucial in such a process of non-linear knowledge generation It does not really refer to learning in the sense of the transfer of knowledge but more to learning in terms of developing in interaction with other view-points of reality
In system innovation and transition processes social learning is aimed at the process of reframing which ultimately leads to a change in perspective among stakeholders who jointly try to fi nd a shared problem perception and directions for sustainable solutions (eg Loeber 2004 Raven 2005 Kemp and Loorbach 2006)
3 OUTLINE OF THIS VOLUME
The three following parts each from its own perspective seek to answer two central questions
1 How may we understand transitions 2 How may we infl uence transitions into a desired direction ie sus-
tainable development
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
6 Transitions to Sustainable Development
While each of the three perspectives has its home base in one particu-lar academic fi eld each is essentially interdisciplinary in nature Part I presents historical studies using a socio-technical perspective Historical research may contribute to answering our two central questions in four ways First it may help to clarify how existing socio-technical systems are stable because of path dependencies and lock-in and thus contribute to understanding persistent problems Second historical research can test and further develop theory Historical research is important because this is the only way to study the entire life cycle of system innovations and transitions We can formulate hypotheses and test them with historical cases We can also explore interesting themes Third historical examples can be used to inform practice and inspire strategy development Because the proposed program aims to describe all historical system innovations with a similar research protocol comparisons become possible and a didactic systematic emerges for use in practice Relatedly historical examples may be used as a mirror for the present which may lead to heightened refl exivity on the part of policymakers and those active in the social practices involved
Historical studies use the multi-level perspective as an overall framework and draw upon evolutionary theory sociology and science and technology studies to understand underlying processes They focus on processes high-lighting transition journeys and event sequences Transition journeys are non-linear processes open and uncertain trajectories of search and explo-ration They see transition processes as intrinsically social full of uncer-tainties ups and downs twists and turns These projects do not work with dependent and independent variables but explain innovation processes in terms of patterns that result from interactions This is a specifi c type of theory coined in the literature as process theory (Pettigrew 1997 Poole et al 2000 Abbott 2001) Process theories explain outcomes as the result of temporal sequences of events timing and conjunctures of event chains Situated groups make moves undertake actions and react to each other Processes are understood as sequences of events that are enacted by situ-ated actors
In Part II the study of contemporary transitions as essentially involv-ing complexity and transition management as a governance concept are center stage This strand of study has various aims (Rotmans et al 2001 Rotmans 2005) The fi rst objective is to analyze and monitor current and future transition patterns systematically Second based on such empirical study the aim is to further develop transition theory A third goal is to use these insights in further developing transition theory among other things by action research and related methodologies which enable one to test tran-sition theory and the transition management concept by actually doing the latter (Loorbach 2007) Especially the proponents of this strand of research have managed to put the ideas of persistent problems system innovations and transitions on the Dutch policy agenda (Dirven et al 2002) which in turn gave rise to international research
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Introduction 7
These analyses focus on non-linear dynamics of social phenomena They takes their point of departure in integrated assessment that understands development in a particular system as the interaction between their social ecological and economic dimensions This makes it possible to understand the dynamics of these phenomena as well as their degree of sustainabil-ity A second point of departure is complex adaptive systems studies (eg Holland 1995 Kauffman 1995) Another major fi eld is integrated assess-ment (Rotmans and De Vries 1997) Together these fi elds help to explain how systems evolve over time as a function of their internal dynamics external infl uences and dynamic feedback of (intended and unintended) consequences of the processes going on in these systems Crucial is that the agents that steer the system are part of the system Transition management draws on the insights thus gained as well as on selected insights from other disciplines
In Part III transitions and systems are analyzed from a governance per-spective (Grin 2004 2006) The argument in this part has three objectives First it seeks to understand system innovations and transitions towards a sustainable society as essentially embedded in wider processes of change each affecting the (alignment of) institutions of the institutional rectan-gle of state market science and society Thus the governance of transi-tions inevitably interacts with these wider changes Together with more usual kinds of politics involved in governance processes this complicates attempts at defi ning and shaping transitions effectively and legitimately At the same time to the extent that long-term trends help open up established institutions and patterns of action there may be unusual levels of freedom In this respect the second objective is to understand the design and shaping of system innovations as embedded political processes The third objec-tive is to develop from the perspectives of the actors involved insights on how to deliberately infl uence long-term structural change in politically and institutionally complex contexts
Several core concepts are being used (Grin 2006) including the insti-tutional rectangle of state market science and civil society and their mutual alignments understood as the product of a historical process of co-evolution between the four institutional realms This may be further conceptualized with middle-range theories from such fi elds as globaliza-tion studies governance studies and innovation studies Transitions may be seen as a re-orientation of this process of co-evolution towards sustainable development More specifi cally the concept of re-structurationmdashbased on a combination of structuration theory with the theory of refl exive modern-ization (Beck 1997 Beck et al 1997)mdashwill also be developed This angle sheds additional light on the multilevel perspective (MLP) Different tradi-tions of policy analysis and planning will be used for the more prescriptive parts Lindblom and Meadowcroftrsquos planning through structural adapta-tion Healeyrsquos collaborative planning for creative agency and Schoumln and Reinrsquos triadic policy design
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
8 Transitions to Sustainable Development
In terms of overlap and complementarity Part I and Part II of this volume make an attempt to conceptualize the underlying patterns and mechanisms of transitions in two different but complementary ways Both approaches translate these conceptualizations in a management approach to infl uence or guide transition processes strategic niche management (SNM) and tran-sition management (TM) respectively Part III does not deal so much with transition patterns and mechanisms but focuses on the situation of sus-tainability transitions in a broad social and political context from a gover-nance perspective based on an extensive literature review This transition governance approach offers a window of refl ection on strategic niche man-agement and transition management and their politics
In a fi nal joint chapter we will discuss the differences and similarities between the three parts The aims here are threefold (1) to identify the particular contributions of each and understand how they relate to each other (2) to synthesize where possible different concepts and fi ndings and (3) to identify areas of difference which deserve further attention in future work
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Part I
The Dynamics of TransitionsA Socio-Technical PerspectiveFrank W Geels and Johan Schot
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
I1 IntroductionExploration of the Research Topic
The main research question we address is how to understand and infl uence long-term and complex socio-technical transitions Our journey in this part of the book is geared to developing a socio-technical perspective on transi-tions borrowing insights from disciplines such as science and technology studies evolutionary economics and sociology We defi ne such transitions as shifts from one socio-technical system to another These systems oper-ate at the level of societal domains or functions such as transport energy housing agriculture and food communication and health care The study of transitions is a special kind of research topic different from many other topics commonly dealt with in mainstream social science We consider transitions as having the following characteristics
1 Transitions are co-evolution processes that require multiple changes in socio-technical systems or confi gurations Transitions involve both the development of technical innovations (generation of novelties through new knowledge science artifacts and industries) and their use (selection adoption) in societal application domains This use includes the immediate adoption and selection by consumers (markets and integration into user practices) as well as the broader process of societal embedding of (new) technologies (eg regulations markets infrastructures and cultural symbols)
2 Transitions are multi-actor processes which entail interactions between social groups such as businesses or fi rms different types of user groups scientifi c communities policymakers social movements and special interest groups
3 Transitions are radical shifts from one system or confi guration to another The term ldquoradicalrdquo refers to the scope of change not to its speed Radical innovations may be sudden and lead to creative destruc-tion but they can also be slow or proceed in a step-wise fashion
4 Transitions are long-term processes (40 ndash50 years) while break-throughs may be relatively fast (eg 10 years) the preceding innova-tion journeys through which new socio-technical systems gradually emerge usually take much longer (20ndash30 years)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
12 Transitions to Sustainable Development
5 Transitions are macroscopic The level of analysis is that of ldquoorgani-zational fi eldsrdquo
those organizations that in the aggregate constitute a recognized area of institutional life key suppliers resource and product consumers reg-ulatory agencies and other organizations that produce similar services or products The virtue of this unit of analysis is that it directs our at-tention not simply to competing fi rms or to networks of organiza-tions that actually interact but to the totality of relevant actors
(DiMaggio and Powell 1983 148)
Our analysis thus focuses on a particular level of organizational hierar-chies which are often thought to consist of the following levels individ-ual organizational subsystem organization organizational population organizational fi eld society and world system Our focus thus exceeds the level of businesses or fi rms and populations (eg industries) but it is more specifi c than the level of societies or world systems Organizational fi elds which consist of communities of interacting populations receive increasing attention in organization studies and sociology (eg Leblebici et al 1991 Davis and Marquis 2005 Meyer et al 2005) Our study of transitions contributes to this new stream of research albeit with a stronger focus on socio-technical change and innovation
Transition is not just an unusual research topic our approach to it marked by zooming in on technology is also quite specifi c This choice should not be confused with an approach that focuses on the material (hardware) aspects of transitions only Our socio-technical perspective is based on a contextual understanding of technology Building on science and technology studies (STS) we understand the development of technology as ldquoheterogeneous engineeringrdquo (Latour 1987 Law 1987) This involves not only the development of knowledge and prototypes but also the mobiliza-tion of resources the creation of social networks (eg sponsors potential users fi rms) the development of visions which may attract attention the construction of markets and new regulatory frameworks Technological development thus involves the creation of linkages between heterogeneous elements In this respect Hughes (1986) coined the useful metaphor of building a ldquoseamless webrdquo indicating that technological change requires actors to combine physical artifacts organizations (eg manufacturing fi rms investment banks and research and development laboratories) nat-ural resources scientifi c elements (eg books and articles) and legislative artifacts (eg laws) In a similar vein Rip and Kemp (1998) have defi ned technology as ldquoconfi guration that worksrdquo While the term ldquoconfi gurationrdquo refers to the alignment between a heterogeneous set of elements the addi-tion ldquothat worksrdquo suggests the confi guration should stabilize in ldquofulfi lling a functionrdquo These defi nitions of technology emphasize not only the inherent
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Exploration of the Research Topic 13
connections between technical and social aspects but also the intrinsic ori-entation towards use and functional application domains Technologies are always ldquotechnologies-in-contextrdquo (Rammert 1997 176) Our perspective then is decidedly socio-technical
The focus on technology and innovation is important for a study of tran-sitions because since the nineteenth century technology has been used by many actors as a way of advancing the modernization process (Schot 2003) Technological change has assumed an incessant endogenous innovative dynamic in modern capitalist societies This does not mean however that new knowledge and artifact designs are prime movers in transition pro-cesses We are obviously not technological determinists Rather our argu-ment is that actors in transition processes give technology a prominent role in their change strategy (see for example Giddens 2009 Chapter 6) Tech-nology is a site for organizing change This tendency is also clearly visible in the present discussion on transitions towards sustainability Some claim that the emphasis on technological solutions is part of the problem argu-ing that real solutions for sustainable development should come from social or cultural change In our socio-technical approach however we study how material social and cultural changes interact in transitions towards sustainable development
Another important characteristic of our research question is its deeply historical nature Therefore it is useful to explore the specifi c characteris-tics of historical change and its explanations which may differ from other types of explanations current in the social sciences In Chapter 6 we will elaborate on this issue in depth In this part our focus is only on the identi-fi cation of relevant heuristics or criteria for theory development regarding long-term change processes To this end we fi rst delve into theories of his-tory Specifi cally we present three types of heuristics
First historians underscore the importance of co-evolution between ongoing processes and lateral thinking They share a conviction that a sense of the whole must inform the understanding of the parts
Specialist expertise compartmentalizes human experience into boxes marked ldquoeconomicsrdquo ldquosocial policyrdquo and so on each with its own technical lore whereas what is really required is openness to the way in which human experience constantly breaks out of these catego-ries These lateral links with different aspects of society are much easier to discern with the benefi t of hindsight Historians can claim with some justice to be specialists in lateral thinking
(Tosh 2002 35)
In the context of this lateral competence Freeman (2004 548) quotes Schumpeter about the importance of history for theory development on technological innovation
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
14 Transitions to Sustainable Development
It is absurd to think that we can derive the contour lines of our phe-nomena from our statistical material only All we could ever prove from it is that no regular contour lines exist We cannot stress this point suffi ciently General history (social political and cultural) economic history and industrial history are not only indispensable but really the most important contributors to the understanding of our problem All other materials and methods statistical and theoretical are only sub-servient to them and worthless without them
(Freeman 2004 548)
A second cluster of heuristics relates to issues of explanation and causality for instance notions about multi-causality anti-reductionism search for patterns and the importance of context
Most historians will go to some lengths to avoid a ldquomonocausal expla-nationrdquo Almost all historians are used to the idea that historical events are frequently over-determined that is they may have several suffi cient as well as necessary causes any one of which might have been enough to trigger the event on its own Generally however they see it as their task to establish a hierarchy of causes and to explain if relevant the relationship of one cause to another Historical explanation com-monly proceeds by relating an event or a process or a structure to a broader historical context
(Evans 2000 158)
In trying to decide what ldquocausesrdquo something to happen historians can draw on a number of different theories and fall back into a variety of positions Most would admit that except at the most simple level ev-erything has a plurality of causes And what then happens on account of those causes becomes in turn the cause of something further still Historians try to make patterns from these intricate series of events sometimes very simple patterns such as a narrative of ldquoimportantrdquo men and sometimes very complex patterns of ideologies economics and cultures
(Arnold 2000 92)
Third historians have learned to distinguish between different types of chronologies Braudel (1958 1976) identifi ed three types based on different time scales and different speeds a) structural history associated with the study of geological geographic social and mental structures that change only glacially b) conjunctural history associated with the study of eco-nomic and demographic cycles with durations of decades rather than cen-turies and c) eventful history associated with the ephemera of politics and events reported in newspapers (Figure I11)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Exploration of the Research Topic 15
We believe any theory of transition should incorporate Braudelrsquos ideas of multiple time scales while acknowledging that his perspective was top-down and structuralist by conceptualizing agency (events) as superfi cial disturbance of structural changes Furthermore Braudel never explicitly theorized the relationships between his levels
In sum theories of history offer the following useful general heuristics for studying long-term processes multi-causality co-evolution lateral thinking anti-reductionism patterns context and the use of different time scales In the following chapters these heuristics inform our conceptual work on long-term socio-technical transitions
History is also important for transitions research in another way however We will not only develop a socio-technical perspective on tran-sitions but also test the plausibility of the proposed perspective with his-torical case studies In our argument we rely on historical case studies for three reasons First studies of future transitions cannot be tested as of yet (because the future still lies ahead) while studies of present or ongoing transitions are also limited because they cannot cover entire transitions from beginning to end Second as we will argue in Chapter I6 test-ing requires the tracing and analysis of processes event sequences and agency the historical case-study method is well suited for this Third his-tory is important as a treasure trove of empirical case studies that enable what Yin (1994) has called analytical generalization towards conceptual perspectives and theories This is exactly how we will use our case stud-ies especially in Chapter I4 where multiple cases are used to replicate
Figure I11 Different historical time-developments (Bertels 1973 123)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
16 Transitions to Sustainable Development
the basic perspective as well as to further refi ne it (we will distinguish different analytical transition pathways)
We develop our argument as follows Chapter I2 introduces the so-called multilevel perspective (MLP) on transition Subsequently in Chapter I3 we elaborate on the theoretical foundations of this perspective We posi-tion it as a specifi c crossover between science and technology studies (STS) evolutionary economics and sociology In Chapter 4 we further differenti-ate the MLP and show how particular types and sequences of interactions lead to different transition pathways We propose four transition paths provide empirical illustrations (which are necessarily short) and provide a future research agenda Chapter I5 discusses empirical fi ndings and con-ceptual elaborations of Strategic Niche Management (SNM) This is a spe-cifi c management approach embedded not only in new ways of thinking about governance (for this argument see Part III) but also in the MLP as it is grounded in a combination of STS evolutionary economics and soci-ology Finally in Chapter I6 we refl ect on the nature of the explanations provided by the MLP
Our choice to focus on MLP excludes a number of other socio-technical approaches which could be mobilized to advance our understanding of transitions In particular we would like to point to the so-called functional perspective on technological innovation systems (TIS approach) which emphasizes how innovation systems work instead of how they are struc-tured as is the case for original innovation systems literatures (for this point and a comparison between MLP and TIS see Markard and Truffer 2008 see also Geels et al 2008) In the TIS approach the overall system function is the generation diffusion and use of innovations Subsequently several sub-functions can be recognized and it is precisely the quality of the performance of each sub-function and the quality of interactions between sub-functions which determines whether transitions to a more sustainable innovation system might occur Various authors have worked on the development of a standardized set of sub-functions (see Bergek et al 2005 Hekkert et al 2007 Negro 2007) Hekkert et al (2007) proposed seven sub-functions which have been used in a range of studies entrepre-neurial activities knowledge development knowledge diffusion guidance of the search market formation resource mobilization and creation of legitimacy This group of researchers also developed a specifi c mapping tool for the analysis of these functions event history analysis (Negro 2007 Negro et al 2008) In addition Suurs (2008) has developed a typology of specifi c interactions (so-called motors) between functions which may result in a transition The TIS approach has proven to be a powerful device for analyzing and evaluating the internal strengths and weaknesses of specifi c socio-technical trajectories Yet we decided not to focus on it (and mainly advance the MLP) since it does not incorporate an elaborate analysis of the interactions between different time-scales In other words the TIS per-spective is more inward oriented and does not pay enough attention to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Exploration of the Research Topic 17
the systemrsquos external environment (for this conclusion see Markard and Truffer 2008 who subsequently have developed some fi rst ideas on how to combine TIS and MLP)
Another approach we do not incorporate is long wave theory in par-ticular the version advanced by Freeman and Perez (1988 see also Freeman and Louccedilatilde 2001) which focuses on shifts in techno-economic paradigms (TEP) TEPs refer to confi gurations of pervasive technologies methods of production economic structures institutions and beliefs that are stable for long periods because certain key factors offer great benefi ts New technolo-gies which emerge in particular sectors initially face ldquoa degree of mismatch between the techno-economic subsystem and the old socio-institutional frameworkrdquo (Freeman and Perez 1988 59) Further breakthrough occurs when the old key factor runs into problems and when the new technol-ogy acquires dynamics of its own The breakthrough is accompanied by broader socio-institutional changes In a recent talk Perez (2009b) has argued forcefully that sustainability may become an important element of the emerging techno-economic paradigm related to the diffusion of infor-mation and communication technologies the new key factor While this perspective provides an important long-term perspective on transitions it is too much focused on the macro-environment of socio-technical systems in food transport and energy domains and does not provide many insights into how these transitions happen This is central to the MLP we will now turn to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
I2 A Multi-Level Perspective on Transitions
I21 TRANSITION AS A MULTIPLE-LEVEL PROCESS
In order to address our general research concernmdashhow can we understand long-term and complex socio-technical transitionsmdashthis chapter describes a multilevel perspective (MLP) on transitions This perspective has been developed by scholars who have actively sought to bridge STS and evolu-tionary economics (Rip and Kemp 1998 Kemp et al 1998 Schot 1998 and Geels 2002a 2004 2005a)
Before we discuss the basic characteristics of the MLP three prelimi-nary comments are relevant as context First the MLP emphasizes how the alignment of trajectories within levels as well as between levels will produce transitions Building on Braudelrsquos notion of different levels of his-torical time (Chapter I1) the MLP starts from three levels a) technological niches b) socio-technical regimes and c) socio-technical landscape The relationship between the three concepts can be understood as a nested hier-archy meaning that regimes are embedded within landscapes and niches within regimes (Figure 21)
Second the MLP incorporates notions from STS evolutionary econom-ics and sociology We will elaborate on this below but it is useful here to list several basic features
Each level is conceptualized as a heterogeneous socio-technical con-bull fi guration STS is quite useful for conceptualizing alignments within levels (co-construction bricolage enrolment building of seamless webs heterogeneous engineering)The (socio-) logic of the three levels is that they provide different bull kinds of coordination and structuration to activities in local practices The three levels thus differ in terms of stability (and size) In niches the social networks are small unstable and precarious consisting of entrepreneurs and innovators that are willing to take a chance Actors need to put in a lot of work to uphold the niche Because the rules (search heuristics guidelines visions) are diffuse there is limited structuration of activities much uncertainty and fl uidity Socio-technical regimes are more stable social networks are larger
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Multi-Level Perspective on Transitions 19
artifacts regulations markets infrastructures etc have coalesced into stable confi gurations and rules are articulated clear and have more structuring effects Socio-technical landscapes involve broader background structures that provide gradients for actions (see further below) Structuration theory is useful for conceptualizing these differ-ent degrees of stability (see below)Alignments between levels have evolutionary characteristics niches bull provide the locus for the generation of radical novelties (variation) but the selection and broader diffusion of these novelties depends on alignments with regime and landscape levels
Third the MLP is not a theory of everything Instead it is a middle-range theory that combines specifi c elements from other theories (discussed in more detail in Chapter II3) and as such it is geared to answering particular ques-tions on the dynamics of transitions Furthermore the MLP is an abstract analytical framework that identifi es relations between general theoretical principles and mechanisms But it does not specify precise substantive mech-anisms of interactions between technology culture politics economics sci-ence etc To give precise explanations of such substantive relationships the MLP needs to be complemented with more specifi c theories
I22 SOCIO-TECHNICAL REGIMES THE LOCK-IN AND STABILITY OF EXISTING SYSTEMS
Transitions do not come about easily because existing socio-technical sys-tems are stabilized in many ways To understand this lock-in we use the
Figure I21 Multiple levels as a nested hierarchy (Geels 2002 1261)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
20 Transitions to Sustainable Development
concept of socio-technical regime This concept builds on Nelson and Win-terrsquos (1982) concept of technological regimes which refers to the cogni-tive routines shared in a community of engineers Technological regimes coordinate and guide RampD activities in particular directions leading to incremental innovations along technical trajectories Rip and Kemp (1998) have widened the defi nition of technological regimes from cognitive rou-tines to the sociological category of rules (which has obvious similarities to structuration theory)
A technological regime is the rule-set or grammar embedded in a com-plex of engineering practices production process technologies product characteristics skills and procedures ways of handling relevant arte-facts and persons ways of defi ning problems all of them embedded in institutions and infrastructures
(Rip and Kemp 1998 340)
Building on neo-institutional theory (for an elaboration we refer to sec-tion 34 below) Geels (2004) proposed that regimes contain three types of rules cognitive regulative and normative Examples of cognitive rules are belief systems guiding principles goals innovation agendas problem defi -nitions and search heuristics Examples of regulative rules are regulations standards and laws Examples of normative rules are role relationships values and behavioral norms
While technological regimes refer to communities of engineers the functioning of socio-technical systems involves more social groups eg scientists users policy makers and special-interest groups These social groups interact and form networks with mutual dependencies The inter-group coordination is represented by the concept of socio-technical regimes (Geels 2004)
The rules of socio-technical regimes account for the stability and lock-in of socio-technical systems Cognitive rules and routines for instance make engineers and designers look to particular directions blinding them to developments outside their focus (Nelson and Winter 1982) Legally binding contracts technical standards or rules for government subsidies may favor existing technologies (Walker 2000) Organizations are resistant to major changes because they develop ldquowebs of interde-pendent relationships with buyers suppliers and fi nancial backers and patterns of culture norms and ideologyrdquo (Tushman and Romanelli 1985 177) Industries may create professional associations or branch organizations to do political lobbying on their behalf (Unruh 2000) ldquoMomentumrdquo may also increase when people adapt their lifestyles to technical systems (Hughes 1994) and on account of sunk investments in machines infrastructures and competencies (Tushman and Ander-son 1986 Christensen 1997) As a result of these lock-in mechanisms
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Multi-Level Perspective on Transitions 21
existing socio-technical systems are dynamically stable innovation still occurs but is of an incremental nature leading to cumulative technical trajectories
Such predictable trajectories occur not just for technology but also for policy science industry culture and markets The different trajectories are carried and enacted by social groups that have relative autonomy These groups internally share particular perceptions problem-agendas norms and preferences and experience their own structuration dynamics and enactment cycles that lead to trajectories To ensure the functioning of socio-technical systems however different groups also interact and form networks with mutual dependencies In other words social groups ldquointer-penetraterdquo they overlap in some manner without losing their autonomy and identity (Stankiewicz 1992) As a result different trajectories in socio-technical systems co-evolve (Figure I22)
Fluctuations in one trajectory (eg political cycles business cycles cul-tural movements lifecycle of industries) are usually dampened by linkages with trajectories (see also Freeman and Louccedilă 2001) At times however changes in trajectories are so powerful that they result in mal-adjustments tensions and lack of synchronicities These tensions create windows of opportunity for transitions Hence ldquoit is essential to study both the rela-tively independent development of each stream of history and their interde-pendencies their loss of integration and their reintegrationrdquo (Freeman and Louccedilă 2001 127) The multilevel perspective incorporates this emphasis on alignments and interacting processes and the importance of tensions which create windows of opportunity for transition
Figure I22 Co-evolution between multiple trajectories in a socio-technical regime (adapted from Geels 2004 912)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
22 Transitions to Sustainable Development
I23 NICHES THE EMERGENCE OF RADICAL INNOVATIONS (NOVELTIES)
Evolutionary theories (and innovation studies) suggest that radical inno-vations often emerge outside or on the fringe of existing regimes where niches act as incubation rooms that protect novelties against mainstream market selection Some evolutionary economists highlight the importance of small market niches where selection criteria differ from those in the existing regime and commercial transactions provide a trickle of resources for reproduction (Saviotti 1996 Levinthal 1998 Frenken et al 1999) But such dedicated market niches do not always readily exist for radically new technologies This implies that new technologies markets and user prefer-ences need to be co-constructed (Leonard-Barton 1988 Coombs et al 2001 Oudshoorn and Pinch 2003) As Sarasvathy and Dew (2005) have claimed new markets and technologies emerge through enactment ldquoEntre-preneurial action transforms extant reality into new markets through a chain of stakeholder commitments over timerdquo They add that the ldquoend-product of this process is inherently unpredictable because the pro-cess is actor-centric it depends on which actors come on board with what commitmentsrdquo (Sarasvathy and Dew 2005 542 544) Phrased differently niches are actively constructed
Variations may impose themselves on the environment In this sense niches do not pre-exist waiting to be fi lled they materialize as the product of organizational action Organizations do not fortuitously fi t into predefi ned sets of niche constraints rather they opportunisti-cally enact their own operating domains
(Astley 1985 234)
The creation and enactment of niches is explicitly addressed in the literature on technological niches strategic niche management and tran-sition management (Schot et al 1994 Kemp et al 1998 Rotmans et al 2001 Hoogma et al 2002 Raven 2005 Schot and Geels 2008 Raven et al forthcoming) These scholars explicitly incorporate STS insights and agency into evolutionary theory Technological niches are carried by experimental projects where new technologies are exposed to actors from the selection environment under relatively protected cir-cumstances Protection comes from networks of dedicated actors who are willing to invest resources in the new technology High expectations and public subsidies contribute to this willingness The technological niche literature distinguishes three niche-internal processes a) the building of social networks that carry nurture and develop novelties b) heteroge-neous learning processes to improve performance and build a working socio-technical confi guration c) articulation of expectations and visions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Multi-Level Perspective on Transitions 23
to guide learning processes and attract attention and funding (more on this in Chapter I5)
The niche phase may last a long time The period between invention and innovation (viable market introduction) is often about two or three decades
I24 THE SOCIO-TECHNICAL LANDSCAPE
The socio-technical landscape forms a broad exogenous environment that as such is beyond the direct infl uence of regime and niche actors The met-aphor landscape has been selected because of the literal connotation of relative hardness and to include the various material aspects of society eg material and spatial arrangements of cities factories and electricity infrastructures Rip and Kemp (1998) introduced the socio-technical land-scape concept in a wide-ranging review of theories of technological change Scholars in history archeology anthropology and philosophy view tech-nology as part of the material culture of societies Philosophers see modern man as living in a technotope rather than a biotope Modern society has characteristics of a ldquomega-machinerdquo (Mumford 1967) Historians have showed how road and electricity infrastructures changed over time from strange and contested technologies to taken-for-granted backdrop As sta-bilized backdrop they still exerted power and infl uence Rip and Kemp saw socio-technical landscapes literally as something around us that we can travel through and metaphorically as something that we are part ofmdashas something that sustains us (Figure I23)
Likewise Stones (2005) in his critical discussion and defense of struc-turation theory has argued that
Figure I23 Topography of development trajectories (Sahal 1985 79)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
24 Transitions to Sustainable Development
It is important to retain a sense that structuration processes intersect with the greater forces and movements of history geography and social structure Structuration theory thus needs theories and perspectives to provide such frames Most structuration studies will benefi t from being placed and situated within a broader historical and geographical framework These provide the context in which particular processes of structuration take place
(Stones 2005 6 127)
Although a drawback of the landscape metaphor is that it partly comes with the suggestion of relative stasis as in its reference to soil conditions rivers lakes and mountain ranges in biological evolution we also want to highlight the dynamic atmospheric aspects of the external environ-ment such as rainfall patterns storms and lightning In this respect Van Driel and Schot (2005) have elaborated the landscape metaphor by dis-tinguishing three types 1) factors that do not change or that change only slowly such as climate 2) long-term changes such as German industrial-ization in the late nineteenth century and 3) rapid external shocks such as wars or fl uctuations in the price of oil This varied set of factors can be combined in a single ldquolandscaperdquo category because they form an exter-nal context that actors cannot infl uence in the short run This does not mean that landscape developments occur without human agency Urban-ization globalization environmental problems and macro-cultural changes obviously come about through aggregations of multitudes of actions The point however is that such landscape developments cannot be infl uenced by niche and regime actors in the particular domain that is the object of study
I25 DYNAMIC MULTI-LEVEL INTERACTIONS
The multi-level perspective (MLP) argues that transitions come about through the interactions between processes at different levels Figure I24 provides a schematic representation of these transition dynamics
Niche-innovations are important because they are the seeds of transi-tions But ldquothe environment into which these seeds are sown is of course the main determinant of whether they will sproutrdquo (Mokyr 1990 299) So the MLP does not support a straightforward S-shaped diffusion where niche-innovations follow a point-source dynamic in conquering the world Instead it emphasizes multilevel interactions and windows of opportunity
When a radical innovation emerges in a niche there is much uncer-tainty and fl ux (characterized by small diverging arrows in Figure I24) Social networks and visions in niches are infl uenced by ongoing dynamics at regime and landscape levels (indicated by downward dotted arrows in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Multi-Level Perspective on Transitions 25
Figure I24) Product champions often promise that niche-innovations may solve problems in the existing regime
Novelties may remain in niches for a long time One possible reason is that technological development and trouble-shooting may last long (often decades) Another possible reason is that radical novelties face a mismatch with the existing regime eg infrastructure requirements user practices or policies that do not yet exist A third possible reason is that existing regime actors actively oppose niche-innovations Regimes may thus pose barriers for diffusion of niche-innovations As long as existing regimes are stable novelties have little chance to break through Novelties may remain stuck in niches or wither away
Wider breakthrough of niche-innovations often depends on exter-nal landscape changes that create pressure on existing regimes opening them up Landscape pressure does not mechanically infl uence regimes Instead this infl uence is mediated by actorsrsquo perceptions negotiations and
Figure I24 Multi-level perspective on transitions (adapted from Geels 2002 1263)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
26 Transitions to Sustainable Development
agenda setting Furthermore landscape infl uence works through particular elements leading to particular windows of opportunity and tensions
Users may change their preferences because of concern about negative bull externalities broad cultural changes changes in relative prices or policy measures such as taxes This leads to regime tensions when established technologies have diffi culties to meet the new market demandsContinued expansion of regimes may lead to increasing negative exter-bull nalities When they affect other societal actors this may lead to pres-sure on the regime Regime actors tend to downplay such problems For this reason externalities are often picked up and problematized by outsiders eg societal pressure groups outside engineering and scientifi c professionals or outside fi rms (Van de Poel 2000) To get negative externalities on the technical agenda of regime actors there may be a need for consumer pressures and regulatory measuresIf regimes cause problems that are perceived to threaten society poli-bull cymakers may introduce new regulations that introduce performance standards that cannot be met by the existing technologyInternal technical problems may also lead to regime tensions Dif-bull ferent terms have been proposed in the literature eg ldquobottlenecksrdquo (Rosenberg 1976) ldquoreverse salientsrdquo (Hughes 1983) ldquodiminish-ing returns of existing technologyrdquo (Freeman and Perez 1988) and expected problems and ldquopresumptive anomaliesrdquo (Constant 1980) It is not just the existence of technical problems but the shared percep-tion and placement on problem agendas which is important Continu-ing problems can undermine the trust in existing technologies and alter expectations of new technologiesStrategic games in industrial populations may also open up the bull regime Companies compete through innovation and new technolo-gies Businesses or fi rms may decide to invest in niche-innovations when they think it has strategic potential When strategic games heat up this may lead to domino effects and bandwagon effects that sud-denly accelerate the breakthrough of new technologies
These pressures and tensions may open up the existing regime (repre-sented in Figure I24 with diverging arrows at the regime level) creating windows of opportunity for broader change If niche-innovations have suffi ciently stabilized and experienced price or performance improve-ments or both they may take advantage of these windows and diffuse more widely The diffusion into mainstream markets leads to competi-tion with the existing regime which is played out in markets regula-tions infrastructure investments etc If the novelty wins the competition technological substitution is accompanied by broader socio-technical changes The new socio-technical system may over time also contribute to broader landscape changes
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Multi-Level Perspective on Transitions 27
The MLP does away with linear causality There is no simple cause or driver in transitions Instead there is co-evolution within and between levels ie processes at multiple dimensions and levels simultaneously Transitions come about when these processes link up and reinforce each other This deviates from technology-push approaches which can be found in punctuated equilibrium frameworks (Tushman and Anderson 1986) While technology is important in the MLP its evolutionary characteristics imply that the causal emphasis is more on the broader societal selection environment (landscape and regime dynamics) than on the internal drivers of niche-innovations (although these are also important) The MLP also deviates from life-cycle approaches which assume that transitions follow a simple S-curve with predictable phases While such approaches assume that novelties emerge and then conquer the world the MLP explicitly acknowl-edges the presence of existing regimes The core problem in transitions is not the emergence and development of novelties but their relationship with this existing regime In Chapter I4 we will indicate how different kinds of relationships between the three levels lead to different transition pathways Here we want to conclude by stressing another point the three levels are structures that differently infl uence local practices where actors (inter)act
Technological niches and socio-technical regimes are similar kinds of structures although different in size and stability Both niches and regimes are about networks of actors that share certain rules Both regimes and niches thus provide structuration to actions in local practices only in dif-ferent degrees For niche-innovations networks are unstable in the mak-ing and precarious with actors entering and leaving Rules are vague and imprecise economic structures and markets are not well developed cogni-tive structures are not well articulated indicated by disagreements about design specifi cations user preferences and regulations Niches thus provide loose structuration requiring a lot of work from actors to sustain them For socio-technical regimes social networks are large and stable because actors have aligned their activities Cognitive rules have stabilized (eg dominant designs) Market structures and exchange relationships have also stabilized Because rules are well-articulated and stable regimes provide strong structuration It is diffi cult for actors in local practices to deviate from regime-rules although not impossible (but this takes much effort) In sum the constraining infl uence of regimes is much stronger than that of niches Niche-innovations can become regimes when social networks grow larger and rules become more stable and constraining leading to a reversal in their relation to agency
The socio-technical landscape is a different kind of structure While niches and regimes work through sociological structuration socio-technical land-scapes infl uence action differently The psychologist Gibson (1979) coined the term ldquoaffordancerdquo to indicate ldquoaction possibilitiesrdquo latent in the physi-cal environment The empty space within an open doorway for instance affords movement across its threshold Likewise one can traverse a steep
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
28 Transitions to Sustainable Development
mountain landscape through diffi cult paths (climbing them) or through easy paths (through the valley) In analogy socio-technical landscapes do not determine but provide deep-structural gradients of force that make some actions easier than others We recognize that Figure I24 is confus-ing because it suggests that landscapes also work through structuration dynamics (which is a particular sociological theory developed by Giddens) The main point however is that the Y-axis indicates increasing degrees of hardness the socio-technical landscape provides a broad context from which it is more diffi cult to deviate than from regimes
The MLP pays much attention to structuring forces Therefore it has sometimes been criticized for underplaying the role of lack of agency (eg Smith et al 2005 Genus and Coles 2008) While we recognize that agency may have been backgrounded in our previous theoretical work (but not in our detailed historical case studies see for example Van Driel and Schot 2005) the MLP is shot through with agency the trajectories and alignments in the MLP are always enacted by social groups For a better understanding of this issue we need to delve deeper into the theoretical foundations of the MLP It is to this task we now turn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
I3 Theoretical BackgroundsScience and Technology Studies Evolutionary Economics and Sociology
I31 THE NATURE OF THE MLP
The main aim of this chapter is to articulate the theoretical backgrounds of the multilevel perspective (MLP) on transitions with special attention to the role of agency in socio-technical change and trajectories The MLP perspective does not seem to foreground agency at fi rst sight This is partly an effect of its having two complementing components which in the wake of Poole and Van de Ven (1989) can be identifi ed as a global model and a local model They explain the difference as follows
The global (macro long-run) model depicts the overall course of de-velopment of an innovation and its infl uences while the local (micro short-run) model depicts the immediate action processes that create short-run developmental patterns A global model takes as its unit of analysis the overall trajectories paths phases or stages in the development of an innovation whereas a local model focuses on the micro ideas decisions actions or events of particular developmental episodes
(Poole and Van de Ven 1989 643)
The MLP as discussed in the previous chapter provides mainly the global model of transitions that captures the overall process In contrast the theo-retical explication in this chapter rather provides insights into the local model that underlies the MLP
The MLP originates in particular crossovers between different sub-disciplines in particular science and technology studies (STS) and evolu-tionary economics This crossover has been nurtured by a large range of scholars in very different ways in the last fi fteen years and for good reasons (Coombs et al 1992 MacKenzie 1992 Schot 1992 Rip 1992 Garud and Rappa 1994 Williams and Edge 1996 Rip and Kemp 1998 Hodg-son 2000 Bruun and Hukkinen 2003 Munir and Jones 2004 Nelson 2002 2006) For instance Weber (1997) feels that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
30 Transitions to Sustainable Development
a major convergence can be identifi ed between evolutionary econom-ics and the sociology of technology Although they have very different roots the basic understanding of the process of technological change is quite similar andmdasheven more importantmdashsuffi ciently open to intro-duce elements of the other perspective What is still missing is the actual integration in a single framework which would allow to inves-tigate different cases from a wider perspective and to bridge explicitly between economics and sociology with regard to technology studies
(Weber 1997 83)
Our crossovers in this chapter which contribute to this agenda proceed along similar lines as those of Rammert (1997) who suggests the following direction for rethinking innovation studies
Inspired by Giddensrsquos new rules of sociological method a constructiv-ist explanation of technologyrsquos generation on the local level is com-bined with a social evolutionary approach of structural selection on the global level
(p 171)
Rather than investigating these crossovers as a general concern we con-centrate on long-term socio-technical change particularly large-scale transitions Crossovers and combinations are only possible if foundational assumptions of different theories (especially models of agency) are suffi -ciently similar Otherwise there are dangers of inconsistency and unjusti-fi ed eclecticism The arguments below indicate that assumptions in STS structuration theory and evolutionary economics are fairly similar STS assumes interpretive and creative actors who socially construct meaning and cognitive frameworks To remedy tendencies towards voluntarism we complement STS with structuration theory While structuration theory assumes knowledgeable interpretive actors it also highlights structures and routines on which actors draw in concrete actions and local practices Structuration theory defi nes structures as ldquorules and resourcesrdquo (Giddens 1984) which guide but do not determine action Actors interpret and enact rules and structures leading to variety between local practices Agency is also present in evolution theory Some evolutionary economic theories only assume routine-based action with agents acting as replicators and passive rule-followers Variation then is assumed to be blind arising from stochastic processes (eg replication mistakes copying errors) But it is also possible to incorporate more creative and interpretive actors in evolution theory eg in Lamarckian or quasi-evolutionary versions where variation is not blind but directed (Rip 1992 Schot 1992 Dietz and Burns 1992) These actors anticipate give meaning search learn and can deliberately deviate from existing routines and rule-regimes These rule-regimes act as retention structures in evolution theory containing routines and rules that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Theoretical Backgrounds 31
are shared by members of a population (sector industry fi eld) While these regimes coordinate populations they only provide general direction and allow for specifi c differences in local practices (eg strategies RampD invest-ments competencies) Because these different theories combine routine-based and interpretivecreative action they work between the extremes of voluntarism and collectivismholism Furthermore the different theories have an intrinsic focus on process and development over time They are historical theories because explanations of present states derive from ana-lyzing previous developments
We conclude that the ontological assumptions of STS evolutionary eco-nomics and the types of sociology we will draw on are suffi ciently similar Accordingly we are in the position to discuss relevant insights strengths and weaknesses in different theories Neither discipline can be straightfor-wardly applied to transitions however Each has strengths and weaknesses focusing on particular issues rather than others The theoretical challenge is to combine strengths of one approach to address weaknesses in the other
Below in Section I32 we fi rst discuss strengths and weaknesses in STS suggesting where other theories may provide useful complements Next in Section I33 we do the same for evolutionary economics Section I34 introduces further insights from mainstream sociology in particular struc-turation theory neo-institutional theory and fi guration sociology These sociological theories are needed to complement particular weaknesses in both STS and evolutionary economics In Section I35 fi nally we briefl y consider some conclusions of our explanation of the MLPrsquos disciplinary backgrounds
I32 SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES (STS)
STS is a relevant discipline for socio-technical transition because of its focus on interactions between technology and society Scholars in STS took issue in particular with two notions related to technological determinism a) that technology develops according to its own internal logic separated from society and b) that once technology is introduced in society it causes social changes (billiards-ball model) These notions come together in the linear model of technological change which proposes that new technologies emerge in the RampD phase are subsequently brought to the market (inno-vation) and diffuse more widely after which they have societal impacts To undermine the linear model sociologists of technology made detailed empirical studies of technological developments following the actors and their changing coalitions perceptions and strategies They paid particular attention to technology development in local practices where actors aligned many heterogeneous resources and elements eg knowledge technical components money people patents market explorations user feedback and regulations Detailed case studies found that actors move back and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
32 Transitions to Sustainable Development
forth between domains such as science market regulation and produc-tion This undermined the idea of a neat and linear sequence of stages Instead technology and context were co-constructed in a messy process Socio-technical innovation appeared to be a more systemic process of creat-ing linkages and building heterogeneous networks This is why technology development has been characterized as ldquoheterogeneous engineeringrdquo (Law 1987) or the building of ldquoseamless websrdquo (Hughes 1986) Creativity and bricolage are important in these processes
To undermine the idea that technology has an autonomous logic STS scholars have made detailed analyses of early (upstream) technical develop-ment The research strategy was to open up the black box of technological change by following the actors and their shifting coalitions and percep-tions As actors moved between different domains they mixed different kinds of logics (technical economic social cultural political) This under-mined ideas of an intrinsic technical logic Scholars also demonstrated the existence of alternatives and the contingencies through which selection occurs and dominant designs emerge the corollary being that things could have been different Particular outcomes and technical forms are thus not determined by an inherent technical logic but the outcome of agency and interactions between social groups (choices perceptions networks strate-gies) This general strategy has been fruitfully deployed within the contex-tual history of technology since the 1980s (Hughes 1983 Staudenmaier 1985 Misa 1998) and in conceptual perspectives such as actor-network theory (ANT) and social construction of technology (SCOT)
ANT is an explicitly socio-technical approach that analyzes the build-ing of ldquoactor-networksrdquo (Latour 1987) The hyphen between actor and network means there are no actors without networks Actors are confi g-ured by their position in networks and their linkages to other elements ANT emphasizes bricolage heterogeneity and messiness of technological development in local practices showing how social and technical elements interrelate and constitute each other from the start Many ANT studies focus on local projects A well-known study is the analysis of a (failed) project by EDF (Electriciteacute de France) to develop an electric vehicle between 1973 and 1976 (Callon 1986) Rather than a linear sequence of phases socio-technical innovation consisted of efforts by EDF to enroll other actors (eg Renault the government companies that run public transport systems research centers scientists consumers) and align heterogeneous elements (electrons batteries catalysts) Other famous studies of local proj-ects include a (failed) British aircraft development project (Law and Cal-lon 1992) a (failed) public transport project in Paris (Latour 1996) and a Gothic cathedral building at Chartres (Turnbull 1993)
SCOT which focuses on interpretive and socio-cognitive processes analyzes technological change as a process of sense making (Bijker 1995) When new technologies emerge there is much uncertainty about their form and function Different social groups have different problem defi nitions and interpretations New technologies are thus characterized by interpretative
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Theoretical Backgrounds 33
fl exibility Over time actors interact with each other and with the technol-ogy negotiate learn and gradually build up shared meanings about the form and function of new technologies The variety of meanings is thus gradually reduced through closure an inter-group process of negotiations and coalition building One interpretation becomes dominant and oth-ers cease to exist The selection of a dominant design thus coincides with the build-up of a shared cognitive frame which includes elements such as ldquogoals key problems problem-solving strategies (heuristics) requirements to be met by problem solutions current theories tacit knowledge testing procedures and design methods and criteriardquo (Bijker 1995 123)
Although SCOT understands technological change as a socio-cognitive process it has evolutionary characteristics the initial variety of mean-ings is reduced through inter-group selection processes and build-up of a shared cognitive frame Early SCOT proponents explicitly stated ldquoIn SCOT the developmental process of a technological artifact is described as an alteration of variation and selectionrdquo (Pinch and Bijker 1984 411) SCOT thus analyzes the content of shared cognitions an issue underex-posed in evolutionary economics (see below) The evolutionary dynam-ics in socio-cognitive processes are situated at the community level and are played out at conferences in journals at workshops in struggles for research grants etc
Researchers with different beliefs attempt to sway each other with re-spect to the routines utilized to judge the technology It is in this sense that technological systems are negotiated Therefore competition be-tween different paths occurs not only in the market but also in the institutional environment
(Garud and Rappa 1994 347)
In sum STS approaches are strong in showing the complexity alternatives fl uidity and contingency in technological change It is important to main-tain these sensitivities in the study of long-term socio-technical transitions While STS scholars highlight creativity and bricolage in local practices they also allow for cognitive evolutionary dynamics at the community level
With regard to the topic of transitions STS also has some weaknesses First the focus on agency and local practices tends towards voluntarism and (sometimes) heroic storylines (with the associated suggestion that the world is constructed from one point source) This is related to a neglect of wider social structures and the role of power (Russell 1986 Williams and Edge 1996) To address this problem and add notions of structural embeddedness we will introduce insights from structuration theory and neo-institutional theory (Section 34)
Second STS has downplayed the issue of impact because of its strat-egy to open the black box of upstream technology development Although much attention has been given to social-shaping-of-technology questions around technological-construction-of-society have been under-explored
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
34 Transitions to Sustainable Development
(for exceptions see Headrick 1981 Misa 1992 Van der Vleuten 2004) The topic of socio-technical transitions is a way of reintroducing such broader questions While much STS research has focused on local prac-tices and relatively short-term topics (less than 20 years) we intend to open up new directions in socio-technical research addressing long-term and large-scale topics We are particularly interested in the role of technology in societal transformation
In this respect we can build on the emerging STS literature on domestica-tion and societal embedding of new technology Technological development is not only infl uenced by supply-side actors but also by adoption choices by users who are embedded in application domains (Schwartz-Cowan 1987 Nye 1990 Fischer 1992) New technologies need to be integrated in user contexts and domesticated to fi t in functional application domains (Lie and Soslashrensen 1996) Domestication involves symbolic work to transform the cultural categories that give meaning to new technologies practical work through which users integrate the artifact in their user practices and cogni-tive work that includes learning about the artifact and developing new user routines Users media special interest groups policymakers and social movements may be involved in these domestication processes This domes-tication literature analyzes the impact of technology and societal transfor-mation as a process of co-construction Actors in functional application domains make choices and perform activities that infl uence and shape new socio-technical confi gurations (eg regulations infrastructure design user behavior socio-cultural perception and framing) Impact arises not just from technology but also from the shaping and alignment of other ele-ments in socio-technical confi gurations
Third while STS scholars highlight the complexity fl uidity and contin-gency in local practices and innovation projects they often fail to explain patterns and regularities at a more aggregate level (eg technological trajec-tories) To analyze transitions it is not suffi cient to study local projects and contingent agency It is practically impossible to follow thousands of actors over a fi fty-year period In terms of the local-global distinction addressed above it seems that STS is strong in local models but less developed in terms of global models that address broader trends and patterns For transi-tions however we need global models that can capture fi fty-year processes on a macroscopic scale Nevertheless we aim to maintain an STS sensitiv-ity for alignment linkages contingency and agency even if this is not easy as Misa (1994) recognized in his review of micro and macro approaches He argued that
macro studies tend to abstract from individual case studies to impute rationality on actorrsquos behalf or posit functionality for their actions and to be order driven Micro studies tend to focus solely on case studies to refute rationality and functionality and be disorder-respecting
(Misa 1994 119)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Theoretical Backgrounds 35
The puzzle is that micro-approaches highlight agency contingency and social construction while macro-studies tend more towards determinism and functionalism To overcome this dichotomy Misa (1994 140ndash141) suggested that ldquoa focus on meso-level institutions and organizations that mediate between the individual and the cosmos offers a framework for integrating the social shaping of technology and the technological shaping of societyrdquo We suggest that the MLP navigates Misarsquos dilemma of com-bining constructivist micro-insights with macro-patterns fairly well The MLP is strong in combining STS sensitivities about micro-processes with long patterns and processes With regard to niche-innovations the MLP incorporates STS insights that emphasize alternatives uncertainties inter-pretive fl exibility visions learning network building and enrolment But the MLP also accommodates longer-term patterns and macro-dynamics Here the crossover made between STS and evolutionary economics is cru-cially important
I33 EVOLUTIONARY ECONOMICS TRAJECTORIES REGIMES SPECIATION NICHES
Evolutionary theories of technical change offer ideas that are relevant for transitions and help address some of the weaknesses in STS
Evolutionary theories address long-term processes (multiple genera-bull tions in biological evolution multiple product sequences in techno-logical evolution) they can also address macro-topics because of their focus on entire populations and species which interact with broader (selection) environmentsEvolutionary theories may complement the STS focus on local agency bull and (relatively) short-term processes In contrast evolutionary theo-ries address important broader patterns such as the emergence of new species (speciation) lineages and trajectories adaptation in response to changing selection pressures invasion of new species extinctionEvolutionary economics developed the concept of technological regime bull to understand coordination within a population of fi rms (industry sector) Technological regimes consist of cognitive rules and routines shared by engineering communities This regime notion which cap-tures the structural embeddedness of actors provides a useful anti-dote to STSrsquos voluntarist tendencies
Before elaborating these issues we note that evolutionary theories have a bad name in sociology (which is unjustifi ed in our view) One reason is that evolution tends to be wrongly associated with developmentalism and teleology especially functionalist sociologists used the term ldquoevolutionrdquo for (macro-social) processes that proceed through stages in a certain direction
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
36 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Parsons (1966) for instance argued that society evolved through the fol-lowing stages 1) primitive 2) advanced primitive 3) intermediate and 4) modern He claimed that ldquosocio-cultural evolution like organic evolution has proceeded by variation and differentiation from simple to progressively more complex formsrdquo (Parsons 1966 2) The second claim involves the perception that evolution proceeds through impersonal mechanisms with little room for agency eg blind mutations and market selection in evolu-tionary economics
In our view the fi rst claim starts from a misguided and quite loose usage of the concept of evolution (which does not specify the crucial mechanisms of variation selection and retention) The second claim is incomplete while one can interpret variation selection and retention in narrow and imper-sonal terms it is also possible to give the terms broader and more sociologi-cal meanings which create room for agency (Burns and Dietz 1992 Dietz and Burns 1992) This is also our ambition To some extent evolution can act as meta-framework in which economic and sociological understand-ings can enrich each other As Hodgson and Knudsen (2004) put it
Darwinism provides an over-arching framework of explanation but without claiming to explain every aspect or detail Selection is the general principle but it operates in different ways The sources of variation are very different in different contexts the transfer of Dar-winian principles from biological to social evolution does not imply that the detailed mechanisms of selection variation and inheritance are simi-lar there are bound to be many detailed mechanisms in the social world that are not found in biology
(p 15)
Darwinism does not itself provide all the necessary causal mechanisms and explanations for the social scientist nor obviate the elaborate ad-ditional work of specifi c investigation and detailed causal explanation in the social sphere It is more a meta-theoretical framework than a complete theory
(p 17)
In our view evolution theory is not only a biological theory which is sub-sequently exported to other domains Instead it is a general theory (or meta-analytical framework) which happens to have been developed fi rst in biology But the basic evolutionary mechanisms (variation selection reten-tion) are fl exible and can be operationalized in different ways (biologically economically and also sociologically)
Evolutionary theories of technical change have been developed in vari-ous traditions eg evolutionary economics (Nelson and Winter 1982 Savi-otti 1996 Levinthal 1998 Ziman 2000) history of technology (Constant 1980 Basalla 1988 Mokyr 1990) science and technology studies (Rip and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Theoretical Backgrounds 37
Kemp 1998 Schot 1998) and technology management (Rosenkopf and Tush-man 1994 Van de Ven and Garud 1994) Below we concentrate on evolu-tionary economics but we also mobilize insights from other traditions
Evolutionary Dynamics and Technological Trajectories
We fi rst discuss economic (Darwinian) operationalizations of the evolu-tionary mechanisms of variation selection and retention Then we turn to sociological additions and Lamarckian versions Retention which provides relative stability over time is related to a view of actors as bounded ratio-nal Actors are myopic because the human mind has inherent limitations Also businesses or fi rms are not completely rational (a view that deviates from neo-classical economics) Organizational decision-making is charac-terized by the use of heuristics routines and frames (Simon 1957 Weick 1979) These rules and routines function as genes for organizations creat-ing stability over time and acting as retentioninheritance mechanisms for fi rms (Nelson and Winter 1982) Firms in an industry or technological fi eld differ in their precise routines capabilities and strategy This leads to variation within an organizational population Populations share cer-tain routines and rules making them recognizable as belonging to certain populations At the fi eld or industry level these collectively shared rules and routines are called institutions or technological regimes (Nelson and Winter 1982) which act as the ldquocarriers of historyrdquo (David 1994) Tech-nological regimes particularly refer to the search heuristics and cognitive routines shared by engineers working in different fi rms Because of these shared routines engineers in a technological fi eld work in more or less the same direction giving rise to technological trajectories
Evolutionary economists often conceptualize variation as a stochastic or blind process arising from luck mistakes misunderstandings imita-tion errors curiosity etc In this conceptualization the direction of evolu-tionary (technological) trajectories is determined by criteria in the selection environment Appreciative evolutionary economists (Nelson and Winter 1982 Dosi 1982) have added more realism and agency arguing that varia-tion arises from fi rm-specifi c differences in search processes and RampD These differences in turn are related to differences in RampD investments search heuristics and decision rules Some fi rms search in one direction other fi rms in other directions These variations lead to (somewhat) dif-ferent products which compete in the market for consumer resources Engineers (and fi rms) however engage in localized searching instead of exploring the entire search space They stay close to what they already know (the technological regime) ldquothe probability distribution of what is found is concentrated on techniques close to the current onerdquo (Nelson and Winter 1982 211) Hence sequences of minor variations within shared technological regimes add up to global technological trajectories that pro-ceed in particular directions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
38 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Evolutionary economists see markets as primary selection environment Businesses or fi rms (and their products) compete with each other for scarce resources a notion that is notably absent in many STS traditions Consum-ers buy certain (product) variations and neglect others The selection of product variations provides resources to fi rms allowing them to survive and invest in new rounds of innovation The entry and exit of fi rms contrib-utes to the transformation of populations while their technologies change through search (variation) and selection Selection of improved products allows the underlying variation in search heuristics to be replicated within the fi rm Variations are retained and codifi ed in retention structures (regimes) if they diffuse more widely eg through differential growth of successful fi rms or imitation by other fi rms (Nelson and Winter 1982)
We now turn to more sociological operationalizations of variation selec-tion and retention If variations derive from search processes they are likely to be (at least partly) intentional arising from deliberate attempts by actors to generate alternatives and seek solutions to problems (Aldrich 1999) Agency interpretations strategies visions and expectations may thus enter into evo-lutionary theories This agency is not completely free but constrained and embedded in existing regimes This embeddedness is a useful antidote to STS where agency is sometimes granted too much freedom (voluntarism) The notion of directed variation implies that the design process that precedes selection may exert considerable evolutionary effects in its own right The direction of evolutionary (technological) trajectories thus arises from selec-tion pressure as well as intentional but constrained search (RampD)
On two aspects sociologists make further criticisms and suggestions with regard to variation First evolutionary economists highlight the con-straining aspects of rules and routines (structures institutions) but neglect the enabling (or constitutive) aspects The evolutionary economistsrsquo notion of bounded rationality emphasizes limitations to human cognition with cognitive routines and search heuristics blinding actors to developments outside their focus (acting as constraints on search processes) This suggests that actors would have a more comprehensive view without routines and heuristics In contrast sociologists and neo-institutional scholars argue that actors would see nothing at all without routines and cognitive frames (Powell and DiMaggio 1991 Scott 1995) They argue that people always think interpret and make sense through categories metaphors analogies frames belief systems and mental maps Routines rules and cognitive insti-tutions thus enable actors to interpret reality (observation without theory is blind) As Campbell has argued
the institutions within which actors innovate are also enabling to the extent that they provide a repertoire of already existing institutional principles (eg models analogies conventions concepts) that actors use to create new solutions that lead to evolutionary change
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Theoretical Backgrounds 39
Structuration theory further elaborates the idea that structures are both constraining and enabling (see Section I34) While the constraining aspect suggests that structures exist and infl uence action from the outside (as incentive structures) the enabling aspect highlights that structures are actively used by actors and continuously enacted and reproduced Hence sociologists explain technological trajectories somewhat differently than evolutionary economists (see Section I34) They argue that evolutionary economics has deterministic or mechanical connotations for instance when it speaks of ldquonatural trajectoriesrdquo (Nelson and Winter 1982 258) or argues that ldquoonce a path has been selected and established it shows a momentum of its ownrdquo (Dosi 1982 53) While STS scholars agree that stable patterns may exist they see them as social achievements not as natural trajectories MacKenzie (1992 32) argues that ldquoa technological trajectory can be seen as a self-fi lling prophecy Persistent patterns of technological change are persistent because technologists and others believe they will be persistentrdquo While the active reproduction and enactment of belief systems is an impor-tant process that underlies technological trajectories MacKenzie places too much emphasis on interpretations and technology development neglecting market selection and competition In our view technological trajectories are better seen as outcomes of interactions between guided search (both constrained and enabled by regimes) and market selection
A second criticism is that the generation of variations and novelties (new products) is simplifi ed to a technical search process RampD which is seen as main generator of novelties remains a black box Businesses and fi rms invest resources as inputs and RampD delivers new products as outputs From the viewpoint of (top) managers who strategically allocate resources this is what technology development may look like But on the work fl oor and in real-life technology projects technology development is a process of bricolage and alignment of heterogeneous elements These elements include money and competence but also a wide range of other elements as STS has shown (cf Section I32) Following these insights the generation of techni-cal novelties is better seen as a process of bricolage which includes techni-cal search and RampD but also heterogeneous alignment in local projects
the concept of bricolage emphasizes more forcefully the innovative and creative side by drawing our attention to the fact that bits and pieces of several legacies (or principles) are creatively combined in a variety of ways Thus bricolage also puts greater emphasis on agency
(Campbell 1997 22)
Local bricolage is guided by broader rules and routines (eg regimes) but not determined by them As structuration theory emphasizes (section I34) actors draw upon these rules which enable and constrain actions but also leave room for interpretation and creativity
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
40 Transitions to Sustainable Development
With regard to selection sociologists provide two additions First they propose that selection environments are broader than markets and regu-lations Historians and sociologists of technology suggest a more multi-dimensional selection environment which also includes religious social cultural and other requirements (Basalla 1988) Consumers and other social groups not only look at priceperformance aspects but also at a range of other dimensions in their adoption decisions Furthermore selec-tion is not only about buying and adoption but also includes integration in user practices domestication and broader societal embedding (see the STS notions on this topic discussed in Section I32) Selection is also multi-dimensional because fi rms compete not only in markets (resources eco-nomic exchange) but also in institutional environments Business scholars increasingly see legitimacy as an important aspect of fi tness selection and survival because it infl uences access to capital and governmental protection (Zucker 1989) Suchman (1995) and Aldrich (1999) distinguish between cognitive legitimacy (degree of taken-for-grantedness) and socio-political legitimacy which they divide into moral and regulatory aspects These three kinds of institutional context are further elaborated by structuration theory and neo-institutional theory in Section I34
Second there is a debate about what is being selected While evolution-ary economists focus on fi rms and products in markets Mokyr (2000) suggests two additional options a) bodies of knowledge that evolve in communities of engineers and b) fi rms that select (internally) alternative projects and technologies He concludes ldquoit will be readily recognized that in technological production there must be more than one selection pro-cess going on at the same timerdquo (p 62) Mokyrrsquos fi rst option was already recognized by Dosi who distinguished indirect selection of technological paradigms (through productsfi rms in markets) from direct selection with engineers selecting particular exemplars guiding principles search heuris-tics etc In his words
Thus the economic and social environment affects technological de-velopment in two ways fi rst selecting the ldquodirection of mutationrdquo (ie ex-ante selection of the technological paradigm) and then selecting among the mutations in a more Darwinian manner (ie ex-post selec-tion among ldquoSchumpeterianrdquo trials and errors)
(Dosi 1982 156)
He does not elaborate however how this Lamarckian selection operates Here STS insights about cognitive variation and selection processes form useful complements (section I32)
Regarding the incorporation of selected mutations into the retention structure sociologists add several processes to differential growth and imi-tation which were advanced by evolutionary economists Generally soci-ologists conceptualize this as an institutionalization process in which not
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Theoretical Backgrounds 41
only functional aspects are important (eg higher performance) but also cognitive social and power aspects Individual and social learning (artic-ulation) are important with regard to new cognitive rules Intermediary organizations (such as branch organizations or professional societies) may be involved in the formulation and codifi cation of new rules and routines as well Likewise the literature on institutional and cultural entrepreneur-ship shows how actors may directly infl uence cognitive and socio-political aspects of regimes (Lounsbury and Glynn 2001 Garud and Kumaras-wamy 2002) Lobbying and power equally play a role for instance in stan-dard-setting and formal regulations Furthermore sociologists argue that retention structures (regimes) do not exist independently of action (which is a difference with regard to genes in biology) Instead structuration theory argues that structures exist in and through action (section I34) The reten-tion structure is thus seen as a dynamic structure which requires constant reproduction (and possibly small modifi cations)
In sum the evolutionary principles of variation selection and retention are fl exible Evolutionary economists tend to focus on economic processes and mechanisms (eg RampD investments priceperformance competition market selection differential growth imitation) But we have demonstrated how this economic operationalization can be complemented with more socio-logical mechanisms and processes (bricolage agency enablingconstraining interpretation closure negotiation institutionalization codifi cation) These complementary sociological ideas are elaborated below in Section I34
Speciation and Niches
Evolution theory especially notions of speciation and niches offers relevant insights with regard to the emergence of radical novelty In biological evo-lution the emergence of new species involves not only adaptation but also some form of isolation In the allopathic theory developed by Ernst Mayr (1963) and others new species emerge in geographically isolated niches or in niches operating at the periphery of a dominant existing ecosystem These niches constitute the habitat of small populations that become iso-lated from their parental group at the periphery of the ancestral range These niches provide a set of distinct selection pressures and thus lead to a divergent evolutionary path Biological speciation in these small isolated populations may be rapid by evolutionary standards because favorable genetic variation can spread quickly In large central populations on the other hand favorable variations would spread very slowly or change might be steadfastly resisted by the well-adapted population Furthermore when rare variants mix in large populations the effect of the mutations may be watered down So change in large populations tends to be small directed to meet the requirements of slowly altering climates Major genetic reorga-nizations however almost always take place in small peripherally isolated populations that can grow into a new species
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
42 Transitions to Sustainable Development
In technological evolution niches and speciation are also important (Schot 1998 Schot and Geels 2007) Niches provide protection against mainstream market selection Such protection is needed because radical novelties initially emerge as ldquohopeful monstrositiesrdquo (Mokyr 1990) they are hopeful because actors expect they have a promising future they are monstrous because they have low priceperformance characteristics Because radical novelties cannot survive in mainstream markets they initially need protection and nurturing Niches thus act as ldquoincubation roomsrdquo protect-ing novelties against mainstream market selection In the remainder of this chapter we will further articulate the mechanisms through which radical novelties emerge in technological niches
I34 STRUCTURATION THEORY AND NEO-INSTITUTIONAL THEORY
Structuration theory and neo-institutional theory offer insights that comple-ment STS and evolutionary economics 1) their explicit conceptualization of actors as embedded in broader structures may complement STSrsquos vol-untarist tendencies 2) structuration theory provides a multi-dimensional understanding of structures neo-institutional operationalization provides further understanding of aspects of (technological) regimes 3) structura-tion theory makes a useful distinction between social systems and social structures which helps to analytically situate contributions from STS and structuration theory and 4) neo-institutional analysis of agency-structure interactions suggests direct ways through which actors infl uence regime change this complements evolutionary economics where (technological) regimes change more indirectly through market selection differential growth and imitation of successful mutations (although recent attention for legitimacy and institutional entrepreneurship also suggest more direct mechanisms)
Embeddedness Agency and Structure
Structuration theory emphasizes that actors are embedded in structures which Giddens (1984) defi nes as ldquorules and resourcesrdquo Rules refer to cognitive interpretive frames and to cultural norms Resources refer to economicallocative resources (control over thingsmoney) and authori-tative resources (control over people) Rules do not exist out there but only through instantiation and reproduction in practice While actors are embedded in structures they also reproduce them This is why structures are both medium and outcome of action (duality of structure) Actors and structures mutually presuppose each other on the one hand actors draw upon structures in concrete actions in local practices on the other hand
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Theoretical Backgrounds 43
structures confi gure actors (belief systems resource positions) Without structures action would not be possible In this sense structures are not only constraining but also enabling
Actors are not passive rule-followers (cultural dopes) but knowledgeable agents who actively use rules to interpret the world make decisions and act Actors draw upon rules in (inter)actions interpreting and tailoring them to the demands of specifi c local practices This means that instantiation of rules in local practices always creates (some) variety even when actors in a community share rule-sets (regimes) that provide coordination Because structures do not determine there is space for local creativity and different interpretations Consequently local variations exist within the coordinat-ing structures an interpretation that fi ts well with evolutionary theories
Multi-Dimensional Regimes
While evolutionary economics conceptualizes technological regimes as cognitive rules and routines structuration theory and neo-institutional sociology are useful to distinguish additional important dimensions
Structuration theory is multi-dimensional as Giddens (1979) distin-guishes three types of structures a) structures of signifi cation (meaning) b) structures of legitimization (norms) c) structures of domination (power) allocative power and authoritative power The importance of structures may vary for different institutional domains (Table I31)
Any social action entails all three dimensions a) actions are based on interpretations of the situation b) roles expectations and behavioral norms are implicated in social action and c) power is implicated either through decisions about (and possession of) resources or authority associated with formal roles
While Giddensrsquos discussion remains abstract and philosophical neo-institutional sociology with similar theoretical backgrounds further oper-ationalized important notions (DiMaggio and Powell 1983 Powell and DiMaggio 1991) Scott (1995) for instance distinguished three kinds of institutions (formal normative cognitive) which infl uence action through
Table I31 Relative Importance of Different Structures in Institutional Domains (based on Giddens 1979 107)
Signifi cation Legitimation Domination
Economic ++ + +++ D(alloc)
Political ++ + +++ D(auth)
Law + +++ ++
Culture +++ + ++
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
44 Transitions to Sustainable Development
different mechanisms This distinction is very similar to Giddensrsquos three structures but somewhat more operationalized In Chapter I2 we used these distinctions to conceptualize socio-technical regimes
The different rules do not exist individually but are linked together in semi-coherent sets of rules called regimes These regimes coordinate and guide action in local practices This does not mean however that regimes are harmonious homogeneous and fully consensual The early neo-institutional theory which asked why organizations in a popula-tion or sector are so similar may be criticized for emphasizing stability isomorphism and imitation In recent years however neo-institutional scholars have become more interested in change tensions and confl ict (eg Greenwood and Hinings 1996 Hoffman 1999) One source of ten-sion may stem from confl icts and mismatches between different kinds of rules Another second source of tension is variation among social groups and actors who may have different ideas perceptions values and inter-ests While confl icts and tensions are always present regimes are stable as long as there is suffi cient congruency between actors (Grin and Van de Graaf 1996a) ie when actors share the basic regime rules (eg guid-ing principles beliefs) Regimes become unstable when actors begin to diverge and disagree on basic rules
Social Structure and Social System
Giddens makes an interesting distinction between social structures and social systems Social structures are the rules and resources that actors draw upon recursively when acting in concrete local practices Social sys-tems on the other hand refer to social networks with mutual dependencies and ongoing interactions between actors
Social systems involve regularized relations of interdependence between individuals or groups that typically can be best analyzed as recurrent social practices Social systems are systems of social interaction as such they involve the situated activities of human subjects Systems in this terminology have structures or more accurately structural prop-erties they are not structures in themselves To study the structura-tion of a social system is to study the ways in which that system via the application of generative rules and resources and in the context of unintended outcomes is produced and reproduced in interaction
(Giddens 1979 65ndash66)
Systems and structures thus provide two types of context and embedded-ness for actors the former more horizontal oriented towards interactions with other mutually dependent actors (eg exchange confl ict coalition negotiation strategic games) and the latter more vertical oriented towards formal cognitive and normative rules (Figure I31)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Theoretical Backgrounds 45
Both structures and systems have directionality because actions and interactions have (temporary) outcomes Actors make RampD investments place products on the markets buy products issue new regulations main-tain infrastructures and fi ght struggles in court These actions change aspects of existing social (and socio-technical) systems providing direc-tionality While actors draw upon structures in their actions they also reproduce and modify them leading to changes over time (see below on regime change)
This distinction is useful for transition research because it articulates the logic of two complementary views and approaches a) the socio-technical systems view which highlights the role of actors in building seamless webs and heterogeneous ensembles (emphasized by STS) b) the socio-technical-regime approach which uses structuration theory to analyze the cognitive formal and normative structures that actors draw upon We will come back to this in the conclusions of this chapter
One criticism of Giddensrsquos distinction and social theory more generally is its neglect of the role of technology in social life With their professional focus on social and institutional components sociologists forget that soci-ety also has material and technical components Sociologists of technol-ogy aim to correct this bias arguing instead for socio-technical approaches (Bijker and Law 1992) This is why our focus is not just on social systems but on socio-technical systems It is the combination of humans and non-humans that create functional confi gurations that work
Another criticism is that Giddens himself pays much more attention to social structures than to social systems Giddens ldquoover-emphasizes action as individual and never fully considers the ghost of networked others that continually inform that actionrdquo (Thrift 1996 54) Structuration theory thus gives more attention to vertical interactions between actors and struc-tures than to horizontal interactions between actors In this respect STS
Figure I31 Social system and social structures (adapted from Deuten 2003 37)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
46 Transitions to Sustainable Development
complements structuration theory because of its attention to alignments and the weaving of seamless webs Also fi guration sociology and socially embedded game theory serve as useful complements that broaden struc-turation theory
Elias (1978) emphasized that actors are always directed towards and linked with each other ldquoThese people make up webs of interdependence or fi gurations of many kinds characterized by power balances of many sortsrdquo (p 14ndash15) Within fi gurations actors make moves to further their perceived interests To capture the emergent and unplanned dynamics of changing confi gurations Elias (1978) used game playing as analogy
A game process which comes about entirely as a result of the interweav-ing of the individual moves of many players takes a course which none of the individual players has planned determined or anticipated
(Elias 1978 95)
Individual moves can be explained by specifi c causal mechanisms (calcu-lation power struggles interpretation) But sequences of events and the interweaving of individual moves lead to aggregated processes that are not foreseen or controlled To explain the twists and turns of long-term pro-cesses one needs to analyze sequences of moves ldquoOnly the progressive interweaving of moves during the game process and its result can be of service in explainingrdquo (Elias 1978 97) Case studies of historical transi-tions follow this logic of game playing The actors and social groups in a socio-technical system are the players Although they are mutually depen-dent and part of a collective enterprise they have different interests The actors make moves to improve their position (resources power authority status) Sequences of moves in which actors reach to each other add up to an aggregate game process
The different social groups each have their own perceptions prefer-ences aims strategies resources etc Actors within these groups act to achieve their aims increase their resource positions etc Their ac-tions and interactions can be seen as an ongoing game in which they react to each other In each round actors make ldquomovesrdquo ie they do something eg make investment decisions about RampD directions introduce new technologies in the market develop new regulations propose new scientifi c hypotheses These actions maintain or change aspects of ST-systems The dynamic is game-like because actors react to each otherrsquos moves These games may be within groups eg fi rms who play strategic games between each other to gain competitive ad-vantage There may also be games between groups eg between an industry and public authorities
(Geels 2004 909)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Theoretical Backgrounds 47
These games are socially embedded because they react to each other and because regimes provide structural contexts and ldquorules of the gamerdquo (Burns and Gomolińska 2000) Game playing combines well with structuration theory On the one hand games are structured by regimes On the other actors can change (or reproduce) rules while they are playing the game Socially embedded games differ from game theory based on a rational choice ontology The latter is a based on closed games with specifi c assumptions
ldquoAll players and their action repertoires are specifi ed in advance Map-pings from actions to outcomes are also specifi ed in for instance a game matrix The actorsrsquo preferences or evaluations over outcomes (or lsquopayoffsrsquo) are also givenrdquo
(Burns and Gomolińska 2000 393)
Open and socially embedded games relax several assumptions a) the num-ber of players can change (agents may enter the game drop out merge) b) players do not make decisions independently but can negotiate bargain or form coalitions c) the results of actions (payoff) are uncertain d) actors have to interpret each otherrsquos moves and the kind of game they are in e) players can devise new strategies (innovation creativity) f) players can change the rules of the game
Game playing does not necessarily imply bitter struggles Most games are relatively stable and benefi cial to all actors If moves continue in pre-dictable directions the game results in stable trajectories occurring within stable regimes Sometimes games between particular groups or organiza-tions become antagonistic and lead to non-linearities in trajectories Con-fl icts and strategic games may thus accelerate transitions
Making moves in socially embedded games infl uences not only socio-technical systems (horizontal dynamics) but also regimes (vertical dynam-ics) These latter dynamics are elaborated below
Social Mechanisms in Agency-Structure Interaction
Giddensrsquos notion of duality (structures instantiated in action) has been criticized for confl ating and collapsing the difference between agency and structure (Archer 1982 Mouzelis 1995) Critics argue that structures (rules institutions) logically exist prior to action Otherwise it is hard to understand how they can infl uence action Therefore they propose analyti-cal dualism instead of duality agency and structures should be analytically separated to study interaction mechanisms
A related criticism is that Giddens does not distinguish different types of actors (Mouzelis 1995) Because of his focus on daily life and everyday prac-tices structuration theory is easily (mis)understood as saying that agency is micro and structures are macro Giddens largely ignores macro-actors who
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
48 Transitions to Sustainable Development
operate at the fi eld level eg professional societies branch organizations industry associations standardization organizations social movements special-interest groups representatives and lobbyists These macro-actors may infl uence structures (rules institutions) through direct action and through facilitating negotiations and discussing at the community level (eg conferences journals) Accordingly scholars have proposed local-global as a better distinction than agency-structure (Haringrd M 1994 Geels and Deu-ten 2006) (Figure I32) This not only introduces macro-actors but also micro-rules which structure local practices (creating variation within dif-ferent organizations)
Institutions (structures global rules) do not exist autonomously (which would lead to reifi cation) but are ldquohistorical accretions of past practices and understandingsrdquo (Barley and Tolbert 1997 99) Institutions are outcomes of previous actions acting as the ldquocarriers of historyrdquo (David 1994) They store the experiences and knowledge that are relevant for the fi eld as a whole (knowledge reservoirs) In her morphogenetic theory Archer (1982) proposes a recursive model that conceptualizes agency-structure interactions through time Agency and structure are not confl ated but pulled apart for analyti-cal purposes The morphogenetic cycle consists of four sub-processes (Fig-ure I33) 1) structural conditioning the infl uence of structures on actors 2) social interaction actors do things make moves in games 3) structural elaboration outcomes of actions lead to reproduction (morphostasis) or trans-formation (morphogenesis) of structures Following Barley and Tolbert (1997) we add a fourth sub-process 4) externalization and objectifi cation structural changes are accepted by the wider community and institutionalized The bold text between brackets indicates how evolutionary mechanisms (variation selection retention) are complementary to the morphogenetic cycle
In reality these four sub-processes are not neatly sequential Neverthe-less their analytical separation enables the study of specifi c mechanisms
In contrast to the structuration approach there is investigation of processes instead of imputation of ldquoprinciplesrdquo and identifi cation of mechanisms in place of the interpolation of ldquomodalitiesrdquo
(Archer 1982 475)
Figure I32 Two conceptualizations of micro-macro interactions (adapted from Mouzelis 1995 138)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Theoretical Backgrounds 49
Below we give our interpretation of four mechanisms that are important for transitions
1) Structural conditioning Existing structures and rules enable and con-strain actions in local practices Giddens mostly emphasizes the enabling aspect of structures and how actors creatively draw upon them But the literature on path dependence and lock-in also shows many mechanisms through which existing rules and structures constrain action such as legally binding contracts regulations or government subsidies favoring existing technologies compatibility standards stabilizing role perceptions and expectations of proper behavior core capabilities cognitive routines which make actors blind to options outside their focus social and orga-nizational capital organizational commitments and vested interests life-styles fi nancial incentive structures and distribution of responsibilities In sum existing structures constrain actions in many ways stimulating actions in certain directions rather than others
Cognitive actors in local practices draw upon existing cognitive struc-bull tures (belief systems problem agendas search heuristics) to interpret situations and challenges Many cognitive rules have a taken-for-granted character (deep structures) actors look in particular direc-tions rather than exploring all possibilitiesNormative roles and normative rules condition through mechanisms bull such as socialization conformity pressure social authority rewards and punishments
Figure I33 A recursive diachronic model of structural change and reproduction (adapted from Barley and Tolbert 1997 101)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
50 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Regulative laws and regulations are relatively constraining struc-bull tures with formal sanctions attached if actors do not obey
The use of rules in social interaction always requires tailoring to local con-ditions and involves interpretation This is a source of variation between local practices
2) Social interaction Social interaction is conceptualized as game playing structured by regimes (rules of the game) Actors in local practices make moves eg make RampD investments start new ventures enter in coalitions issue new laws buy products Actors think strategically and try to further their interests But calculation and rational action is only possible if rules and networks are stable information is complete and not ambiguous
Cognitive cognitive rules are often taken for granted and used uncon-bull sciously An analogy is the use of the rules of grammar in speech acts Although speech acts are structured this does not determine what we say (content) allowing for creativity Likewise the enactment of cognitive rules leaves room for creative interpretation local construc-tions and variety between local practicesNormative actors play out certain roles and decide to enact or devi-bull ate from scripts (if they are willing to go against the grain) There is space for creativity and varietyRegulative actors can follow formal rules in strict or lenient ways bull They may test their strength or exploit loopholes
3) Structural elaboration Social interactions lead to outcomes and experi-ences that form the basis for reproduction or revision of rules Rules are usually reproduced (like rules of grammar in speech acts) Stability may also result from active suppression of change by powerful actors with vested interests Experiences and outcomes from social (inter)actions may also lead actors to change their ideas defi nition of interests preferences or identity Moves in games may also have material payoffs that infl uence resource positions and the power to change rules
Regulative to change formal rules actors may lobby or create asso-bull ciations (macro-actors) that lobby for them Regulatory changes may also be a response to negative externalities arising from game playing (eg pollution safety hazards)Cognitive cognitive rule changes are complex processes which bull may involve different mechanisms One mechanism is bottom-up learning and negotiated selection at the global community level ie social construction of shared meanings These changes are rooted in experiences in local practices (eg lessons and new ideas from experimental projects) Institutional entrepreneurs spokesper-sons and product champions may lobby for broader diffusion and acceptance of these experiences (Garud and Kumaraswamy 2002)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Theoretical Backgrounds 51
Bottom-up selection occurs when these experiences or lessons are discussed at conferences in journals and in other fi eld-level forums The initial variety of meanings (suggestions from local practices) is thus reduced through a negotiated process of closure (Pinch and Bijker 1984) Another mechanism involves socio-cognitive activities by dedicated macro-actors who act and select on behalf of the fi eld as whole (Geels and Deuten 2006) They can accumulate and com-pare experiences from local practices to extract global knowledge (cognitive rules) Typical aggregation activities include standardiza-tion formulation of best practices and the writing of handbooks The third mechanism is market selection Alterations in cognitive routines may spread through a population of fi rms if altered prod-ucts are selected by consumersNormative small changes in normative rules (duties responsibilities bull tasks) can occur through negotiation Larger changes in values codes of conduct and societal roles are more diffi cult taking longer periods (eg female emancipation civil rights)
4) Externalization and institutionalization Local experiences and rule-changing attempts do not automatically lead to structural rule changes ldquoWhile idiosyncratic deviations from scripts occur perhaps even with some frequency such random deviations are apt to have only passing impact on social arrangementsrdquo (Barley and Tolbert 1997 102) Permanent struc-tural changes result from community selection and institutionalization
Cognitive cognitive institutionalization occurs when new cognitive bull rules fi nd their way into handbooks models and training manualsNormative new norms become internalized through increased expe-bull rience normalization and endorsement from authoritative actorsRegulative the adoption in White Papers policy plans and laws sig-bull nals the institutionalization of regulative changes
Sociological Explanation of Trajectories Enactment through Morphogenetic Cycles
A single morphogenetic cycle can be analyzed as one round of moves lead-ing to a fi eld-level event (reproduction or change of global structures) Tra-jectories can be analyzed as sequences of morphogenetic cycles which lead to fi eld-level event chains and trajectories (Figure I34)
This extension of structuration theory thus provides a systematic socio-logical explanation of (technological) trajectories which complements the evolutionary economics explanation Because of its general character the sociological model can be applied to different kinds of trajectories both in the technological domain and in policy science industry culture and mar-kets The multilevel perspective is based on the interpenetration of multiple populations and co-evolution of different trajectories
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
52 Transitions to Sustainable Development
I35 CONCLUSION
In the previous sections we have zoomed in on crossovers between STS evolutionary economics and structuration theory (complemented with neo-institutional theory and fi guration sociology) We argued that the MLP is rooted in a particular combination of various disciplinary insights This chapter also shows how different theories combined in the MLP may complement each other building on strengths to solve particular short-comings If STS emphasizes the heterogeneity of socio-technical change (bricolage) the role of agency in building seamless webs contingency and the existence of alternatives some of its drawbacks pertain to tendencies towards voluntarism a focus on local practices and short-term processes the downplaying of structures and little attention for aggregate patterns at a global level Evolutionary economics may complement STS with particu-lar strengths such as attention for long-term processes lineages and trajec-tories coordinating regimes and speciation A weakness of some economic evolution theories is the impersonal mechanistic character (stochastic mutations and market selection) STS provides useful complements in this respect for instance via quasi-evolutionary theory that introduces directed variation guided by perceptions and strategic interpretations selection as partially enacted by social communities Structuration theory complements STS by explicitly conceptualizing the structural embeddedness of actors It complements evolutionary theory by providing a multi-dimensional con-ceptualization of regimes It also complements evolutionary theory with a sociological understanding of (technological) trajectories which are enacted through sequences of morphogenetic cycles The crossovers between these theories provide new directions in the study of long-term socio-technical change elaborating the interdisciplinary agenda of innovation studies
We would argue that these theories can complement each other because they focus on different relations between basic elements of social wholes (Figure I35) STS focuses on relations between actors and socio-technical systemsconfi gurations Structuration theory and neo-institutional theory articulate relationships between actors and structures (regimes) And evo-lutionary interpretations make a particular cross-section of socio-technical confi gurations focusing on interactions between variation and selection environments within Figure I35 schematically indicates how the different theories relate to different elements
Figure I34 Trajectory as fi eld-level event chain resulting from morphogenetic cycles
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Theoretical Backgrounds 53
Figure I35 Basic elements and theories that underlie the multi-level perspective
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
I4 A Typology of Transition Pathways1
I41 THE NATURE OF THE TYPOLOGY
The MLP delivers a somewhat standardized representation of transitions which many scholars now refer to This chapter further differentiates the MLP and proposes a typology of four transition paths The MLP as repre-sented in Chapter 2 implicitly assumes a technological substitution path-way where one radical innovation emerges and subsequently replaces the existing regime However this is just one path transition can take The typology we propose is constructed through the use of three criteria (for other attempts we refer to Berkhout et al 2004 De Haan and Rotmans forthcoming) 1) timing of interactions 2) nature of interactions 3) types of landscape change
Early MLP publications emphasized simultaneous alignments of devel-opments between different levels We now add that different timings of multilevel interactions have different outcomes Particularly important is the timing of landscape pressure on regimes with regard to the state of niche-developments If landscape pressure occurs at a time when niche-innovations are not yet fully developed the transition path will be different from when they are in fact fully developed Whether or not niche-innova-tions are fully developed is not entirely an objective matter Niche-actors may have somewhat different perceptions than regime-actors Neverthe-less we propose the following proxies as reasonable indicators for the stabilization of viable niche-innovations that are ready to break through more widely a) learning processes have stabilized in a dominant design b) powerful actors have joined the support network c) priceperformance improvements have improved and there are strong expectations of further improvement (eg learning curves) d) the innovation is used in market niches which cumulatively amount to more than 5 market share Nov-elty is always present but this may be ldquohidden noveltyrdquo (a term from Arie Rip) carried by relative outsiders fringe actors or enthusiasts invisible to the outside world Niche-innovations in an embryonic state do not pose a threat to the regime At some point external landscape developments may create pressure on the regime and create windows of opportunity for
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 55
transitions But if niche-innovations are not fully developed they cannot take advantage of this window which may subsequently close
The nature of interactions between various levels might differ For example niche-innovations and landscape developments can reinforce rela-tionships with the regime or disruptive relationships through pressure or competition Reinforcing landscape developments have stabilizing effects on the regime and form no driver for transitions while other landscape developments exert pressure on the regime and create impulses for change Niche-innovations have a competitive relationship with the existing regime when they aim to replace it Niche-innovations have symbiotic relationships if they can be adopted as competence-enhancing add-ons in the existing regime to solve problems and improve performance
Building on Suarez and Oliva (2005) we propose a distinction between different types of landscape changes Although Suarez and Olivarsquos interest is how fi rms react to major changes in the business environments their typology of environmental changes is useful for transitions They distin-guish four dimensions of external change 1) frequency number of environ-mental disturbances per unit of time 2) amplitude magnitude of deviation from initial conditions caused by a disturbance 3) speed rate of change of disturbance and 4) scope number of environmental dimensions that are affected by simultaneous disturbances They combine these four attributes into fi ve types of environmental change (Table I41)
Regular change corresponds to environments that regularly experience a low-intensity gradual change Hyperturbulence corresponds to environ-ments that feature a high frequency of high-speed change in one dimension eg hyper-competition A specifi c shock corresponds to environmental changes that are rapid and high in intensity come rarely and are relatively narrow in scope Such shock may dissipate and disappear after a while returning to baseline or it may lead to a structural stepwise change (rep-resented by two different arrows in Figure I41) Disruptive change cor-responds to changes that occur infrequently develop gradually but have a high-intensity effect in one dimension Avalanche change occurs very
Table I41 Attributes of Change and Resulting Typology (Suarez and Oliva 2005 1022)
Frequency Amplitude Speed ScopeType of
environmental change
Low Low Low Low Regular
High Low High Low Hyperturbulence
Low High High Low Specifi c shock
Low High Low Low Disruptive
Low High High High Avalanche
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
56 Transitions to Sustainable Development
infrequently but is of high intensity of high speed and simultaneously affects multiple dimensions of the environment Avalanche change leads to permanent changes in the environment Figure I41 schematically outlines our interpretation of these changes
We will use this typology except for hyperturbulence Such high-frequency changes may occur in markets but are unlikely for landscape dynamics
Because we have three criteria (which sometimes contain sub-distinctions) we cannot construct a clean 2x2 matrix Instead we will practice typological theory which is a form of confi guration analysis that is premised on the assumption that the character of an entity emerges from the entire confi guration of its properties and their interrelationships (Poole et al 2000 44) Typological theories combine multiple variables in confi gurations that have an inherent logic that binds them together eg archetypes ideal types (Doty and Glick 1994 George and Bennett 2004) Combining the different criteria into plausible confi gurations we develop propositions about four transition pathways transformation reconfi guration technological substitution and de-alignment and re-alignment Our zero proposition is about stability and reproduction It goes as follows
Figure I41 Types of environmental change (based on Suarez and Oliva 2005)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 57
P0 Reproduction process if there is no external landscape pressure (ldquoregular changerdquo in Suarez and Olivarsquos typology) then the regime re-mains dynamically stable and will reproduce itself
Radical niche-innovations may be present but have little chance to break through as long as the regime is dynamically stable Reinforcing land-scape developments help stabilize the regime There may be internal regime problems but the shared perception is that the regime has suffi cient prob-lem-solving potential to deal with them Stable regimes still experience dynamics fi rms compete in markets invest in new product development pioneer mutations engage in takeovers etc But these processes take place within stable rule-sets and proceed in predictable directions (trajectories) Over time accumulated incremental innovations in stable regimes can boost performance
A large portion of the total growth in productivity takes the form of a slow and often invisible accretion of individually small improvements in innovations Such modifi cations are achieved by unspectacular design and engineering activities but they constitute the substance of much productivity improvement and increased consumer well-being in industrial economies
(Rosenberg 1982 62)
In the following sections we discuss pathways which result in transition Each discussion begins with a proposition Each pathway is also illustrated with a brief empirical example (more elaborate versions are published else-where) and for each pathway we propose a new schematic fi gure
I42 THE TRANSFORMATION PATHWAY
P1 Transformation path if there is moderate landscape pressure (dis-ruptive change) at a moment when niche-innovations have not yet been suffi ciently developed then regime actors will respond by modifying the direction of development paths and innovation activities
In this pathway moderate landscape changes create pressure on the regime leading to reorientations by regime actors Moderate landscape pressure occurs early in disruptive landscape change Niche-innovations cannot take advantage of landscape pressure on the regime because they are not suf-fi ciently developed Landscape changes only exert pressure if they are per-ceived and acted upon by regime actors (on this point see Grin (2008) and his contribution to this volume) Outsiders are important in this respect because they translate landscape pressures and draw attention to negative
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
58 Transitions to Sustainable Development
externalities which regime insiders tend to neglect (Van de Poel 2000 2003) Societal pressure groups and grassroots movements may voice pro-test and demand solutions They can mobilize public opinion and lobby for tougher regulations Outside professional scientists or engineers may have specialist knowledge that allows them to criticize technical details of regimes and propose alternative courses of action Outsider fi rms entre-preneurs or activists may develop alternative practices or technologies The demonstration of viable alternatives may change perceptions of regime insiders and lead to reorientations of (innovation) activities Smith (2006) has demonstrated this dynamic for organic food which was initially pio-neered by dedicated green activists in secluded niches In the 1990s lessons and practices from these organic food niches were translated and picked up by regime-actors (especially supermarkets) Niche-actors thus acted as front-runners whose routines and practices gradually trickled down and changed regime rules Dedicated translation activities are important in such niche-regime interactions
Landscape pressure and outside criticisms do not immediately lead regime actors to change activities and rules This usually involves confl icts con-testations power struggles or dedicated translations Social-institutional dynamics are important in this pathway with social groups acting to change regime rules directly But evolutionary dynamics are also present In response to changes in the selection environment (societal protest pub-lic opinion stricter regulations) regime-actors use their adaptive capac-ity to reorient development trajectories Technical variations appear some of which have a better fi t with the changed selection environment When these mutations propagate they change the regime from within Social-institutional and evolutionary changes thus reinforce each other
In this path new regimes grow out of old regimes through cumula-tive adjustments and reorientations (Figure I42) Regime-actors sur-vive although some changes may occur in social networks Furthermore regime-actors may import external knowledge if the distance with regime knowledge is not too large Such symbiotic niche-innovations add to the regime and do not disrupt the basic architecture
Empirical Example
An empirical example is the hygienic reform of waste disposal in the Netherlands during the late nineteenth century (based on Geels 2006a) Between 1850 and 1930 there was a gradual transition from cesspools to sewer systems involving prolonged contestations and struggles between regime insiders and outside groups (Figure I43)
In the mid-nineteenth century working-class families did not have in-house sanitary facilities and deposited waste on streets and in surface waters Human wastes were also disposed in cesspools which were emptied a few times a year But households also created drains or pipes that allowed
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 59
cesspools to spill their contents in canals or gutters (Van Zon 1986) This posed contamination risks for nearby wells Middle-class families had in-house privies where excrement fell down a tube into privy vaults Cess-pools and privy vaults were cleaned by private contractors who sold the contents as fertilizer to farmers
Figure I42 Transformation pathway
Figure I43 Insiders and outsiders in the waste-disposal regime in the Netherlands around 1850
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
60 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Waste heaps often accumulated in streets and in canals blocking water circulation and creating stench For most urbanites fi lth was a nuisance to be tolerated But there was also concern because medical opinion saw bad smells in particular miasmas emerging from decaying organic mat-ter as cause of diseases (Houwaart 1991) Nevertheless local policies for public health and waste removal remained limited Health was seen as an individual responsibility and people had to take care of themselves Fur-thermore political ideology was liberal (minimal involvement) and decen-tralized City authorities were responsible for public works public health hygiene and social order Following the new constitution in 1848 107 of Dutch men over age 23 were eligible to vote for Parliament and 18 for local city councils City council representatives were advocates of economy low taxes and minimal public involvement
In the 1840s and 1850s hygienist doctors emerged who used medical statistics to analyze diseases They found clear correlations between infec-tious diseases waste heaps and canals with still water and decaying organic material but could not explain the precise causal mechanisms Neverthe-less they criticized the waste-disposal regime for spreading disease
In response city governments implemented incremental changes within the existing regime The main effort was to improve water circulation in canals and waterways to fl ush away waste (Van Zon 1986) Canals were dredged more frequently to maintain suffi cient depth and steam engines were used to pump in more fresh water Some stinking and rotting canals were fi lled up but this led to protest from ship owners and shopkeepers who used the canals for the supply of goods and produce Meanwhile cit-ies abroad began to implement underground sewer systems eg Hamburg (1843) Brooklyn (1855) Chicago (1856) London (1858) Paris (1860) Ber-lin (1873) and Munich (1880) Dutch city governments were aware of these foreign sewer projects and set up many commissions in the 1850s and 1860s producing an endless stream of reports But none of these plans were implemented mainly because of high costs
In the 1870s and 1880s the pressure on the waste-disposal regime increased One reason was that waste-disposal problems grew worse because urban populations increased rapidly as industrialization began to gather speed A second reason involved the ongoing changes in medical knowledge Following the cholera epidemic of 1866ndash1867 a Dutch National Drinking Water Commission (1868) was set up The commission concluded that there were clear correlations between polluted drinking water feces and the spread of cholera The commissionrsquos report received much publicity and created pressure for change This period also saw the emergence of a new medical theory based on the idea of micro-organisms In 1880 Pasteur identifi ed two important bacteria (the streptococcus and staphylococcus) responsible for infectious diseases The Pasteur revolution emphasized the importance of cleanliness changed the perception of waste problems and created more pressure on the waste-disposal regime The third reason for
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 61
increased pressure was that hygienist doctors formed a coalition with civil engineers for sanitary reform a powerful coalition with societal prestige These engineers also acquired roles inside the regime as the expansion of Departments of Public Works in the Netherlands created jobs for them (Buiter 2005) A fourth reason for increased pressure was issue linkage Waste hygiene and public health problems became more pressing because they were increasingly linked to the social issue and concerns about living conditions of the poor and working classes
One Dutch city government response to increased pressures was to rely on traditional solutions and improve water circulation Another response was experimentation with two dry-collection systems for the removal of human excrements the barrel-system and the pneumatic Liernur-system In the barrel-collection system people deposited their excrements in bar-rels or pails (Van Zon 1986) Full barrels were collected several times a week and contents were sold as fertilizer This system was cheap and easy to implement Hygienists and agricultural experts praised the system because excrement fulfi lled a useful function as fertilizer But civil and sanitary engineers opposed the system because of its imprecision and leakages The second system was the pneumatic Liernur-system which consisted of toilets funnels and underground connecting pipes that ended in a collection reservoir Excrement was collected daily using a steam pump to create a vacuum and collect feces in the reservoir Feces were processed and sold as fertilizer Hygienists favored this system because of its high cleanliness But it was complex and expensive Demonstration projects were implemented on a neighborhood-scale (1000ndash1700 people) in Breda (1867) Leiden (1871) and Amsterdam (1872) The experiments were technically successful but there were doubts about costs and fertil-izer income There was much uncertainty at the time because engineers hygienists and agricultural experts made different claims about the differ-ent systems Furthermore local factors greatly infl uenced technical and economic viability of different systems eg geo-hydrological conditions soil conditions and the vicinity of farmers Given these uncertainties many cities implemented the cheapest option the barrel-system to some extent (eg Amsterdam Rotterdam Groningen Leeuwarden Dordrecht Arnhem and Maastricht) The 1870s and 1880s also saw many discus-sions commissions and reports about sewer systems Engineers favored sewer systems because they were encompassing solution to waste prob-lems Engineers and civil servants made many plans but none of them was implemented (Van Zon 1986)
As urbanization continued in the 1890s waste problems grew worse and so did the protests and warnings from sanitarians and engineers But most pressure came from cultural changes and changes in public opinion One change was the emergence of an ideology of cleanliness (Meulders 1992) Exterior cleanliness came to represent virtuousness respectability and civilization The new micro-organism theory gave this ideology scientifi c
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
62 Transitions to Sustainable Development
backing As a result urbanites no longer saw fi lth as a nuisance to be tol-erated but as a hazard to their health that should be eliminated Another change in public opinion was increased sensitivity about the social issue through novels newspaper reports and protests by the socialist movement A third cultural change was the emergence of a new civic spirit accompanied by calls for more active public authorities Furthermore a change occurred in the perception of public authoritiesrsquo role it became more acceptable that city governments had a public responsibility to improve urban life for all residents An important political change was democratization In 1887 the right to vote was widened allowing 286 of the male population to vote In 1896 the attributive right to vote was installed and in 1917 the general right to vote was extended to all men and in 1919 to all women These changes in political rules of the game created incentives for city councils to improve living conditions for more social groups
Together with pressure from public opinion these changes made city governments more willing to implement encompassing waste-disposal solu-tions This was also fi nancially possible because rapid economic growth between 1890 and 1914 led to higher tax incomes Changes in other regimes also created favorable circumstances for sewer systems The dif-fusion of piped water systems and WCrsquos stimulated sewer systems because they made fl ushing easier They also resulted in human waste streams with higher water content which reduced the fertilizer value and economic feasibility of the Liernur- and barrel-system The profi tability of the Lier-nur-system and barrel-system were also diminished by the emergence of cheaper artifi cial fertilizer in the 1890s As a result sewer systems became more popular the 1890s the Liernur-system disappeared and barrel collec-tion was gradually phased out The city council in The Hague accepted an integrated sewer plan in 1893 Utrecht implemented a hybrid canal-sewer system (using canals as open sewers with frequent fl ushing) and Amster-dam followed in 1914 (Buiter 2005) In smaller cities the transition to sewer systems was slow because often fi nancial means were lacking Sewer systems were not technically disruptive Knowledge of sewer components remained relevant (eg bricks pipes water fl ows and pumps) Although extra knowledge had to be developed (for instance about the shape of sewer pipes sewer slopes fl ow speeds and soil conditions) it could be added onto existing knowledge
In sum this transition followed a transformation path with gradual adjustments in regime rules eg knowledge about disease perceptions of waste perceptions of the role of public authorities in society ideology of cleanliness waste-disposal practices sensitivity to the social issue and political rules of the game Contestation and struggles between social groups were important infl uenced by broader landscape developments such as democratization urbanization political ideology and macro-economic growth New technologies also played a role but not as main drivers of the transition Changes in regime rules preceded the shift to sewer systems
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 63
I43 THE DE-ALIGNMENT AND RE-ALIGNMENT PATHWAY
P2 De-alignment and re-alignment path if landscape change is di-vergent large and sudden (avalanche change) then increasing re-gime problems may cause regime actors to lose faith This leads to de-alignment and erosion of the regime If niche-innovations are not suffi ciently developed then there is no clear substitute This creates space for the emergence of multiple niche-innovations that co-exist and compete for attention and resources Eventually one niche-in-novation becomes dominant forming the core for re-alignment of a new regime
In this transition pathway the regime comes rapidly under much landscape pressure Especially avalanche change in which divergent landscape devel-opments may pull the regime apart The regime experiences major inter-nal problems collapses erodes and de-aligns Incumbents lose faith in the potential of the regime to respond They do not defend the regime signaled by declining RampD investments The destabilization of regime rules cre-ates uncertainty about dimensions on which to optimize innovation efforts (guiding principles user preferences selection criteria regulations etc) Metaphorically the hollowing out of the regime leads to a vacuum
But in this path there is no stable niche-innovation present that can fi ll the gap Instead the vacuum leads to the emergence of multiple embry-onic niche-innovations carried by outsiders or diversifying regime actors The lack of stable rules leads to the exploration of multiple directions and innovation trajectories The co-existence of multiple niche-innovations creates additional uncertainty because product champions make compet-ing claims So broad co-evolution processes precede or occur in tandem with technological changes There is a prolonged period of co-existence uncertainty experimentation and competition for attention and resources Eventually one niche-innovation gains momentum and becomes domi-nant followed by re-alignment and re-institutionalization in a new socio-technical regime (Figure I44)
Empirical Example
An empirical example of the de-alignment and re-alignment pathway is the transition from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles in America between 1870 and 1930 (see Geels 2005b for a multilevel analysis of this transition) Horses were initially used in different forms for urban trans-port eg omnibus horse-tram horse-taxi horse-drawn wagon for freight transport and private horses and carriages In the 1880s and 1890s the urban horse-based transportation regime was heating up because it suf-fered from several problems congestion pollution from horse droppings lack of safety and high cost The regime problems were made worse by
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
64 Transitions to Sustainable Development
landscape developments Immigration led to the emergence of slums where fi lth and disease accumulated The rising concern about public health at the end of the nineteenth century led to debates about horse excrement on streets Immigration urbanization and suburbanization led to larger cit-ies and longer travel distances which were hard to meet with horse-based transportation
The increasing regime problems created windows of opportunity for new transport options One option was bicycles fi rst developed in the 1830s as toys for the upper classes At the end of the 1860s a new appli-cation domain was articulated bicycle racing on racetracks using bicy-cles with very large front wheels The introduction of the safety-bicycle (1885) based on two same-size wheels and a tubular frame made bicycles accessible to a broader user group (Pinch and Bijker 1984) In the 1890s bicycle touring became a popular pastime because it linked up with wider cultural values such as recreation and fun In the late 1890s laborers used bicycles for practical work eg as delivery vehicles for freight transport (Mom 2004) A second option was mechanically powered trams adopted by incumbent horse-tram companies to replace expensive horses Steam trams were developed powered directly by steam engines or indirectly in the case of cable cars (pulled by underground cables powered by a central steam engine) Another technical option was the use of electric motors and wires Between 1879 and 1888 electric trams were tried out
Figure I44 De-alignment and re-alignment pathway
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 65
at expositions and exhibitions In the hilly town of Richmond Virginia electric trams were fi rst used commercially in 1888 Further diffusion was very rapid In 1890 16 of American street railways were electrifi ed about 70 were horse- or mule-powered and 14 consisted of cable cars or steam railways By 1902 97 of American street railways was electric (Hilton 1969) The electric tram was about twice as fast as the horse-tram (12 mph versus 6 mph) and it eliminated tons of horse excrement Another reason for the electric tramrsquos rapid diffusion was support from powerful social groups eg horse-tram companies real estate promoters electric light companies and local authorities (Nye 1990)
Both the electric tram and bicycle acted as catalyst and led to wider socio-technical changes which in retrospect paved the way for the auto-mobile The bicycle led to the articulation of the new user preferences for individual and fl exible transport and opened new application domains touring (in the countryside) and racing (Mom 2004) The bicycle also contributed to a new mobility practice touring for fun In social and infrastructural dimensions the bicycle gave rise to the creation of a Good Roads movement which lobbied politicians for streets with smoother surfaces The bicycle also gave rise to traffi c regulations and to bicycle clubs and bicycle papers periodicals etc Some of the bicycle regulations were later applied to automobiles The electric tram contributed to subur-banization by creating an urban system of mechanized mass transit that was relatively cheap fi ve cents a trip with free transfers (Nye 1990) As middle classes moved to the suburbs the mobility practice of commuting became more common The electric tram also stimulated a change in per-ception of the function of streets Before 1890 many streets still fulfi lled a traditional function as social meeting places With the trolley streets came to be seen as transport arteries (McShane 1994) A second cultural change was the experience of speed City residents gradually became used to higher speeds of vehicles In sum the bicycle and electric tram had sev-eral positive sequential interactions with the automobile creating a fertile soil for its later diffusion
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century an ongoing landscape development was immigration Immigrants and working-class people lived in crowded and fi lthy slums Cities came to be seen as unhealthy fi lthy and dangerous Middle-class American families developed a cultural preference for suburban living a haven from the tumultuous society (McShane 1994 23) Another social development was the expansion of the middle class (eg salaried employees managers technicians clerks engineers) The new mid-dle class had more money and more work-free leisure time to be enjoyed in the form of entertainment This encouraged the emergence of a new popu-lar culture which highly valued entertainment excitement fun and active sporting A continuing concern of the health and hygiene movement was pollution including horse excrement Another macro-development was societal enthusiasm about electricity the symbol of a new age
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
66 Transitions to Sustainable Development
In this macro-context the horse-based transport regime continued to face major problems Trams and horses were rapidly replaced by electric-ity The cultural enthusiasm about this new technology stimulated inves-tors to put their money in electric trams Furthermore policymakers and reformers encouraged the spread of electric trams to facilitate suburbaniza-tion and commuting between home and work (McShane 1994 77) In the early twentieth century the electric tram rapidly developed from a niche into the dominant urban transport regime The electric interurban mile-age increased from 2107 miles in 1900 to a peak of 15580 miles in 1916 (Flink 1990)
At the niche-level automobiles formed a radically new transport option that conquered a foothold in some market niches In the taxi-niche horses were challenged by electric vehicles that were operated in major cities by the Electric Vehicle Company between 1899 and 1902 Electric vehicles found more stable use as luxury vehicles used for tea parties or promenad-ing in parks and on boulevards (Mom 2004) Internal combustion engine vehicles were used in niches for racing and touring Steam automobiles were also used to some extent in the racing and touring niches but they were heavy and needed time to generate steam The niches of racing and touring in the countryside grew rapidly in the early twentieth century because they linked up with the cultural values such as entertainment adventure and a preference for outdoor activities As a result the number of gasoline auto-mobiles raced ahead (see Table I42)
By 1905 the market was tipping decidedly towards internal combustion In 1907 gasoline cars entered the taxi-niche where they replaced horse-taxis This signaled a shift from entertainment towards practical and utili-tarian use of gasoline cars Doctors rich farmers salesmen and insurance agents also adopted cars for practical and professional purposes (Mom 2004) While early automobiles were large and luxurious Ford pioneered a new design trajectory of cheap strong sturdy cars eventually resulting in the Model T (1908) as a new dominant design An important product innovation and an example of positive parallel interaction between inno-vations was the electric starter developed in 1911 Starting had been a complicated matter for internal combustion engines because a crank had
Table I42 Annual Car Sales in the United States (based on Kirsch 2000 Mom 2004)
1900 1905
Electric cars 1575 1425
Steamers 1681 1568
Gasoline cars 936 18699
Total 4192 21692
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 67
to be turned around rapidly and with great force But when the gasoline automobiles borrowed batteries and high-voltage ignition from electric vehicles this made starting a lot easier With the electric starter the gaso-line car pushed the electric vehicle from the urban niche of luxury society vehicle where it had held on
The 1910s and 1920s were characterized by increased competition between electric trams and automobiles The electric tram regime faced increasing fi nancial problems as wage and material costs increased while fares were strongly regulated at one nickel Public authorities were not inclined to help fi nancially While the trolley was taxed the private auto-mobile and motorbus were massively subsidized by publicly funded street improvements (Flink 1990) Limited investments led to more breakdowns and decreasing punctuality of service User satisfaction also declined because trams got more crowded especially during rush hour Another reason for complaint was the infl exibility of routing As factories were set up on the outskirts of cities workers often fi rst had to travel to the city center and then take another tram to the factory By the late 1910s track mileage began to shrink followed by declining passenger numbers after 1924 (Hilton 1969) Meanwhile the automobile was sold in ever larger numbers in the 1910s to farmers and middle-class urbanites The diffusion of the Model T was stimulated by price decreases (from $850 in 1908 to $360 in 1916) made possible by Fordrsquos assembly-line and mass-production system Policy makers helped to construct a car-based transportation sys-tem because they saw cars as a means to facilitate suburbanization Under pressure from a strong highway lobby they widened existing roads and created new roads In the 1920s the car became an all-purpose road cruiser bought by the new middle classes that were less mechanically sophisticated As ease of operation smoothness of ride comfort and convenience became important performance criteria cars developed into ldquorolling living roomsrdquo (Flink 1990) During the 1930s the car increasingly replaced the electric tram as the dominant urban transport system The car became strongly embedded in society facilitating the emergence of a car culture that was supported by new institutions such as fast food restaurants on highways shopping malls on the edge of cities and drive-in movies The re-alignment of these elements around the car created a strong socio-technical regime Although not everybody owned a car in the 1930s the automobile was clearly the way forward
In sum this example illustrates not only the interactions between niche regime and landscape levels but also specifi c characteristics of the de-alignment and re-alignment pathway As we have seen the existing horse-based regime became unstable early in the process Next several alternative technologies emerged (bicycles steam and electric tram different automo-biles) which co-existed and had complex interactions Especially the 1890s and early twentieth century was a period of fl ux marked by an array of co-evolutionary changes The electric tram seemed to emerge as winner
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
68 Transitions to Sustainable Development
but was eventually out-competed by the gasoline car around which a new socio-technical regime evolved In a way this example deviates from the predicted pathway because one of the novelties the electric tram rapidly became dominant It did not maintain this position however because it was eventually replaced by another novelty the automobile So this transi-tion is a mix of de-alignment and re-alignment and two subsequent tech-nological substitutions
I44 THE TECHNOLOGICAL SUBSTITUTION PATHWAY
P3 Technological substitution if there is much landscape pressure (specifi c shock avalanche change or disruptive change) at a moment when niche-innovations have developed suffi ciently the latter will break through and replace the existing regime
This pathway assumes that radical innovations have developed in niches but remain stuck because the regime is stable and entrenched There may be minor problems but regime actors think these can be solved with incre-mental innovations Hence regime actors pay little attention to niche-innovations developed by outsiders and fringe actors
Without landscape pressure this remains a reproduction process It becomes a technological substitution path when a specifi c shock (repre-sented in Figure I48) avalanche change or disruptive change exerts much landscape pressure on the regime These pressures lead to major regime tensions which create windows of opportunity for niche-innovations Actors can use these windows because they have stabilized and gathered internal momentum (another difference with the de-alignment and re-alignment path) Diffusion usually takes the form of niche-accumulation with innovations entering increasingly bigger market niches When the innovation enters mainstream markets regime-actors will defend them-selves and invest in improvements (the ldquosailing ship effectrdquo) Market competition and power struggles infl uence the fi ght between incumbents and newcomers If the innovation replaces the old technology this leads to knock-on effects and wider regime changes This is why this pathway has a technology-push character where wider co-evolution processes fol-low substitution (Figure I45) Because this pathway often leads to the downfall of incumbent fi rms it has been studied much in business stud-ies and technology management (Tushman and Anderson 1986 Chris-tensen 1997)
Empirical Example
An example of the technological substitution path is the transition from sailing ships to steamships in Britain (Figure I46) (Geels 2002a and b)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 69
In the fi rst half of the nineteenth century sailing ships dominated oce-anic transport of passengers and freight In the protected and profi table trade with East Asian colonies the British East India Company used wide heavy ships where a large cargo-holding capacity was more important than speed Innovative American shipbuilders developed Baltimore clippers
Figure I45 Technological substitution pathway
Figure I46 Tonnage of steamships and sailing ships in Britain (data from Ville 1990)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
70 Transitions to Sustainable Development
small but fast ships with light construction and sharp hulls These ships were used in small-volume high-value trades (eg opium silk) and for smuggling pirating and slave trade When the monopoly of the British East India Company was abolished in 1834 American shipbuilders began to build bigger clipper ships for the China and India trade (eg tea) With their fi ne lines sharp bow broad beam and tall raking mast these clip-pers reached high speeds The sailing ship regime experienced some minor problems in particular a) limited and variable speed b) lack of regularity and predictability dependence on winds and currents created uncertainty about times of arrival c) lack of control and coordination in long-distance trade captains and resident merchants communicated by mail which was transported by cargo ships
While sailing ships were reigning supreme steamships were pioneered in small niches In the late nineteenth century there were experiments with steamboats on canals and rivers The fi rst market niche for steamboats was on the American Hudson River in 1807 In the 1810s and 1820s the steam-boat was widely used on American inland waterways because it linked up with the landscape development of westward settlements In the 1810s the steamboat was also reintroduced in British ports as a steam tug to help maneuver large sailing ships In the 1820s there were some incidental endeavors to travel the Atlantic Ocean by steamship These were sailing ships with an additional steam engine and paddle wheels to be used when there was no wind In 1838 the British government created a subsidized oceanic market niche for steamships to transport mail within the Empire thus improving the coordination in trade and politics Steamers were more expensive because of high coal use but also faster and had reliable arrival times Oceanic steamers encountered several problems One problem was high coal use which reduced the shiprsquos carrying capacity A second prob-lem was that paddle wheels became submerged or rose out of the water in rough seas damaging the engines and reducing the functioning of paddle wheels A third problem was that the heavy weight of boilers condens-ers and steam engines caused the wooden hull to bend and stretch In the 1840s these problems were placed on the innovation agenda of the emerg-ing community of steamship manufacturers
Another important landscape development was mass emigration from Europe to America boosted especially by the Irish Potato Famine (1845ndash1849) and the European political revolutions of 1848 Another landscape development was liberalization leading to the abolition of the British Navi-gation Acts in 1849 This enhanced world trade and created more competi-tion between shipping and trading companies
In the 1850s and 1860s the sailing ship regime was innovative and many extreme clipper ships were built with very sharp bows sacrifi cing cargo capacity for speed But as wooden ships grew longer and faster they expe-rienced problems of longitudinal strength British shipbuilders gradually moved to iron construction in the 1850s and 1860s (also because wood
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 71
became scarce in Britain) giving them a competitive edge over American shipbuilders (Harrison 1990)
The growing passenger markets provided a window of opportunity for the breakthrough of steamships The percentage of steamships in British registered tonnage grew from 5 in 1850 to 10 in 1860 and 17 in 1869 This expanding market created space for innovative work The performance of steamships was improved substantially because of the alignment of three innovations a) the coal effi ciency of steam engines was improved through the introduction of compound steam engines which used high-pressure steam to drive two sequential steam engines b) screw propellers replaced paddle wheels increasing the transmission effi ciency of power to motion c) the shift from wooden to iron hulls allowed the building of larger ships which enjoyed economies of scale
An important landscape development in the second half of the nine-teenth century was industrialization Britain became the workshop of the world importing raw materials and selling manufactured goods to the rest of the world Between 1840 and 1887 there was a sevenfold increase in sea-borne commerce (Craig 1980)
Steamships rapidly entered freight shipping following the opening of the Suez Canal (1869) which gave them a major distance advantage in the India and China trade (sailing ships were not allowed to use the canal and had to go around Cape of Good Hope)
The breakthrough of steamships between 1870 and 1890 was accom-panied by adaptations in the socio-technical regime eg deepening and enlarging of ports creation of a worldwide coal infrastructure installation of new machines for loading and unloading in ports transformation of shipbuilding (enlargement of shipyards use of new iron-working machines new engineering competencies) These adjustments gave the transition a technology-push character The transition had a disruptive character in the sense that manufacturers of sailing ships did not make the transition to iron and steam As a result the center of gravity in British shipbuilding moved north to the Clyde and the northeast of Britain where skills in iron steam and engineering accumulated (Harrison 1990) But sailing ships were not immediately wiped off the market In particular market niches (eg low-cost bulk cargo) they were used well into the twentieth century (Harley 1973) Manufacturers of sailing ships also tried to defend themselves by improving the ships (the sailing ship effect) eg building larger ships to increase cargo capacity introduce more masts and sails to increase speed and introduce labor-saving machinery (eg for rigging) to reduce crew costs
In this example new technologies emerged in small niches (inland water-ways ports mail transport) while the regime was relatively stable Techno-logical substitution occurred because of priceperformance improvements and major landscape changes (mass emigration Suez Canal) The transition had a technology-push character because many adjustments in the socio-technical regime followed the breakthrough of steamships
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
72 Transitions to Sustainable Development
I45 RECONFIGURATION PATHWAY
P4 Reconfi guration pathway symbiotic innovations which developed in niches are initially adopted in the regime to solve local problems They subsequently trigger further adjustments in the basic architecture of the regime
Innovations are initially developed in niches If they have symbiotic relations with the regime they can be easily adopted as add-on or component replace-ment These adoptions are driven by economic considerations (to improve performance to solve small problems) leaving most regime rules unchanged When the basic architecture remains the same this is a transformation path-way (P1) But the adopted novelties may lead to further adjustments as regime-actors explore new combinations between old and new elements and learn more about the novelties This may lead to technical changes or changes in user practices perceptions and search heuristics which may create space for new adoptions of niche-innovations Sequences of component innovations can thus over time and under infl uence of landscape pressures add up to major reconfi gurations and regime changes (Figure I47)
In the reconfi guration pathway the new regime grows out of the old regime (similar to transformation path P1) The difference with P1 is that the reconfi guration path experiences substantial changes in the regimersquos basic architecture The reconfi guration pathway is especially relevant for distributed socio-technical systems that function through the interplay of multiple technologies (agriculture hospitals retailing) In these distributed systems transitions are not caused by the breakthrough of one technology
Figure I47 Reconfi guration pathway
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 73
but by sequences of multiple component-innovations While regime-actors survive in the reconfi guration path competition and tensions increase among component suppliers
Empirical Example
An example of the reconfi guration pathway is the transition from tradi-tional factories to mass production in America between 1850 and 1930 (based on Geels 2006b) Factory production is a complex socio-technical system with many technical elements and social elements (Figure I48) Major changes in factory production came about through sequences of smaller and larger component changes which eventually resulted in an architectural reconfi guration
Important aspects of the factory regime in the 1850s and 1860s were the use of general-purpose machine tools (eg turret lathes planers drilling machines milling machines) steam engines to power machine tools and division of labor using semiskilled and unskilled labor to operate machine tools To accommodate the growing numbers of machines and workers a new kind of building emerged the textile mill a multi-story narrow and long structure (Banham 1986) Buildings consisted of multiple sto-ries because it was easier to move goods vertically by cranes than horizon-tally by carts or animals they were narrow because they relied on natural light (Biggs 1996) and they were long because power was mechanically
Figure I48 Socio-technical system in factory production
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
74 Transitions to Sustainable Development
distributed from the steam engine by line shafts In the direct-drive sys-tem machines were arranged parallel to the line shafts and connected by belts and pulleys However these factory buildings had several prob-lems a) insuffi cient lighting due to small windows b) infl exibility because machines were fi xed to the line shafts c) friction and energy loss because the entire network of line shafts and countershafts rotated continuously d) dust noise and low safety
If the level of analysis is factory production as a whole particular sectors can function as niches where radical innovations emerge In the 1860s and 1870s two important niche-innovations were pioneered in different sectors One innovation involved steps towards continuous movement in materi-als handling eg overhead conveyors endless chains and moving benches (Biggs 1996) First experiments began in processing industries such as can-ning meat packing and steel making The second innovation concerned power sources for small workplaces and establishments where the size of steam engines posed a problem A range of new power sources emerged eg hot-air engines internal combustion gas engines hydraulic motors and aerial motors Also small battery-driven electric motors emerged during the 1870s for light power usages such as operating dentistsrsquo drills jewelerrsquos lathes small fans and church organs (Nye 1990) These mini-motors were little more than curiosities
In the 1880s and 1890s the regime of factory production heated up One development was the proliferation of new machine tools (Hounshell 1984) More special-purpose machine tools were developed allowing the production of interchangeable parts which speeded up assembly The bicycle industry saw major changes such as sheet metal stamping and power presses that allowed parts to be stamped directly out of sheet metal The emergence of steel helped to create machine tools with harder cutting edges and greater precision Steel also infl uenced the shape of buildings Steel beams could span longer distances allowing the creation of large open spaces There were also experiments with a new building material reinforced concrete (implanting steel bars inside concrete structures) Moreover this period saw the expansion of large industrial enterprises in chemicals petroleum rubber electrical equipment steel and trans-portation equipment The expanding scale intensifi ed problems in the factory regime Energy losses in the power distribution system increased as factories expanded The direct-drive system constrained the size and layout of factories something that became more problematic as the num-ber of machine tools increased Manual materials handling became more problematic as more components had to be carried between the increas-ing number of machine tools and workstations Insuffi cient lighting also remained a problem An important social development in this period was the emergence of a new professional group industrial engineers Their guiding principle was to make entire factories more rational and effi cient
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 75
Industrial engineers became spokespersons for redesigning the factory using steel reinforced concrete and specialized machine tools (Biggs 1996) Industrial engineers also developed scientifi c management using time studies and fi nancial incentives to speed up workers
Several niche-innovations developed in previous decades were adopted in the regime to help solve these problems Techniques for continuous materials handling became more popular in sectors such as cigarettes furniture cloth grain products soap and canned foods The can-making industry saw its fi rst attempts to combine machine tools with a conveyor-belt system while electric cranes attached to ceilings improved the han-dling of heavy equipment (Nye 1990) Electricity also entered factories in the form of electric light and in the form of electric-powered fans to remove dust In the early 1890s larger electric motors were developed and used to power machine tools and line shafts in industries such as print-ing and publishing clothing and electrical machinery (DuBoff 1979) These industries valued the cleanliness steady speed and ease of control of electric motors In the electric line shaft drive the electric motor was placed between the mill-work and the steam engine (Devine 1983) By 1900 electric motors amounted to about 5 of aggregate power used in American industry (Figure I49)
In the fi rst decade of the twentieth century industrial expansion contin-ued with growth rates of 10 per year in transportation equipment (eg cars) electrical equipment and petroleum (Devine 1983) New technolo-gies diffused more widely and industrial engineers developed new ideas about the use of space and positioning of machine tools to limit distances of material fl ows between workstations Flow throughput and effi cient factory layout became important guiding principles (Biggs 1996) Although steel and reinforced concrete enabled the construction of larger buildings with more space for effi cient machine-tool arrangement the power-distribution system provided a major constraint for the positioning of machine tools because of their being connected to line shafts This problem formed a window of opportunity for the diffusion of electric motors especially in the form of group-drive and unit-drive Between 1899 and 1909 the relative share of electric power in aggregate manufacturing power rose from 5 to 25 (Figure I49)
Electric group-drive was a confi guration in which a group of machines was powered by one electric motor This reduced friction losses and allowed somewhat more fl exibility Unit-drive was a confi guration in which each machine was powered by its own electric motor giving high fl exibility But electric motors were still expensive so initially unit-drive was only implemented for the largest machines eg cranes hoisting appliances and elevators (Devine 1983)
In the 1910s and 1920s several developments linked up resulting in a major reconfi guration of factory production A crucial development was the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
76 Transitions to Sustainable Development
diffusion of electric motors Factories gradually abandoned the old power-dis-tribution system and switched to electric unit-drive With unit-drive machine tools could be placed more fl exibly according to the sequence of work This created opportunities for new factory layouts and machine arrangements making better use of fl oor space and minimizing material fl ows between workstations Industrial engineers experimented with new confi gurations of elements Steel and reinforced concrete enabled single-story factory buildings that spanned large distances and created more open space Single-story fac-tories permitted linear layouts which facilitated more effi cient materials han-dling and fl exible confi gurations of machine placements In the automobile industry the reconfi gurations led to a new kind of factory production mass production The innovative aspect of the Ford factory consisted in combining existing elements (Hounshell 1984) The crucial element was the assembly line a materials-handling technique pioneered in meat packing fl our milling brewing and food canning Special-purpose machine tools division of labor interchangeable parts and electric motors all came together in the assembly line While early experiments were done at the Highland Park factory the mass production came in full realization at the River Rouge plant (1920) with large single-story buildings that combined rational factory planning with modern production power and construction technologies This plant formed the exemplar of the new factory production regime and was widely imitated in other large industries
In sum this example illustrates how the transition in factory production came about through a sequence of multiple innovations The innovations initially changed components of the distributed system of factory produc-tion But the interaction of several component innovations over time led to a major reconfi guration The stepwise process and cascade dynamics are characteristic of the reconfi guration pathway
Figure I49 Percentage of sources of mechanical drive in US manufacturing estab-lishments (based on Du Boff 1979)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 77
I46 MIXING PATHWAYS
Disruptive change is a specifi c kind of landscape development Because of its slow speed actors initially perceive moderate change As pressure con-tinues to build in a certain direction landscape change gradually becomes more disruptive This characteristic may lead to a particular sequence of transition pathways Initially actors perceive moderate landscape change which causes some regime problems Regime-actors address these prob-lems with internal resources changing the direction of activities and development trajectories If problems are solved the result is a transfor-mation path (P1) If however landscape pressure grows bigger and prob-lems exacerbate regime-actors may become more willing to incorporate symbiotic niche-innovations and implement component changes If these additions leave the regime architecture intact this is still a transformation path (P1) But if these additions trigger further adjustments the result is a reconfi guration path (P4) If problems are solved regime-actors will sur-vive Meanwhile landscape pressures and regime problems also stimulate entrepreneurs and new fi rms to develop radical niche-innovations If land-scape pressure becomes more disruptive previous regime improvements may appear insuffi cient If regime problems grow worse incumbent actors begin to lose faith If a particular niche-innovation has been developed suf-fi ciently it may take advantage of this window of opportunity resulting in technological substitution (P3) If niche-innovations are not yet suffi ciently developed the result will be de-alignment and re-alignment with multiple niche-innovations blossoming and co-existing for a while eventually fol-lowed by one option becoming dominant (P2) These observations lead to a fi fth proposition
P5 If landscape pressure takes the form of ldquodisruptive changerdquo a se-quence of transition pathways is likely beginning with transformation then leading to reconfi guration and possibly followed by substitution or de-alignment and re-alignment
This fi fth proposition shows that pathways are not deterministic Although the empirical examples described successful transitions the sequences of events are not automatic There is no guarantee that a new socio-technical regime will be established Another qualifi cation is that the pathways are ideal types Their application to empirical cases requires care and balancing of arguments Transition pathways need not always occur in their pure form as our dis-cussion of examples has showed The example of hygienic transformation had some aspects of substitution because sewer systems replaced cesspools And the example of horse-drawn carriages and automobiles was a mix of de-alignment and re-alignment and two subsequent technological substitutions Despite these qualifi cations we maintain that pathways have a recognizable internal logic constituted by different combinations of dynamic mechanisms
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
78 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Our transition pathways address the most simple transitions namely a shift from one regime at t(0) to another regime at t(1) More complex tran-sitions are possible eg when several regimes at t(0) merge and combine into one regime at t(1) For example information technology and commu-nication technology which developed as separate regimes began to merge into ICT in the 1970s and 1980s It is also possible that one regime at t(0) differentiates into several regimes at t(1) For example mixed farms were the dominant form in agriculture until they differentiated into several spe-cialized regimes in the 1960s and 1970s eg pig farming dairy farming chicken husbandry etc These more complex transitions suggest that our typology can be further enriched in future work
Such future work would have to address the following research agenda
Multi-niche analysis Most work looks at one radical niche-innovation bull that breaks through But many transitions especially with regard to sustainability problems involve multiple niche-innovations The recon-fi guration and de-alignment and re-alignment pathways in our typol-ogy already suggest how multiple niches may interact with regimes But niches may also interact with each other frustrating or stimulating each otherrsquos development Little work has been done on this topicMulti-regime analysis Most transition scholars have looked at the bull transformation or replacement of one regime Our qualifi cations above already indicate that we see interactions between multiple regimes as an important future research topic Initial work by Raven and Ver-bong (2007) and Geels (2007) suggests that multi-regime interaction may take a variety of forms creating different opportunities and bar-riers for niche-innovationsLandscape transformation MLP studies of transitions have only bull looked at top-down infl uence from landscape developments to regime and niche dynamics The landscape is thus treated as external devel-opment that infl uences regimes and niches but is not infl uenced by them But within the MLP one can also turn the tables An interest-ing research hypothesis would be that multiple regime changes may contribute to broad landscape developments Urbanization in the late nineteenth century for instance was probably strongly infl uenced by regime shifts in transport (train tram car) water supply (piped water systems) sanitation (sewer systems) food production and distribu-tion and factory production (mass production) One can also see sus-tainable development as a possible landscape change which would be carried by regime shifts in transport energy agriculture etc Beyond such impressionist examples little theoretical knowledge is available however about the dynamics of landscape changeThe destabilization and decline of existing regimes Most transition bull studies focus on (green) niche-innovations that emerge break through and replace existing regimes Regimes tend to be analyzed as problems or barriers to be overcome This often leads to David-versus-Goliath
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Typology of Transition Pathways 79
storylines with green novelties fi guring as heroes and existing regimes as villains To correct the bias toward winners and novelty it is impor-tant and interesting to shift the analytical focus to the destabilization and decline of existing regimes Over thirty years ago Rosenberg (1976 203) warned that the focus on new rather than old technologies might lead to incorrect conclusions
It is a general practice among historians to fi x their attention upon the story of the new technology and to terminate all interest in the old The result again is to sharpen the belief in abrupt and dramatic disconti-nuities in the historical record
(Rosenberg 1976 203)
It would not only be interesting to study transitions from the perspective of the losers (how do regime actors react to problems and threats how and when do they lose faith) but it is also important analytically The MLP suggests that David has little chance against a strong and vital Goliath Only when Goliath is weakened (erosion and destabilization of regimes) may David win the fi ght Destabilization of existing regimes thus consti-tutes the key to transitions Destabilization is usually presumed but rarely studied (eg what are good indicators for regime destabilization)
Tipping points breakthrough take-off Much attention is given to bull the predevelopment phase of transitions and the nurturing of niches (experiments learning processes visions networks) But we know relatively little about the take-off phase How do niche-innovations break through more widely and gain momentum How does reversal occur ie a shift from niche-innovations that require a lot of work from actors to be sustained to innovations that become self-sustaining ldquoTipping pointsrdquo (Gladwell 2000) are an interesting notion but how should they be conceptualized for large-scale transitions Some general mechanisms are known (eg increasing returns to adoption bandwagon effects) but much more could be doneMobilization of insights from substantive theories and perspectives The bull global MLP and the local model based on crossovers between STS evolutionary economics and sociology are fairly abstract and generic addressing general theoretical principles and mechanisms Especially with regard to local conceptual models the MLP could be further complemented by substantive theories that explore interactions between technology culture politics economics science etc To elaborate the role of fi rms one could mobilize insights from entrepreneurship strate-gic management and business studies (eg the big literature about incum-bents and newcomers) To analyze the role of culture in transitions one could exploit ideas from cultural studies discourse studies and cultural sociology To analyze the role of power insights from political economy corporatism neo-Marxism and policy networks could be used
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
I5 Managing Sustainable Innovation Journeys1
I51 INTRODUCTION NURTURING HOPEFUL MONSTROSITIES
Following Mokyr we describe new technologies as ldquohopeful monstrosi-tiesrdquo (Mokyr 1990 291) They are hopeful because product champions believe in a promising future but monstrous because they perform crudely As Rosenberg (1976 195) argues ldquomost inventions are relatively crude and ineffi cient at the date when they are fi rst recognized as constituting a new invention They are of necessity badly adapted to many of the ultimate uses to which they will eventually be putrdquo This means that new technologies cannot immediately compete on the market against established technolo-gies This problem is pivotal for many new technologies with sustainability promise for energy transportation agriculture etc There is no lack of such new technologies which are developed in RampD labs and put to use in demonstration projects They have a hard time however bridging the valley of death between RampD and market introduction The crossovers between STS evolutionary economics and sociology led not only to the formulation of the MLP perspective on transitions but also to develop-ment of a new policy perspective on how to modulate the emergence of niches with high potential for sustainable development Strategic Niche Management (Kemp et al 1998) A core assumption of the Strategic Niche Management approach (SNM) is that sustainable innovation journeys can be facilitated by the creation of technological niches ie protected spaces that allow nurturing and experimentation with the co-evolution of technol-ogy user practices and regulatory structures (see also Chapter I23) SNM does not suggest that governments create niches in a top-down fashion as is sometimes assumed by commentators but focuses instead on endog-enous steering or steering from within (Rip 2006 Nill and Kemp 2009) Such steering can be enacted by a range of actors including users and soci-etal groups Steering can address many parts of the process by adding a new actor a specifi c learning process or a set of demonstration projects which may redirect evolving dynamics towards a desired path Niches are not inserted by governments but are assumed to emerge through collec-tive enactment Nevertheless their (future) course can be modulated into
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Managing Sustainable Innovation Journeys 81
more sustainable directions Because of these characteristics we would like to defi ne SNM as a form of refl exive governance (see also the chapters by Grin Part III)
During the last ten years many new studies and articles have appeared on SNM In this chapter we review and discuss the results of this research and show how the research agenda has evolved This chapter is structured as follows In section I52 we discuss the main body of SNM research that focuses on niche-internal processes Next in section I53 we broaden our scope and look at conceptualizations that position SNM within the MLP perspective In the fourth section we address policy implications of SNM research Finally the concluding section brings together the results of this discussion and articulates a future research agenda Throughout our argument we distinguish between early SNM research which mainly focuses on niche-internal processes and later SNM research which pro-vides a more elaborate analysis of the interaction between niches and their broader environments
I52 NICHE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES
In early SNM work the idea is that the selective exposure of new (sustain-able) technologies to the market through a process of niche development can eventually lead to the replacement of the dominant (polluting) technol-ogies This replacement would take the form of the development of a new socio-technical regime that carries and stores the rules (partly embodied in standards skills designs and government regulations) for how to produce use and regulate the new technology Early SNM work conceptualized the process as a bottom-up one in which novelties emerge in technological niches after which they conquer market niches and eventually replace and transform the regime (Figure I51)
Figure I51 From niche dynamics to regime shift (adapted from Weber et al 1999 22)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
82 Transitions to Sustainable Development
The main research question was how and under what circumstances is the successful emergence of a technological niche possible Success was defi ned in terms of transformation of a technological niche into a market niche and eventually a regime shift Three (internal) processes were dis-tinguished for successful development of a technological niche (Kemp et al 1998)
The articulation of expectations and visions Expectations are consid-bull ered crucial for niche development because they provide direction to learning processes attract attention and legitimate (continuing) pro-tection and nurturingThe building of social networks This process is important to cre-bull ate a constituency behind the new technology facilitate interactions between relevant stakeholders and provide the necessary resources (money people expertise)Learning processes at multiple dimensionsbull
a) Technical aspects and design specifi cations b) Market and user preferences c) Cultural and symbolic meaning d) Infrastructure and maintenance networks e) Industry and production networks f) Regulations and government policy g) Societal and environmental effects
Subsequently more specifi c hypotheses were formulated for each process (Hoogma et al 2002 28ndash29)
1 Expectations would contribute to successful niche-building if expec-tations were made a) more robust (shared by more actors) b) more specifi c (if expectations are too general they do not provide guidance) and c) have higher quality (the content of expectations is substanti-ated by ongoing projects)
2 Social networks are likely to contribute more to niche development if a) the networks are broad ie multiple kinds of stakeholders are included to facilitate the articulation of multiple views and voices the involvement of relative outsiders may be particularly important to broaden cognitive frames and facilitate second-order learning b) the networks are deep ie people who represent organizations should be able to mobilize commitment and resources within their own organi-zations and networks
3 Learning processes would contribute more to niche development if they are not only directed at the accumulation of facts and data ie fi rst-order learning but also enable changes in cognitive frames and assump-tions ie second-order learning (Grin and Van de Graaf 1996a)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Managing Sustainable Innovation Journeys 83
These hypotheses were tested in the context of an EU project and four PhD theses (Hoogma et al 2002 Hoogma 2000 Van Mierlo 2002 Lane 2002 Raven 2005) and discussed criticized or amended in a wide range of other studies (Wiskerke et al 2002 Brown et al 2004 Ieromonachou et al 2004 Truffer et al 2004 Kivisaari et al 2004 Harborne et al 2007 Hendry et al 2007 Hegger et al 2007 Adey 2007 and Van Eijck and Romijn 2008) These studies contained empirical (case) studies of fi nished andor ongoing experiments in a range of fi elds from transport to energy agriculture and sanitation mainly in (Western) European contexts but also in Tanzania and South Africa They investigated if the identifi ed conditions for success explained outcomes The case selection included some examples of market-niche development but many cases featured a limited outcome in terms of inducing further niche development into a sustainable direction
The results showed that many demonstration projects were organized in an overly contained way Networks tended to be narrow and projects tended to focus on fi rst-order leaning Consequently many demonstration projects followed too much of a technology-push approach The narrow focus came through in the way users were included in the demonstration projects studied These users were mainly perceived as consumers with given needs and preferences For this reason the aim of many demonstra-tion projects was to discover (mis)matches between technology features and these (assumed) needs Standardized surveys and usability trials and panels were used to investigate these (mis)matches In many instances failed niche developments could be related to either minimal involvement of out-siders in the experiments and a lack of second-order learning or to mini-mal involvement of regime actors which resulted in a lack of resources and institutional embedding Another recurring fi nding is that the nature of social networks determined the depth and breadth of learning processes Networks that were broad and contained outsiders provoked more second-order learning These studies show that SNM is a useful retroactive ana-lytical framework Because the demonstration projects in these studies did not use SNM prescriptively as a management tool the real-life problems in these projects are not indicative of theoretical failures in SNM as some commentators have suggested
Some of these studies highlight shortcomings of the SNM approach as defi ned in Kemp et al (1998) and Hoogma et al (2002) For instance Hendry et al (2007) and Harborne et al (2007) stress that involvement of outside actors and second-order learning do not happen easily or by themselves These require the presence of particular drivers and contexts They point to the importance of a sense of urgency and the role that a pro-cess of structured repeated visioning could play In a similar vein Hegger et al (2007) argue that the strong focus on experiments with technology in many demonstration projects is not conducive to broad learning and outsider involvement It might reinforce the technology push character of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
84 Transitions to Sustainable Development
actual experiments They propose to redirect the focus of niche experiments towards concepts visions and guiding principles rather than technolo-gies and towards experimenting with social aspects fi rst albeit without neglecting the socio-technical character of the change process Compari-sons between the Technological Innovation Systems (TIS) approach and SNM further led to suggestions that some elements might be missing in the SNM approach in particular the issue of resources and entrepreneurship which are crucially important for niche dynamics (see also Markard and Truffer 2008 609 for a discussion of both approaches see the special issue introduction by Geels et al 2008) Finally the transition manage-ment (TM) approachmdashwhich is advocated among others by Rotmans et al (2001) and Loorbach (2007) (see also Rotmans and Loorbach this volume)mdashhighlights like SNM the importance of experiments and also emphasizes the importance of creating visions before starting experiments TM promotes envisioning practices in so-called transition arenas which consist of regime-actors niche-actors and outsiders TM thus actively aims to infl uence the regime using niche experiences and alternative visions to infl uence the cognitive frames of regime actors Grin makes similar points about the transformative power of infl uencing cognitive frames which he considers an important aspect of refl exive governance (Grin this volume Bos and Grin 2008) He argues that biases and limitations in existing insti-tutions can be overcome by providing actors with a meta-vision that helps them deal with the challenge of creating fundamental change
On the one hand we acknowledge that TM addresses some factors that SNM underplays While SNM develops an evolutionary approach that builds on and leverages the dynamic forces of market competition aimed at over-coming lock-in and promoting socio-technical diversity TM suggests a more ambitious approach of goal-oriented modulation that places more emphasis on the role of strategic envisioning In that respect TM introduces the notion of ldquotransition experimentrdquo which is supposed to be different from regular innovation experiments (Van den Bosch and Taanman 2006)
On the other hand in practice there are too many fruitless scenarios and visioning exercises with few substantive follow-up activities In a critical interpretation many of these exercises have become rituals where actors express good intentions as a form of public impression management While we recognize that reproductions of rituals may sometimes provide condi-tions for change there are many instances where they have little real infl u-ence This is why SNM scholars have stressed the importance of hands-on real-life experiences in demonstration projects The approach is based on the idea that means matter as much as ends Vision generationmdashand we might add the defi nition of bold targets as is the case in climate change politicsmdashwill be of little help unless practical steps are taken SNM assumes that actual implementation and specifi cation of visions in experimental set-tings is most conducive for niche development Hence we are not yet con-vinced that there is much to gain from visioning beforehand in transition
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Managing Sustainable Innovation Journeys 85
arenas Still we also recognize that SNMrsquos assumptions may need to be reconsidered empirical research of sequences of experimental projects indi-cates that visions and expectations do not evolve as much as we expected in response to learning processes in the projects Several critical sympathizers (eg Hegger et al 2007) have argued that visioning prior to experimenta-tion does help to broaden networks and learning processes
In our opinion this controversy touches upon a central problem of tech-nology development in modern societies Technology actors such as fi rms and governments introducing new technologies tend to exclude certain actors and focus on optimizing the technological side fi rst while neglecting other social aspects It remains to be seen whether introducing some struc-tured process of visioning (as in transition management) in arenas arranged by policy actors or forms of Conceptual Niche Management as proposed by Hegger et al (2007) could indeed help to overcome this modernist bias Early SNM put its cards on infl uencing the actual design and implementa-tion of a range of new varieties Below we show that later SNM suggests that such a strategy needs to be complemented with other measures which modulate emerging windows of opportunity external to the niche
Much of the cited research focuses on explaining the limited success of the experiments studied Conclusions point to the conditions that would better encourage particular types of learning networking and visioning Hommels et al (2007) have argued that part of the problem might be that SNM focuses too much on providing protection In their view innovations have a better chance of success if made vulnerable by subjecting them to risks and oppositions from the outset They developed a management tool (PROTEE) to arrange for learning processes about the context in which the innovation will be embedded This tool might indeed be useful for an SNM approach Contrary to the argument of Hommels et al however controlled exposure to selection pressures has been central to SNM research from the start Still we share the view that more attention should be devoted to ways in which protection is provided and can be lifted in a phased way The man-aging of selective pressures is not only an issue of specifi c measures such as subsidies but also one of niche expansion and the emergence of a new set of stable rules and routines Yet innovations in SNM are of a particular nature (see above) one that requires some form of protection Otherwise the journey will not even begin because market demand does not pull and fi rms and other technology actors are not pushing for market introduction as argued by Harborne et al (2007)
Many of the studies discussed can be seen as inquiries into understand-ing the failure and successes of the journey from technological niche to market niche and eventually to a regime shift On this point Van Mierlo (2002) and Raven (2005) made a crucial contribution by signaling the need for distinguishing between local socio-technical projects and the niche level which consists of an emerging community that shares cognitive formal and normative rules (Figure I52)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
86 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Niche development can then be conceptualized as progressing at two levels simultaneously the level of projects in local practices and the global niche-level Sequences of local projects may gradually add up to an emerg-ing fi eld (niche) at the global level (Figure I53) Using the work of Deuten (2003) Geels and Raven (2006) conceptualized this aggregation process as follows developments may start with one or a few projects carried by local networks of actors who are interested in innovations for idiosyncratic or local reasons The cognitive rules (such as expectations) that guide these projects are initially diffuse broad and unstable Local projects form test beds for these diffuse ideas and spaces for the elaboration of new ideas If learning processes in local projects are compared and aggregated the cognitive rules at the more global niche level may gradually become more articulated specifi c and stable In this conceptualization a technological niche is not only characterized by protection (which tends to be phased out slowly) but also by the locality and instability of rules and networks The movement to a market niche does not only entail a movement to more exposure to selection pressures but also to more stable shared rules (eg dominant designs)
This conceptualization shifts the attention from single projects and their success or failure to sequences of projects which can accumulate into learning trajectories while also the notion of failure itself becomes more layered since failed projects can contribute to the success of the overall sequence This point is reinforced by Van den Bosch and Taanman (2006) who discuss the importance of a cyclical pattern of learning and network-ing that would help to create a set of more global rules and by Van Eijck and Romijn (2008) who stress the importance of organizing sequences which take into account changes needed in the entire production chain This line of research opens up a range of new topics and questions that
Figure I52 Local projects and global niche-level (Geels and Raven op cit Ref 33 p 378)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Managing Sustainable Innovation Journeys 87
require further investigation in particular in two areas 1) mechanisms and factors that make sequences of projects gel into niche development 2) contributions of interactions among andor between multiple regimes and niches towards regime shifts
These areas have been explored in some recent papers Geels and Raven (2006) argue that sequences of projects are guided by cognitive rules and expectations thus restating the importance of visions albeit not for devel-opments within projects but between projects They also point to changes in external circumstances such as oil prices and the liberalization of the electricity sector that infl uence the adoption and direction of develop-ments Geels and Deuten (2006) emphasize the role of intermediary actors at the community level (eg branch organizations professional societies) who monitor multiple local projects aggregate generic lessons and circu-late knowledge through journals or dedicated workshops and conferences Earlier Van Mierlo (2002) found that Shell was involved in most projects with solar photovoltaics in the Netherlands in the late 1990s This profes-sional actor brought lessons from one project along to the next project Different projects however also compete with each other so actors may not be willing to share learning experiences Secrecy may hamper circula-tion of lessons and experiences This issue of competition leads to a big-ger issue although SNM assumes that diversity is productive for niche development because it enhances learning and network development too much diversity may hamper developments because it creates uncertainty (which prevents full commitments) fragments resources and hampers the emergence of a stable set of rules This dilemma needs more attention in future research
Figure I53 Emerging technical trajectory carried by local projects (Geels and Raven op cit Ref 33 p 379)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
88 Transitions to Sustainable Development
These fi ndings and discussions suggest that the journey from experi-ments to regime shift is more complicated than previously assumed In 2002 Hoogma et al (195ndash196) acknowledged this
For one thing we were certainly over-optimistic about the potential of SNM as a tool for transition The positive circles of feedback by which a technology comes into its own and escapes a technological niche are far weaker than expected and appear to take longer than expected (5 years or more) The experiments did not make actors change their strategies and invest in the further major development of a technology The experiments were relatively isolated events It seems diffi cult for the actors to build bridges Although more could perhaps have been done and achieved there are limits to the power of experiments Only occasionally will an experiment be such a big suc-cess that it will infl uence strategic decisions Experiments may tip the balance of decision-making but they will not change the world in a direct visible way Experiments infl uence the world but do not bring particular futures about Their infl uence is more indirect
(Hoogma et al 2002 195ndash196)
In sum SNM has identifi ed and empirically investigated important niche-internal mechanisms in sustainable innovation journeys While SNM research provides evidence that there is a correlation between the design of experiments and outcomes in terms of technological and market niche development it is also clear that internal niche developments are not the only important factor External factors also play a crucial role Niche-innovations are rarely able to bring about regime transformation without the help of broader forces and processes This conclusion led to a search for concep-tualizations that linked niche internal and external processes This search was done under the heading of the multilevel perspective and developed in parallel with much of the SNM work discussed above
The core notion of the multilevel perspective (MLP) is that transitions come about through interactions between processes at different levels a) niche-innovations build up internal momentum b) changes at the landscape level create pressure on the regime c) destabilization of the regime creates windows of opportunity for niche-innovations The MLP thus corrects the suggestion of the early SNM literature that regime shifts would come about through bottom-up processes of niche expansion Instead alignments of processes at multiple levels are now emphasized Niche-innovations are still important but they can only diffuse more widely if they link up with ongo-ing processes at regime and landscape levels As Shove and Walker (2007) put it ldquothe key idea is that change takes place through processes of co-evolution and mutual adaptation within and between the layersrdquo
In Chapter I4 we suggested the presence of various types of transition pathways This is backed up by SNM research Raven (2006) found that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Managing Sustainable Innovation Journeys 89
niche-innovations may be adopted from the start within the regime to solve certain problems Subsequently further learning processes may lead to more substantial reconfi gurations of the regime Niche innovations thus need not always compete with and substitute for the prevailing regime as was assumed in earlier SNM work and the substitution pathway They may also be incorporated and transform the regime from within (and develop into a reconfi guration pathway) Raven analyzed how biomass was incor-porated in the electricity production regime through co-fi ring with coal Ongoing learning processes and stricter regulatory pressure subsequently triggered further reconfi gurations in the electricity regime The potential for a reconfi guration pathway was also suggested by Smith et al (2007) in a study of organic food and green housing in the UK He found that new practices were initially pioneered by niche actors in relatively secluded spaces (dedicated green activists or architects) Broader regime changes occurred however when the niche lessons were translated and picked up by regime actors
I53 SNM AND ITS POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The research discussed shows that contrary to what SNM approaches would favor many experiments are organized to push for a certain tech-nology and neglect the necessary co-evolutionary dynamics Furthermore experiments are often isolated local projects not connected to a broader strategy to develop a (global) niche An important policy question is how can this structural technology push bias be overcome This is not an easy question since the bias is deeply embedded in the modernist way of manag-ing the introduction of technology in society Ultimately it would require not only a change in the specifi c practice of organizing experiments but also broader institutional and cultural changes particularly in the distri-bution of responsibilities and the organization of relations between state market civil society and science and technology This chapter is not the place to discuss this issue at length We only point to the overlap with Grinrsquos diagnosis in Part III which calls for a new refl exive governance model that appreciates the profound changes that are occurring in the relations between these areas and conclude with him that to evaluate the policy relevance of SNM and TM the question needs to be asked to what extent and in what ways they would benefi t from or be hindered by these profound changes In the remainder of this chapter we focus on providing some comments about the nature and limitations of the policy advice gener-ated within SNM research
SNM was developed to fi nd ways of coping with the policy challenge of nurturing sustainable innovation journeys and transitions Building on fi ndings of the last ten years we conclude that hypotheses about the impor-tance of identifi ed niche internal assumptions are sustained when outcomes
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
90 Transitions to Sustainable Development
of experiments are evaluated retroactively Building on these fi ndings SNM research has generated a lot of policy advice aimed at creating appropriate processes of network development learning and visioning Frequently this advice focuses on generating more appreciation and refl exivity about the ongoing dynamics It does not result in clear-cut recipes but helps iden-tify a number of dilemmas We list a number of them in Table I51 An important contribution of SNM research may thus consist in helping poli-cymakers build competencies in recognizing and dealing with these policy dilemmas For this reason we support the initiative of the Dutch Compe-tence Centre for Transitions in collaboration with the Knowledge Network
Table I51 Policy Dilemmas for Niche Development
Expectations visions
Be fl exible engage in itera-tive visioning exercises adjust visions to circumstances and take advantage of windows of opportunity
Be persistent stick to the vision persist when the going gets tough
Learning Create variety to facilitate broad learning
Too much variety dilutes precious resources and prevents accumu-lation It also creates uncertainty and may delay choicescommit-ments (by consumers policy makers)
Learning Upscaling through bricolage strategy and stepwise learning Disadvantages a) slow b) incremental steps
Upscaling through breakthrough strategy and big leaps to achieve success rapidly Disadvan-tages a) danger of failure b) mis-alignment with selection environment
Network Work with incumbent actors who have many resources competence and lsquomassrsquo Try to change their agenda visions
For radical innovations it is bet-ter to work with outsiders who think lsquoout of the boxrsquo and have new ideas Incumbents have too many vested interests and will try to hinder or encapsulate radical innovations
Protection Protection is needed to enable nurturing of niche-innovations
Do not protect too long and too much This might lead to limited exposure to selection pressures (and the danger of creating white elephants)
Niche-regime interaction
Wait for lsquocracksrsquo in the regime and then vigorously stimulate niche-innovations Until such windows of opportunity arise niches should be nurtured to facilitate stabilisation
Use niche experiences to infl uence perceptions of regime actors and actively create cracks in the regime
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Managing Sustainable Innovation Journeys 91
on Systems Innovations and Transitions to develop a so-called competence kit on experimentation which is to be used in real-life (Dutch) transition practices (Raven et al forthcoming) It remains to be seen however if such instruments actually work in practice and have the intended effects So far SNM has been used primarily for retroactive evaluations of case studies It has not been applied prescriptively in ongoing processes
The research discussed indicates that SNM is not a silver-bullet solution that will bring about transitions towards sustainable development if only because experimenting will not be suffi cient SNM should be seen as a use-ful addition to existing policy instruments that have neglected the value of experiments Other more traditional instruments for inducing sustain-able innovation such as market incentives various forms of regulation and technology forcing also have to play a role Schot et al (1994 see also Van der Laak et al 2007) have formulated some initial ideas about the relative infl uence of different policy strategies on niche-internal development
We would like to add a fi nal comment on the position of researchers in this type of action-oriented research SNM suggests that researchers can act as mobilizers advisors mappers of transition-change dynamics and change agents in the name of sustainable development While SNM recog-nizes that different defi nitions of sustainable development exist it is based on the assumption that sustainable development captures enough common ground to act upon In reaction to this active involvement of SNM (and TM scholars) Shove and Walker (2007 765 for a response to them see also Part II) have critically asked
What are the everyday politics of such an enterprise When and how are the goals of transition management subject to critical scrutiny and by whom Equally important who wins and who loses out as transi-tion are guided in one direction but not another
(Shove and Walker 2007 765)
These are good questions because the politics and power play involved in SNM processes are easily underplayed There is no clear solution however Independent outside positions do not exist This is one reason why open-ended learning processes are emphasized in SNM From this perspective resistance or confl ict is to be expected in transition processes and should also be embraced since it may enhance learning processes and allow for the exploration of different futures Finally the work on SNM (and TM) origi-nates from a particular assessment of the socio-political situation While it is clear that investments in RampD and pilot projects for promising sustain-able development have increased substantially in many sectors (transport energy agri-food) at the beginning of the twenty-fi rst century at the regime level sustainability is not (yet) the main driver or concern In the trans-port regime for instance congestion and safety are higher on the agenda than sustainability even though multi-million dollar RampD programs are
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
92 Transitions to Sustainable Development
conducted on fuel cells and biofuels Major car manufacturers also face strong competition hostile takeovers and rising costs (eg due to pension problems at GM) which receive more attention than sustainability issues In the electricity regime liberalization and privatization are leading con-cerns for regime-actors In addition environmental issues have appeared on the agenda even if they still rank lower than other criteria such as low cost reliability of supply and diversifi cation (Verbong and Geels 2007) These regime diagnoses imply that at the moment sustainability is (still) facing an uphill battle Although warnings about the political dimension of the SNM and TM research are welcome the dilemma is that too much refl exivity may lead to paralysis Political actors who try to deal with the challenge of sustainable development are in need of ideas and approaches that provide handles for addressing the required transition in the way we live and work SNM and TM are answers to this need
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
I6 Refl ectionsProcess Theory Causality and Narrative Explanation
I61 PROCESS THEORY AND VARIANCE THEORY
In this refl ection section we address two questions What kind of theory is the MLP What kinds of explanations does it give There are two general types of explanation 1) outcomes are explained through cause-and-effect explanation and 2) the unfolding of processes is explained by identifying patterns and underlying mechanisms
There are two ways of seeing historical processes more generally One focuses on stochastic realizations and aims to fi nd causes the other focuses on narratives and aims to fi nd typical patterns
(Abbott 2001 164)
These types of explanation are related to variance theory and process the-ory Variance theory explains outcomes as the product of independent vari-ables acting on dependent variables The aim is to explain the variationchange in outcome (dependent variable) as a result of infl uences from causal factors (independent variables) The process approach looks at events rather than causal variables (Abbott 1992) Events are enacted by actors who make decisions undertake actions and react to each other Process theories explain outcomes as the result of temporal sequences of events and the tim-ing and conjunctures of event-chains On this basis they identify patterns and mechanisms Taking the notion of path dependence seriously process theories explain outcomes by tracing the stream of events through which a process unfolds Figure I61 and Table I61 contrast both approaches
Table I61 Variance and Process Approaches (based on Poole et al 2000 36)
Variance approach Process theory
1 Fixed entities with varying attributes Variables do the lsquoactingrsquo
Entities participate in events and may change identity over time Actors do the lsquoactingrsquo
2 Attributes have single meaning over time Entities attributes events may change in meaning over time
3 Time ordering among independent variables is immaterial
Time ordering of independent variables is critical
4 Emphasis on immediate causation Explanations are layered and incorporate both immediate and distant causation
5 Generality depends on uniformity across contexts (search for laws)
Generality depends on versatility across cases (variations within overall pattern)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
94 Transitions to Sustainable Development
They differ in fi ve ways
1) Character of entities In variance theory the world is made up of fi xed entities that maintain a unitary identity through time The entities possess a fi xed set of variable attributes that refl ect signifi cant changes in the entity Variables thus constitute the basic terms and are assumed to do the act-ing The world is thus variabilized ie viewed as consisting of interrelated variables (Poole et al 2000 32) In process theory the world is made up of entities that participate in events and may change their identity Central subjects are individual entities (people groups organizations machines and other material artifacts) Events are what central subjects do or what happens to them Process theories look at events rather than variables while actors do the acting (Abbott 1992)
2) Stability of entities In variance theory attributes have one causal mean-ing throughout the process In process theory the unit of analysis may undergo metamorphosis over time and change meaning Entities may defi ne themselves differently and alter identity and preferences (as a result of expe-riences and learning)
3) Time order In variance theory the temporal sequence in which inde-pendent variables exert infl uence is not important It employs linear com-binations of independent variables to predict dependent variables (Abbott 1988) In process theories the temporal sequence of independent variables is critical The order in which events and causal forces come to bear is cru-cial and may produce different outcomes
4) Causation and explanation Explanations in variance theory emphasize immediate causation A cause is perceived as a force that acts on a unit of analysis This is a push-type causality (Poole et al 2000 33) It is not necessary to know the twists and turns of an entityrsquos history to explain it
Figure I61 Two approaches to explaining processes (Langley 1999 693)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Refl ections 95
In process theory explanation requires the tracing of events twists and turns Events may have different durations When events or processes run longer causal infl uence is more enduring As a result explanations should incorporate layers ranging from immediate to distant explanation Broad structural patterns and trends may need to be incorporated in explana-tions This is why process theories are ldquocausally deeprdquo (Abbott 1988)
5) Generality In variance theories the generality of explanations depends on their ability to apply uniformly across a broad range of contexts The generality of a causal mechanism depends on statistical generalization across many cases (ideally a large-N dataset) In process theory the gener-ality of explanations depends on their versatility the degree to which they can encompass a broad domain of developmental patterns without modi-fi cation of their essential character The broader its domain (the greater variety of cases contexts events and patterns the theory can adapt to) the more general the explanation (Poole et al 2000 43)
I62 PROCESS THEORY AND THE MLP
The MLP is a process theory instead of variance theory Ad 1) Transi-tions are enacted by different social groups Ad 2) Actors change their perceptions of interests preferences and identity during transitions Ad 3) The timing of events and multi-level linkages is important infl uencing the type of transition pathway Ad 4) Explanations in the MLP are lay-ered and involve the tracing of twists and turns and alignments of event sequences and trajectories Ad 5) The MLP has generality because it is versatile and maintains its basic character in different case studies and transition pathways
The MLP is also a process theory because its foundational ontologies (evolution and structuration theory) are historical theories that intrinsi-cally focus on developments over time Variance-theory methods have limited usefulness because transitions are a particular kind of research topic They are macroscopic long-term processes which are relatively rare It is impossible therefore to construct a large database that can be analyzed statistically for correlations between variables Furthermore transitions involve complex dynamics which are diffi cult to explain as simple cause-and-effect relations Process theories seem more appropri-ate because of
a growing interest in complex causal relations such as path de-pendence tipping points multiple interaction effects selection effects disproportionate feedback loops equifi nality (many alternative causal paths to the same outcome) and multifi nality (many outcomes consis-tent with a particular value of one variable)
(George and Bennett 2004 9ndash10)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
96 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Process theory is a general type of explanation Precise explanations of transitions involve many specifi c mechanisms There is no single explana-tory silver bullet Because as we discussed above the MLP has several theoretical roots different kinds of processes can provide explanations (at different time and aggregation levels)
1 The global overall explanation provided by the MLP is about align-ments and linkages between different processes Within levels this expla-nation follows a socio-technical logic investigating interactions between heterogeneous elements and actors (weaving a seamless web) The focus is on co-evolutionary interactions between ongoing trajectories develop-ments in one trajectory (eg regulations) may hinder or stimulate devel-opments in another trajectory (eg technology or markets) Positive and negative feedbacks play a role here
Between levels the explanation is evolutionary in the sense that the dif-fusion of niche-innovations depends on ongoing dynamics in the broader societal environment (regime and landscape) Selection is multi-dimen-sional because it not only involves markets but also regulations cultural and social movements infrastructure and legitimacy So evolution is a link-age process which consists of making alignments between niche-variations and societal selection environments
2 To understand individual trajectories one fi rst needs to investigate the con-text (ie other trajectories at that level and developments at higher or lower levels) Within this context-analysis two further process explanations are possible The fi rst is to analyze trajectories as morphogenetic cycles (Chapter I23) ie event-chains where actors a) draw on structural contexts b) inter-act with each other c) aggregate and select outcomes and d) institutional-ize outcomes in new structures (reproduction or change) The metaphor is socially embedded game playing where actors make moves change tangible elements and reproduce or change the rules of the game The explanation then comes both from the rules of the game and the moves actors make The second explanation is evolutionary based on the generation of variations within populations and their subsequent selection and institutionalization this explanation is especially useful for competition and innovation dynam-ics in fi rm populations which generate technological trajectories
3 To understand particular events variations or local projects one needs to zoom in further and look at specifi c actors Structuration theory can provide detailed process explanations by analyzing how actors draw upon structures in which they are embedded (Stones 2005) Motivations per-ceptions aims and interests of specifi c actors play a role here While such detailed explanations may be useful for the analysis of local projects and niches they are less practical for entire transitions (since it is practically impossible to study thousands of actors over 50-year periods)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Refl ections 97
Analysts should thus mobilize different process explanations for differ-ent questions and topics depending on time scales and aggregation levels (Zaheer et al 1999) In general analysts should not over-emphasize indi-vidual actions when it comes to entire transitions Although agency is impor-tant turning points usually depend on broader structural opportunities
Since all structures are continuously re-enacted it will happen from time to time that several local structures under a larger one might be simultaneously disconnected and their own reproduction prevented This leaves an opening for action a new juncture that might assemble their constituent parts in a new way If some actor takes that action the result could be a minor turning point the larger structure going on invulnerable But once in a while this minor turning point may line up with other minor turning points to create an opening in the overarch-ing master structure Then we have a potential major turning point in which the whole general regime can change if the proper action is taken But just as all reproduction hinges on continuous action so a potential turning point becomes actual only if the action is taken that makes it so Many potential revolutions fail for want of attempt just as many attempted revolutions fail for want of structural opportunity Only after the action has been taken that turns the key can we speak of the turning point as having occurred It is in this dialogue of structural possibility and action that turning points are defi ned
(Abbott 2001 257ndash258)
I63 NARRATIVE EXPLANATION
Instead of process theory process-oriented scholars often also use the term ldquonarrative explanationrdquo (Griffi n 1993 Calhoun 1998 Pentland 1999 Abell 2004) The strength of a narrative is that it can capture complex interactions between agency and changing contexts time event sequences making moves in games and identities Narratives are always about something or someone who has certain aims undertakes action learns and adjusts
Theorizing the social process via narrative is a deep tradition in both history and sociology If there is any one idea central to historical ways of thinking it is that the order of things makes a difference that real-ity occurs not as time-bounded snapshots within which ldquocausesrdquo affect one another but as stories cascades of events And events in this sense are not single properties or simple things but complex conjunc-tures in which complex actors encounter complex structures On this argument there is never any level at which things are standing still All is historical Furthermore there are no independent causes Since no
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
98 Transitions to Sustainable Development
cause ever acts except in complex conjunctures with others it is chi-meral to imagine the world in terms of independent causal properties acting in and through independent cases
(Abbott 2001 227)
Narrative explanation takes the form of an unfolding open-ended story fraught with conjunctures and contingency where what hap-pens an action in fact happens because of its order and position in the story Narrative therefore permits a form of sequential causation that allows for twisting varied and heterogeneous time paths to a particu-lar outcome
(Griffi n 1993 1099)
Not all narratives can be seen as process theories however Some narratives only describe ldquoone damn thing after anotherrdquo For this reason Skocpol (1994 332) has warned for an unrefl exive turn to narrative
To advise people to write ldquonarrativesrdquo is really to advise nothing For narratives can be structured in many many ways It takes powerful investigative (and justifi catory) methods as well as a rich array of ever-refi ned theoretical ideas to fi gure out what ldquostructuresrdquo and ldquoconjunc-turesrdquo count and which happenings are transformative as opposed to merely humdrum
(Skocpol 1994 332)
Narrative explanations need to make explicit use of theory Explanations in the MLP do this in two complementary ways First the global model of the MLP provides a framework that specifi es a plot with particular elements and processes As Pedriana explains
Narratives are not just sequences of events but are tied together by a central theme I argue that the contextual framework can serve as a theoreticalexplanatory theme that endures throughout the analysis in ways that discipline the narrative
(Pedriana 2005 357)
The transition pathways articulate more specifi c plots that guide narrative explanations Second the sub-processes in morphogenetic cycles provide a local internal logic that explains connections between events These local narrative explanations should explicate a) How is the game structured Who are the most important players What are their cognitive frames interests resources b) What options and possibilities do actors have Which actions are chosen and why How do they react to each other c) What are the broader effects of actions d) Are structural changes accepted and institutionalized When global trajectories are stable these narrative
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Refl ections 99
explanations are predictable less important or can remain superfi cial But for turning points discontinuities ldquoforks in the roadrdquo accelerations or twists and turns the analyst should zoom in and analyze the precise mech-anisms in morphogenetic cycles
The narrative causality of the MLP is probabilistic While the MLP spec-ifi es general forms of transitions specifi c patterns and speed depend on local event sequences and conjunctures Narrative causality does not exert deterministic infl uence over events (Poole et al 2000) Even when struc-tural alignments raise the probability of transitions actors may or may not take advantage of windows of opportunity
I64 CASE STUDIES PROCESS TRACING AND TYPOLOGICAL THEORY
Transitions are processes that unfold over time involving structural change and non-linearities Investigations of this kind of phenomenon require a research method that is rich in context and tracks complex developments over time Case studies are seen to provide such a method because they allow detailed process tracing (study of event sequences) exploration of patterns and testing of rival theories (Yin 1994 George and Bennett 2004) Case studies do not immediately deliver explanations The empirical procedure of process tracing needs to be converted into more theoretical arguments To that end George and Bennett (2004 210ndash212) distinguish four progres-sive steps 1) Detailed narrative (case history) presented in the form of a chronicle Such a narrative is specifi c and makes no explicit use of theory 2) Use of hypotheses and theoretical mechanisms to explain parts of the narrative 3) Analytic explanation a historical narrative of a specifi c case is converted into an analytical explanation by identifying an overall pattern that is couched in explicit theoretical forms 4) More general explanation about the phenomena of which the case is a case the particular case study is used to develop theoretical arguments about a general phenomenon
This conversion works towards generalization thus addressing a possible weakness of case studies (generalizability) The identifi cation of patterns and mechanisms is crucial in this conversion process as several scholars have noted
And this is where the central challenge lies moving from a shapeless data spaghetti toward some kind of theoretical understanding that does not betray the richness dynamism and complexity of the data
(Langley 1999 694)
Process methods must convert a heap of confusing data into a synthetic account in which the reader can comprehend all the data in a single act of understanding This requires the ability to recognize recurrent
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
100 Transitions to Sustainable Development
patterns in event sequences to establish necessary conditions and to identify formal and fi nal causation
(Poole et al 2000 54)
The case study goes beyond the case history in attempting a range of analytical purposes Firstly there is a search for patterns in the process and presumably some attempt to compare the shape character and in-cidence of this pattern in case A compared with case B Secondly there is a quest to fi nd the underlying mechanisms which shape any pattern-ing in the observed processes The teasing out of these mechanisms represents one of the greatest inductive challenges for process schol-ars and an area of intellectual challenge
(Pettigrew 1997)
This characterizes our work well Our cases go beyond historical descrip-tions because they identify patterns and mechanisms and a typology of transition pathways This work can be seen as a typological theory Such a theory provides a rich and differentiated depiction of a particular phenom-enon As George and Bennett explain
Typological theory identifi es both actual and potential conjunctions of variables or sequences of events and linkages between causes and effects that may recur In other words it specifi es generalized path-ways A pathway is characterized in terms of variables often with nominal cut off points distinguishing among types Such general-ized pathways are what is distinctive about typological theory They are abstract and theoretical even though they are closer to concrete historical explanations than are claims about causal mechanisms
(George and Bennett 2004 236)
Typological theory is a form of confi guration analysis which acknowledges that the entities being classifi ed are too complex to decompose into vari-ables They are premised on the assumption that the character of an entity emerges from the entire confi guration of its properties and their interrela-tionships (Poole et al 2000 44) The construction of a clean 2x2 matrix is not possible because too many entities and processes are involved Instead multiple variables are combined in confi gurations that have an inherent logic that binds them together (eg archetypes ideal types)
I65 CODA THE SOCIOLOGICAL IMAGINATION
The MLP has been criticized in recent articles for its heuristic and descrip-tive nature and a presumed lack of attention for politics and agency (Smith 2005 Genus and Coles 2008) The latter criticism however is too easy and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Refl ections 101
does not acknowledge the specifi city of the transitions research topic We could easily turn the criticism around and ask what constructivist micro-studies have to say about the entire process of long-term socio-technical transitions To address this well-rehearsed micro-macro dilemma we characterized our work on the MLP and transition pathways as a global theory that addresses the overall course of long-term change processes but also acknowledged that this needs to be complemented by local theories which help to analyze how actors navigate struggle and negotiate on spe-cifi c alternatives Furthermore our new work in this volume (section I3) discusses in some more detail the role of agency in the MLP using insights from STS evolutionary theory neo-institutional theory and structuration theory We also want to remark that in our studies that zoom in on the micro-level agency is clearly visible (eg Van Driel and Schot 2005 Raven 2005 Geels 2005b Geels 2006a)
Our critics are right in pointing at the heuristic value of our work We take this as a compliment since we have pushed for a process theory in which theories are used as tools for the development of narrative explana-tions as explained above Research of complex phenomena such as transi-tions cannot be reduced to the straitjacket of a variance theory and will always contain elements of creative interpretation by the analysts
Almost 50 years ago C Wright Mills (1959) complained about a ldquogen-eral malaise of contemporary intellectual liferdquo (p 19) diagnosing that sociology was divided between ldquogrand theoryrdquo which addressed a ldquolevel of thinking so general that its practitioners cannot logically get down to observationrdquo (p 33) and ldquoabstracted empiricismrdquo which focused on data collection and statistical correlations As a middle way between both extremes Mills suggested ldquosociological imaginationrdquo This sociological imagination is also required for the study of patterns and mechanisms in transitions Although improved and more rigorous methods have emerged in the last decade process theory and narrative explanation will always remain crafts (to some extent) They cannot and should not be reduced to technical procedures with the analyst entering data and results being produced automatically Process analysis and narrative explanation always involve pattern recognition which to some degree entails interpretation One can criticize this as subjective but also appreciate that it leaves space for creativity and sociological imagination Especially when addressing a new topic such as transitions these aspects are important
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Part II
Towards a Better Understanding of Transitions and Their GovernanceA Systemic and Refl exive ApproachJan Rotmans and Derk Loorbach
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
II1 Introduction
II11 STRUCTURE OF THE ARGUMENT
In this part of the book we investigate social transitions from a systemic viewpoint or more specifi cally from a systems-based and process-oriented perspective Our basic premise is that transitions involve structural changes in sub-systems of our society This is why we study a particular kind of change transformative change at the systems level Furthermore we explicitly take the normative orientation of sustainable development into account studying social transitions towards sustainability The primary research angle is that of Integrated Assessment (Rotmans 1998 Weaver and Rotmans 2006) an integrated systems analysis embedded in a partici-patory process context Over the last decade the fi eld of Integrated Assess-ment has evolved into two directions the emergence of complex systems science and the normative orientation towards sustainability While the lat-ter resulted in a particular form of Integrated Assessment known as Inte-grated Sustainability Assessment (Weaver and Rotmans 2006) the fi rst led to a new form of systems analysis complex integrated systems analysis For studying the explicit normative sustainability orientation we also rely on insights from new modes of governance
To organize our argument here we start from both directions of Inte-grated Assessment After a general introduction in which we provide defi ni-tions and interpretations and contextualize the research we offer a complex integrated systems perspective on social transitions Next we present a conceptual framework for analyzing and governing transitions This is fol-lowed by a discussion of the framework for transition management using insights from complex systems theory as well as governance theory Subse-quently we provide the empirical grounding of this framework through an in-depth discussion of two different case studies They address respectively current ongoing developments in a specifi c sector (energy) and a particular region (Parkstad Limburg) Finally we end with a critical assessment of the development and prospects of transition management
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
106 Transitions to Sustainable Development
I12 NATURE OF THE RESEARCH
The research presented here has two pillars (i) research into the non-linear dynamics of transitions (ii) research into the governance of transitions The overall aim is to describe and explain the dynamics of transition patterns and their underlying mechanisms which provides levers for infl uencing them at various levels and with various instruments The basic assumption of our systemic approach is that a better understanding of the functioning of societal systems provides insight into the possibilities of directing these systems This implies an analytical as well as a process-oriented partici-pative component The analytical component of research into transitions focuses on tracing recognizing and measuring transition patternsmdashnot in the classical deterministic sense but in the co-evolutionary sense making use of recent insights derived from complexity theory The process com-ponent of research into transitions concerns the steering of transition pro-cesses using the focused infl uence of actors at various scale levels based on insights gained from the practice of new forms of governance As a link between the formalized deductive abstractions of complexity theory and the inductive often empirically developed management concepts of gover-nance we make use of knowledge from sociological fi elds that deal with social systems This approach focuses on the strong interactions between actors structures and practices and the interrelated complexity of manag-ing social systems
In this research the concept of transition management and the frame-work for using transition management in practice are key elements Instead of pretending to direct societal systems in a command-and-control manner transition management claims that it is possible to infl uence the direction and pace of transformative change of societal systems in subtle ways by a series of interventions at different levels using different instruments
Transition management both as a concept and as a framework for action is a result of a co-evolution between theory and practice In fact we started out with a rough untested prescriptive framework that was based on insights from integrated systems theory and complex systems theory This rough version was tested in a fi rst regional case study involving Parkstad Limburg This led to adjustments in our framework which was extended and refi ned while insights from governance theory were added as well If for example from a theoretical angle it seemed necessary to develop a shared long-term orientation to guide short-term actions the translation of this concern into an operational model was primarily based on practical experience followed by systematic refl ection The improved version of the framework was tested in other cases which again led to fur-ther adjustments etc In this way actual practices provided the context for testing theoretical ideas while simultaneous experimenting with different methods and instruments led to adjustments of the theoretical concepts and eventually to a more coherent and consistent theoretical framework
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Introduction 107
Throughout our research we pursued a balance between a deductive theo-retical approach and an inductive empirical one A wide ranged series of case studies generated rich empirical materials that were used in the fi elds of energy supply biodiversity agriculture mobility water management waste management regional development and living and housing Here we will extensively present two of our case studies and briefl y touch upon some other examples
The nature of the research presented here is exploratory we investigate research questions and concepts and test research hypotheses that have not yet been fi nalized but will be further developed and adjusted as part of the explorative research effort This means we start with provisional transition concepts that may well be adjusted in the course of the research process It also implies that the basic analytical and management concepts underlying transition research deducted from different theories have only been tested and implemented on a limited scale Further testing and implementation will lead to re-adjustment of the theoretical principles based on what we learn in actual studies As such this research is both deductive and induc-tive it involves a parallel track of deducing abstractions from complexity theory social theory and governance theory and inducing practical frame-works tools and instruments from empirical data and observations in case studies A crucial link between the deductive and inductive approach is the social learning process through learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning these two approaches can be synthesized (see Figure II11)
This research is multi- and interdisciplinary by nature and requires a repertoire of methodologies Theory development is done by integrating divergent research principles coherently consistently and transparently in which Integrated Assessment plays a key role (Rotmans 2006) Theory review is done through empirical case-study research Comparative analy-sis is important because it allows one to juxtapose transition processes in various domains countries or regions Our transdisciplinary approach does not only rely on the input of scientifi c knowledge and expertise but also on participatory research Because transition research also seeks to contribute to a more sustainable society action research plays a prominent role as well The exchange of knowledge between scientists and societal actors to which our approach gives rise does not follow a linear path but rather entails a societal process of co-production between the parties involved
II13 CONTEXT DEFINITIONS AND TYPOLOGY
Modern societies face a number of persistent problems symptoms of which are becoming more and more apparent Persistent problems are complex because of their deep entrenchment in societal structures and their hardly reducible structural uncertainty these problems are also diffi cult to man-age given the variety of actors with diverse interests involved and hard
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
108 Transitions to Sustainable Development
to grasp in the sense that they are diffi cult to interpret and ill-structured (Dirven et al 2002) One could say that persistent problems as Rittel and Webber have suggested are the superlative form of wicked problems (Rit-tel et al 1973) Basically these problems may occur in every activity or domain of society such as the energy supply with which the persistent problem of anthropogenic climate change is closely associated and agricul-ture as refl ected in for instance the prevalence of infectious animal diseases such as bird fl u mad cow disease and foot-and-mouth disease Indeed many persistent problems can be interpreted as symptoms of an unsustain-able society
Most of these persistent problems cannot be solved by relying on current policies alone (SER 2001 VROM 2001b) Persistent problems are related to systemic failures that have crept into our societal systems which con-trary to market failures cannot be corrected by the market or conventional policies If the existing policies are necessary much more is needed In order to combat system failures a restructuring of our societal systems is required which in turn calls for transitions A transition is a radical struc-tural change of a societal (sub)system that is the result of a co-evolution of economic cultural technological ecological and institutional develop-ments at different scale-levels (Rotmans et al 2001b) Such an ideal-typical transition pathway however is rather the exception than the rule In most cases a system will get stuck somewhere it follows a sub-optimal path digs itself in even deeper and eventually it will collapse and die (Rotmans et al 2005)
The persistence of particular problems thus provides the societal con-text of our transition research Against this background we characterize a transition in systemic terms as an intricate web of fast and slow develop-ments as a result of positive and negative feedback mechanisms that spans one or two generations (25ndash50 years) In a transition a societal system is successfully adjusted to changed internal and external circumstances and the system thus arrives at a higher order of organization and complexity (Rotmans 2006) In transition language we call the deep structure the incumbent regime a conglomerate of structure (institutional and physical setting) culture (prevailing perspective) and practices (rules routines and habits) And we denote an emergent structure as a niche (small group of niche agents) that might build up niche regimes that are ultimately capable of breaking down the incumbent regime and establishing a new regime (Van der Brugge 2009) Newcomers have not yet been molded by the exist-ing equilibrium and are therefore able to break through it but for this they need to be shielded in a protected environment or in our vocabulary in an arena
Transition management then is the attempt to infl uence the societal system into a more sustainable direction ultimately resolving the persis-tent problem(s) involved But because there are no ready-made solutions
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Introduction 109
for persistent problems we can only explore promising future options and directions Managing transitions therefore implies searching learning and experimenting As such transition management is a quest not a recipe for robust solutions Managing transitions might seem to be a contradiction in terms due to the inherent complexity uncertainty chaos and the conse-quent low level of control we can exercise From a traditional point of view it is possible to establish that direct infl uence power and control seem less effective in bringing about desired change in a straightforward manner From the angle of complex systems thinking however unexpected side-effects or spin-offs are to be expected by defi nition even if their precise content cannot be calculated
We defi ne a transition as a fundamental change in structure culture and practices (Loorbach and Rotmans 2006 Frantzeskaki and De Haan 2009) Our notion of structure should be understood broadly including physical infrastructure (physical stocks and fl ows) economic infrastructure (market consumption production) and institutions (rules regulations collective actors such as organizations and individual actors) Structure is recursive it is both the result and means of acting Our notion of culture refers to the collective set of values norms perspective (in terms of coher-ent shared orientation) and paradigm (in terms of way of defi ning problems and solutions) In our transition context then culture has a quite specifi c meaning one that differs from the traditional sociological conceptualiza-tion of culture And fi nally our notion of practices refers to the ensemble of production routines behavior ways of handling and implementation at the individual level including self-refl ection and refl exive dialogue In earlier publications (Rotmans 2006) we defi ned transitions as a mutual interplay between structures actors and practices The element of culture however is of importance because a transition often involves a change in mind-set or perspective which by now we can denote explicitly
A transition implies a long-term radical but incremental change at both the systems level and the actor level Both aspects ie the systems and actor aspects will be represented in our transition research Transitional change arises from changes in agent behavior and changes in system behavior our approach takes as its starting point the idea of co-evolution between the agent behavior and systems behavior In the agency-structure duality (Gid-dens 1984) we assume agency as being shaped by structure and culture but agency also forms the constellation of structure and culture (see also Figure II11) Although we do not adopt a theoretical position on the role of structure versus agency in our complex systems-based approach agents are a part of structure and are intrinsically linked to culture Obviously struc-ture culture and practices are embedded and can not be separated from each other It is important however to make this distinction from the angle of analyzing and managing transitions (see fi gure II12 which offers a set of indicators of the stage in which a specifi c transition is supposed to be)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
110 Transitions to Sustainable Development
We defi ne a regime as a dominant set of structure culture and practices This differs from other defi nitions and interpretations of a regime such as given by Geels (2002) and Rip and Kemp (1998) It also differs from our earlier defi nition of a regime as a constellation of dominant practices rules and shared assumptions (Rotmans et al 2001) which act as a homog-enizing infl uence on actors (eg Van den Hoed and Vergragt 2004) The regimersquos cognitive normative and regulative institutions act to establish and reinforce stability and cohesion of societal systems but they also limit innovation to localized incremental improvements (Geels 2005b) Transi-tions research has identifi ed nichesmdashindividual technologies practices and actors outside or peripheral to the regimemdashas the loci for radical inno-vation (Rotmans et al 2000 Geels 2005a Geels 2005b Smith 2005) The regime may be threatened from the niche level or from changes at the broader landscape level of economic ecological and cultural trends or from internal misalignment amongst regime actors (Geels 2005b) Once a threat is recognized regime actors will mobilize resources from within the regime and in some cases from within niches to respond to it (Smith 2005 Geels and Schot 2007) A transition occurs when a regime is trans-formed or replaced
So far we have defi ned the terms ldquotransitionrdquo and ldquosystem innovationsrdquo rather broadly which makes these concepts appear somewhat ambigu-ous In various literature on transitions however the term ldquotransitionrdquo is
Figure II11 Transition as a shift in structure culture and practices (courtesy Van Raak 2008)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Introduction 111
usually not defi ned at all but simply used as a umbrella for a multiplicity of phenomena (Van der Brugge 2009) This indicates a need for a clear demarcation of the various types of transitions as observed by Berkhout (Berkhout et al 2004) among others who rightly acknowledged that there is a need for a more precise delineation of the vast fi eld of transitions We have therefore ventured to draw up a typology of transitions based on initial efforts made by others as refl ected in the literature This was not motivated by a desire to pretend to have developed the ultimate typology but by the ambition to once again take the discussion a step further A use-ful point of departure for a typology is the distinction made by Boulding (Boulding 1970) between various types of transformation processes He distinguished (i) accidental (ii) deterministic (iii) evolutionary (iv) dialec-tic and (v) teleological or target-oriented transitions
An example of a coincidental or accidental transition is the change in sexual behavior which followed the discovery of AIDS An example of a deterministic transition is the demographic transition from high birthrates and high mortality rates to low birth and mortality rates characterized by urbanization and aging as a result of a social modernization process marked by changes in lifestyle education healthcare hygiene womenrsquos job market participation economic development and family planning An example of an evolutionary transitionmdashcharacterized by the evolutionary mechanism of mutation and selectionmdashis the switch from an industrial to a service-ori-ented economy by which numerous companies and effi cient practices cus-toms and products are selected fed by the urge for innovation It is diffi cult to cite a specifi c example of a dialectic transition but a general example is a revolution Finally teleological or target-oriented transitions are inspired by a preconceived goal and this may include infrastructural transitions such as the switch from coal to natural gas for home heating where the ultimate objective was reasonably clearmdashone towards which the national govern-ment and private parties could effectively work (Verbong 2000)
Berkhout cum suis (Berkhout et al 2004) distinguish various con-texts for transitions in which two dimensions are identifi ed the avail-ability of resources and the degree of coordination This gives rise to the following classifi cation (i) emergent transitions analogous to evolution-ary transitions without much coordination from actors for instance around the introduction of genetic modifi cation in the food and phar-maceuticals sectors (ii) targeted transitions analogous to teleological transitions with a great deal of coordination of actors as was the case in the nuclear energy sector
From these efforts we have deduced the following dimensions for a transition typology The fi rst dimension involves teleological versus emer-gent the second dimension refl ects the degree of coordination from high to low and the third dimension corresponds to the level of aggregation (high covering a whole sector or even society versus low covering a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
112 Transitions to Sustainable Development
small part of a sector or a specifi c technology) Using the metaphor of a cartwheel (roughly translated according to Philip van Nottenrsquos cartwheel scenario (Van Notten 2005) we can identify eight different types of tran-sitions from emergent hardly coordinated and highly aggregated transi-tions such as the Internet revolution to teleological highly coordinated and slightly aggregated transitions such as the transition from coal to gas This is shown in Figure II1 2
It is striking that current transitions (energy agriculture mobility and biodiversity) which are part of Dutch transition policies differ in certain key dimensions according to this typology They are similar with respect to the degree of coordination (high with much interference from the gov-ernment) and the level of aggregation (high ie geared towards an integral approach at the domain or sector level) but this is not the case with regard to the degree of specifi c focus The energy transition appears to be more targeted than the mobility transition and also more targeted than the agri-cultural transition We also notice the atypical character of the water tran-sition which itself is by far less coordinated than the energy or agricultural transition Equally striking is the fact that most of the transitions that aremdashor weremdashthe subject of research are less aggregated barely coordinated
Figure II12 A typology of transitions (Rotmans 2006)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Introduction 113
emergent transitions Of course one can argue about the typology as well as about the allocation of the transitions to the various dimensions while the demarcation between the various types of transitions is not always easy to defi ne because of the overlap between them Nonetheless this typology is a useful tool which makes it possible to compare the various types of transition and also to refi ne and make the often general discussions on transitions more specifi c
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
II2 A Complex Integrated Systems Perspective
II21 FROM SYSTEMS TO COMPLEX SYSTEMS
Complexity theory otherwise known as complex systems theory has its roots in the general systems theory that Von Bertalanffy (1968) published in the 1930s Systems theory is an interdisciplinary fi eld of science that studies the nature of complex systems in society nature science and technology It provides a framework for analyzing a group of interrelated components that infl uence each other such as a sector branch city organism or even a society Systems theory evolved over the last century The fi rst generation roughly from the beginning until the 1960s focused on general systems theory and was quite deterministic arising from cybernetics and control engineering which often led to blueprint thinking Topics like complexity self-organization emergence and adaptive systems were already studied in the 1940s and 1950s albeit only as niche-studies
General systems theory departs from the interpretation of a system as a representation of a part of reality that is bounded vis-agrave-vis its surroundings and consists of a number of entities (components) that interact with each other (Young 1964) An entity is a part of the system that can be speci-fi ed by defi ning its properties The state of a system at a given moment in time is denoted by the values of relevant properties of its entities A process is defi ned as a time-dependent relation that changes the state of a system (Ackoff 1971) A sub-system is an element of a larger system which fulfi ls the conditions of a system itself but which also plays a role in the opera-tion of a larger system It is important to note that a system is a subjective refl ection of the researcherrsquos observations and that as a result there are as many interpretations of a system as there are observers (Rotmans and De Vries 1997)
In the 1960s and 1970s system dynamics arose as a particularly useful technique for describing systems composed of many entities and feedback loops (Forrester 1961 Forrester 1968 Goodman 1974) In system dynam-ics a key distinction is between state variables (stocks) and rate variables (fl ows) Stocks represent the state of a system at an arbitrary point in time and they change fairly slowly compared to their own volume Flows which
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Complex Integrated Systems Perspective 115
represent processes that relate the various stocks to each other change relatively fast A system is a composition of interrelated stocks and fl ows The fi rst Report to the Club of Rome ldquoLimits to Growthrdquo (Meadows et al 1972) can be considered an important milestone in global thinking it was based on a global model World3 that was based on systems dynam-ics describing major interrelations between socio-economic demographic and environmental stocks and fl ows on a global scale The report explored many relationships between unlike processes at the global level which had never been tried in a quantitative manner before Despite its originality this integrated systems approach was highly deterministic purely quantitative and engineering-type quasi-objective monistic and not very refl exive
In the 1970s and 1980s integrated systems theory became an impor-tant fi eld focusing on the integration of social economic and ecological processes (Holling 1978 Hordijk 1985 Rotmans 1990) An integrated systems approach aims to integrate physical economic social-cultural and sometimes fi nancial stocks and fl ows Intrinsic to this approach is the synoptic worldview that humans are positioned above or next to the inte-grated system like a switchman next to his switchboard Gradually the integrated systems approach became more probabilistic addressing uncer-tainties explicitly in an often probabilistic manner During the 1970s and 1980s soft systems theory emerged taking a qualitative approach rather than a quantitative approach mostly applied to companies and organiza-tions (Senge 1990)
The emerging fi eld of Integrated Assessment comprised put simply an integrated systems analysis embedded in a process context The fi rst gener-ation of Integrated Assessments was centered around models in particular addressing environmental issues Among the fi rst were the RAINS model of acidifi cation in Europe and the IMAGE model for global climate change (Alcamo and Bartnicki 1985 Rotmans 1990 Alcamo 1994) These IA-models were used in Integrated Assessments for acidifi cation and global cli-mate change that somehow infl uenced decision-making processes in these fi elds The current generation of Integrated Assessments can be portrayed as integrated systems analysis embedded in a participatory-based stake-holder context This went along with the emerging usage of participatory methods within IArsquos over the last decade It was realized more and more that Integrated Assessments required different kinds of knowledge not only expert knowledge but also tacit knowledge and empirical knowledge by stakeholders It also was acknowledged more broadly that IA-models covered a complex reality only in part and that they should be comple-mented by participatory methods which could deliver narrative and dialec-tical knowledge to better represent complex realities (Rotmans 2006)
In the early 1990s complex systems theory was introduced focusing on the co-evolutionary development of systems The establishment of the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico in the United States in 1984 functioned as incubator for a new research movement which provided the foundation
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
116 Transitions to Sustainable Development
of complex systems theory (Holland 1995 Kauffman 1995) Although the theory is far from mature it has attracted a great deal of attention and has many applications in diverse research fi elds in biology (Kauffman 1995) economics (Arthur et al 1997) ecology (Gunderson and Holling 2002 Kay et al 1999) public administration (Kickert 1991 Teisman 1992) and policy analysis (Geldof 2002 Rotmans 2003 Van der Brugge 2009) Complex systems have the following characteristics as drawn from Holling (1978) Prigogine and Stengers (1984) Holland (1995) and Kauff-man (1995)
Complex systems are open systems that interact with their environment This takes place through a constant import and export of matter energy and information across system boundaries It is usually diffi cult to deter-mine the boundaries of a complex system A decision in this respect is often based on the observerrsquos needs and prejudices rather than on some intrinsic property of the system itself
A complex system constantly evolves and unfolds over time Because of this complex systems are usually far from a state of equilibrium even though there is constant change there is also the appearance of stability
Complex systems contain many diverse components and interactions between components These interactions are non-linear There are no sim-ple cause-and-effect relationships between components A small stimulus may cause a large effect or no effect at all while conversely a big stimulus may cause a small effect
Complex systems contain feedback loops Both negative (damping) and positive (amplifying) feedbacks are key ingredients of complex systems The effects of a componentrsquos behavior are fed back to it in such a way that the component itself is altered
The components cannot contain the whole There is a sense in which components in a complex system cannot ldquoknowrdquo what is happening in the system as a whole If they could all the complexity would have to be pres-ent in that component This is impossible however because the complexity is created by the relationships between components A corollary of this is that no component in the system can ever hope to control the system
Complex systems have a history The history of a complex system is important and cannot be ignored Prior states have an infl uence on present states which in turn infl uence future states This creates path dependence where current and future states depend on the path of previous states
Complex systems are nested and encompass various organizational lev-els This means that the components of the systems are themselves complex systems They have emergent properties ie higher level structures arise from interaction between lower level components
Complex systems have multiple attractors An attractor is a steady sys-temrsquos preferred state to which a complex system evolves after a long enough time Attractors thus describe the long-term behavior of a complex system Geometrically an attractor can be a fi xed point such as a target state a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Complex Integrated Systems Perspective 117
curve a manifold or even a complicated set with chaotic behavior known as a strange attractor Equilibrium behavior corresponds to fi xed-point attractors in which all trajectories starting from the appropriate basin of attraction eventually converge onto a single point
An example of a complex system is an ecosystem The components (agents) in an ecosystem are individual organisms or entire species depend-ing on onersquos viewpoint There is a variety of interactions among these agents The traditional focus is on the predator-prey interactions But there is also competition among agents for resources like food or space or for mates And there is a symbiotic relationship among agents Emer-gent behavior in ecosystems can be considered at different levels The very structure of an ecosystem itself is an emergent property The fact that there are many competing species rather than only a single one is the result of species interactions Competition and cooperation between species make it advantageous for species to inhabit restricted niches feeding on specifi c resources or living in particular environments But also behavior of plants and animals is the result of interactions and can also be considered as an emergent property In more general terms evolution is the classic example of emergent behavior (Mitchell and Newman 2002)
II22 COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEMS
Complex adaptive systems are special types of complex systems They are adaptive in the sense that they have the capacity to change and learn from experience Formulated otherwise they are able to respond to and adjust themselves to changes in their environment What makes a complex adap-tive system special is the set of constantly adapting non-linear relationships Examples of complex adaptive systems are the stock market ant colonies living organisms cities the human brain business companies political parties and communities
Complex adaptive systems contain special objects or agents that inter-act with each other and adapt themselves to other agents and changing conditions Agents are semi-autonomous entities (units) that constantly act and react to what the other agents are doing Agents may represent cells species individuals fi rms or nations which compete and cooperate with each other and determine the dynamic behavior of the system The overall behavior of a complex adaptive system is the result of a number of decisions made every moment by individual agents
In complex adaptive systems the agents as well as the system are adap-tive the system is self-similar which means that the whole system has the same shape as one or more of the sub-systems As a result complex adap-tive systems have unique features such as co-evolution emergence and self-organization Complex adaptive systems are essentially evolution-ary grounded in modern biological views on adaptation and evolution
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
118 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Complex systems theory bridges principles of systems theory with Dar-winian principles of evolution
Complex adaptive systems continuously adapt to their changing envi-ronment Any kind of adaptation and all self-organization (see below) involves variation and selection internal to the system Most of the time complex adaptive systems are in a period of dynamic equilibrium with ongoing variation and selection but with selection as the predominating mechanism External stimuli force the system to shift (across the chaotic edge) to a relatively short phase of instability and chaos (punctuated equi-libria) where variation predominates We can express system variation in terms of diversity (variation at the agent level) and heterogeneity (differen-tiation at the systemrsquos level) Diversity and heterogeneity are key features of complex adaptive systems diversity of components of relations of systems behavior etc This is consistent with the law of requisite variety (Ashby 1958) which posits that system variation needs to match the corresponding features of environmental demands if organization and collective action are to be effective Acknowledging the centrality of heterogeneity is also consistent with the actor-network theory which along with diffusion of innovation theory points to the alignment of social and technical systems in heterogeneous networks According to Holland (1995) diversity in com-plex adaptive systems is a dynamic pattern often persistent and coherent and the product of progressive adaptations Each adaptation opens the pos-sibility for new interactions and opportunities for new interactions
In any complex adaptive system then there is a source of variation Com-plex adaptive systems constantly create variety in terms of creating new components and relations providing a source of novelty in these systems Selection ensures the systemrsquos dynamic equilibrium by preventing variation or by pushing it into a certain direction (Green 1994) The selection pro-cess implies that the system preferentially retainsdiscards variations which enhancedecrease its fi tness (internalized measure for success and failure)
We now discuss in more detail complex adaptive systems in terms of describing three key features co-evolution emergence and self-organization In the biological or economic context co-evolution refers to mutual selec-tion of two or more evolving populations (Van den Bergh and Stagl 2004) In the complex systems context however we speak of co-evolution if the interaction between different systems infl uences the dynamics of the indi-vidual systems leading to irreversible patterns of change within each of the systems (Kemp et al 2007) The irreversibility aspect distinguishes co-evolution from co-production which indicates mere interaction Co-evolution means that a complex system co-evolves with its environment (which in turn consists of complex systems) referring to interdependencies and positive feedbacks between the complex system and its environment (Mitleton-Kelly 2003) In such a co-evolutionary process both competition and cooperation have a role to play
Emergence can be defi ned as the arising of novel and coherent struc-tures patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Complex Integrated Systems Perspective 119
complex systems (Goldstein 1999 De Haan 2006) Common character-istics of emergence are radical novelty integrated wholeness macro-level operation dynamic evolvement and ostensibility ie it can be perceived A general distinction is made between weak and strong emergence Weak emergence refers to the appearance of a new structure pattern or property on a higher level as a result of interactions between components at a lower level Strong emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent prop-erty is irreducible to its individual components Strong emergence implies the following logic if systems have properties not directly traceable to the systemrsquos components but rather to how those components interact it is dif-fi cult to account for an emergent propertyrsquos cause In our argument below we will focus on weak emergence
Emergent behavior can appear when a number of components (agents) operate in an environment forming more complex behaviors as a collective Usually emergence occurs as a result of a causal relation across different (spatial or functional) scales One often distinguishes between a macro-level at which there are coherent novel emergences which dynamically arise from the interactions between components at the micro-level Behind the notion of emergence is the basic idea that there may be autonomous properties at a higher (macro) level that cannot be understood by reducing it to lower (micro) levels (Sawyer 2005)
We speak of emergent properties if a group of components has different properties showing different behavior at a higher scale level than the indi-vidual components at a lower scale level So components grouped together at a lower scale level can cluster into a new group of components with new properties For example consciousness is not a property of individual neurons but a natural emergent property of the neurons of the nervous system Neurons have their own structure but as a whole they have proper-ties that none of the individual neurons have namely consciousness which can only exist by co-operation of individual neurons Hence by looking at the scale of individual neurons only the system as a whole can never be understood properly (Rotmans and Rothman 2003) In studying complex systems emergent properties can only be recognized when different scales are analyzed Emergent properties are of vital importance because they are linked to weak signals surprises and counter-intuitive results (Van Notten 2005) In detecting emergent properties by studying multiple scales the nature of the problem may change entirely
Self-organization is a process in which the internal organization of a com-plex system increases in complexity without being guided or managed by an outside source The term ldquoself-organizationrdquo was introduced after the Sec-ond World War in the fi eld of cybernetics Since then self-organization has been studied in various research fi elds such as physics computer science and systems theory (De Wolf and Holvoet 2005) Self-organization refers to the ability to develop a new system structure as a result of a systemrsquos internal con-stitutionmdashnot as a result of external management (Prigogine and Stengers 1984) In essence self-organization refers to systems that organize themselves
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
120 Transitions to Sustainable Development
without external direction or control An example of self-organization is a network that autonomously built its structure as network devices detect each otherrsquos presence The notion of organization is related to an increase in the structure or order of the system behavior The new structures are called dis-sipative because they dissipate unless energy is fed from outside to maintain them (Rosenhead 1998) In other words extra energy is used to form new structures which are non-linear functions of the energy force (Prigogine and Stengers 1984) Self-organized criticality is a property of complex systems which have a critical point as an attractor
The notion of spontaneous dynamically produced organization is very old eg Descartes (1637) captured the essence without calling it self-organization
What would happen in a new world if God were now to create some-where in the imaginary spaces matter suffi cient to compose one and were to agitate variously and confusedly the different parts of this matter so that there resulted a chaos as disordered as the poets ever feigned and after that did nothing more than lend this ordinary con-currence to nature and allow her to act in accordance with the laws he established I showed how the greatest part of matter of this chaos must in accordance with these laws dispose and arrange itself in such a way as to present the appearance of heavens how in the meantime some of its parts must compose an earth and some planets and comets and others a sun and fi xed stars
(Reneacute Descartes Discourse on Method 1637 part 5)
Emergence and self-organization are related to each other but they are different Self-organizing systems usually display emergence but not always Self-organization exists without emergence and emergence with-out self-organization But in complex adaptive systems emergence and self-organization occur together On the one hand self-organization can be seen as a cause of emergence ie emergent properties are the result of a self-organizing process On the other hand one can argue that emergence results in self-organization Most interesting is the co-evolutionary per-spective on emergence and self-organization emergence that self-organizes This happens when initial change results in an effect that is amplifi ed by positive feedbacks and components align themselves with the new confi gu-ration so that the new confi guration slows down and stops growing This new alignment often is the emergent property of the system
II23 DYNAMICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS
If a complex system is in a state of dynamic equilibrium there is appar-ently little change but on closer examination there is a constant stream of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Complex Integrated Systems Perspective 121
minor mutations taking place (variation and selection) in the structure of the system This develops in the realm of one (or more) specifi c attractor(s) whereby new structures emerge An attractor is a relatively stable steady systemrsquos state which is a preferred state to which a system evolves (Krohn et al 1990) The fundamental confi guration of the system has a relatively stable structure and order there is a dynamic equilibrium For a certain period of time the state of equilibrium offers certain advantages to the sys-tem specifi c objectives can be achieved tasks can be carried out and con-sistency can be built up These periods of equilibrium therefore last for a relatively long time However after a while the complex system becomes out of sync with its surroundings and all kinds of tensions are the result Internal and external factors contribute to this mismatch New internal structures emerge which threaten and can eventually destroy the existing deep structure On the other hand sudden external changes can occur such as surprises but gradual autonomous developments also occur These internal and external changes create the climate for structural and radical change but do not actually cause change to take place
The change itself is usually caused by new structures formed by small cores of agents (components) that align themselves with the new confi gu-ration The new structures emerged whereas the new alignment often is the emergent property of the system Small cores of agents can cause ini-tial change and small perturbation that can be amplifi ed by positive feed-backs Small cores have the advantage that they have not yet been molded by the existing equilibrium and that they draw relatively little energy from the system Such a small core of agents is able to break through and erode the existing deep structure and ultimately dismantle and overthrow it However they need to be shielded in a protected environment ie in a niche The following dynamical pattern unfolds The system is approach-ing a critical pointmdashat the intersection of two attractorsmdashthat leads to a relatively short period of instability and chaos a so-called systems crisis In systems terms a crisis is not negative but rather an opportunity to shake up and transform the system The system reorganizes itself cre-ates a renewed structure and develops itself towards a new attractor on the way to a new dynamic equilibrium and the cycle begins again with a higher degree of complexity
An alternative pattern could be that the complex system is unable to react adequately to the radical internal and external changes cannot renew itself follows a sub-optimal path and eventually dies out In this way rela-tively long periods of equilibrium order and stability are interspersed with relatively short periods of instability and chaos This is why there are rela-tively long periods when the system behaves in a relatively orderly manner and to a limited extent is predictable This is alternated with fairly short periods in which chaos rules and the behavior of the system is quite unpre-dictable In contrast to the assumptions derived from the classical theory of evolution this process is not characterized by small gradual developments
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
122 Transitions to Sustainable Development
but by drastic sudden and radical changes also known as punctuated equilibria (Gould and Eldredge 1977 Gersick 1991)
From a complex systems perspective a transition is a shift from one dynamic equilibrium to another with alternating periods of slow and fast dynamics A transition is the result of the interplay between long-term change in stocks short-term fl uctuations of fl ows and dynamic behavior of agents representing different phases of development (see the multi-phase concept to be introduced below) Transition dynamics are in fact a special case of the complex systems dynamics as described above In a transition the complex system is successfully adjusted to changed internal and exter-nal circumstances and the system thus arrives at a higher order of organiza-tion and complexity This ideal innovation path leads to a new system level with an optimal order and structure However this is more the exception than the rule in almost all cases the system gets stuck somewhere it fol-lows a sub-optimal path digs itself in even deeper whereby it eventually collapses and dies (Rotmans et al 2005) This is not surprising because a transition pattern encompasses a far-reaching process of innovation with all the associated risks and in a certain sense it follows the most dangerous or risky trajectory
II24 CRITICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS THEORY
The fi eld of complex systems theory is still young and far from mature A major criticism is that complexity science overstated its claim of providing a new paradigm Indeed the paradigm postulated by Prigogine and Stengers (1984) challenged Newtonian determinism and destroyed the beliefs in control and prediction emphasizing the end of certainty and strongly criti-cizing the reductionism approach In his famous critique on complexity science in Scientifi c American (Horgan 1995) states that
the history of 20th-century science should also give complexologists pause Complexity is simply the latest in a long line of highly math-ematical theories of almost everything that have gripped the imagina-tions of scientists in this century
Rather than providing a new alternative paradigm complexity science infl uenced many other research fi elds with insights on our limited under-standing of the world and on how to deal with structural uncertainties Complex systems have become a major focus of interdisciplinary research in the social and natural sciences because complex systems are ubiquitous In this respect it has already contibuted substantially to the evolution of science but it has not yet delivered a well-grounded and empirically tested new paradigm
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Complex Integrated Systems Perspective 123
Other critics point to the gap between the computerized world of com-plexity theory and the real word As Smith (1995) puts it
I have a general feeling of unease when contemplating complex system dynamics Its devotees are practicing fact-free science A fact for them is at best the outcome of a computer simulation it is rarely a fact about the world
Most complexity scientists would agree with the statement that their mod-els are an oversimplifi cation of reality Nevertheless they would argue that these models lead to genuine insights with regard to general principles that govern complex adaptive system behavior that could have tremendous value for society What is the alternative they would argue after all there is no way back to reductionism we cannot explain complex social phenom-ena by examining smaller and smaller pieces of these phenomena Only a holistic approachmdashwith all its limitationsmdashwill make sense
A broad critique was published by Helmreich (1998) who argues that all statements produced by complexity science in particular theoretical pro-nouncements are taken not as statements about the world but as evidence about the authorrsquos beliefs and mode of thought Artifi cial Life scientists tend to see themselves as masculine gods of their cyberspace creations as digital Darwins exploring frontiers fi lled with primitive creatures their programs refl ect prevalent representations of gender kinship and race and repeat origin stories most familiar from mythical and religious narratives (Helmreich 1998)
Another point of critique is that most if not all applications of complex adaptive systems are far from real-world applications Most applications are playgrounds with no particular societal relevance On the one hand this is understandable it takes a while before the application of complex systems theory has matured to real-world problems On the other hand after more than 15 years one would have expected more than the artifi cial applications of complex adaptive systems produced so far Only a weak isomorphism exists between the real-world adaptation and the way in which simulated agents adapt to their changing environment It is not about artifi cial societ-ies in which agentsrsquo representations used are quite abstract and simplifi ed images of decision makers and stakeholders It is about real-world persis-tent problems that demand innovative solutions inspired by insights from complex systems theory Transition research emphatically has the intention to focus on real-world persistent problems and to use complex systems the-ory to explore innovative solution directions for these persistent problems
Finally complex systems theory as such does not exist rather there are multiple manifestations of it There are (i) formalized and computational modeling approaches (ii) a set of understandings of the behavior of com-plex systems (iii) metaphorical use about complexity of social phenomena
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
124 Transitions to Sustainable Development
and (iv) philosophical considerations about the ontology and epistemology of complex systems While in most applications the last two manifestations are predominant we take the second and to a lesser extent the fi rst mani-festation as a starting point for our transition research
II25 WHERE DOES THIS ALL LEAD US
Complex systems theory provides an interesting angle for studying social transitions but we need more to cover the full intricacy of social transitions We need to build a bridge between the formalized deductive abstractions of complex systems theory and the real-world intricate context of societal transitions First of all we need a more comprehensive systems representa-tion of specifi c parts of societal complexity By ldquomore comprehensiverdquo we mean a balanced representation of the human (individual and collective agents) part and the physical (physical economic ecological fi nancial and power-related) part of a societal (sub)system In transition terms this means an adequate representation of the structure culture and practices of a soci-etal (sub)system This requires a cross-disciplinary approach where the building blocks of the systemic puzzle are cross-disciplinary adventures The human behavior dimension needs to be addressed from micro-econom-ics social psychology and artifi cial intelligence the ecological dimension by ecology ecological economics and economic valuation theory the social-cultural dimension by anthropology sociology and social geography and the institutional component by institutional economics and social psychol-ogy In this way we can build up a systemic puzzle where the various cross-disciplinary concepts form the pieces of the IA puzzle need to be combined and integrated To build up such an integrated systemic puzzle complex systems theory is necessary but not suffi cient We also need an integrated systems approach to integrate the various unlike pieces of the puzzle
Further the integrated puzzle needs to be embedded in a process context Not only experts but a range of stakeholders deliver the pieces of knowl-edge for the puzzle This requires a participatory process with the focus on social learning and non-linear knowledge production with sustainability as explicit normative orientation and with refl exivity built in with regard to process design and evaluation (Rotmans 2006) This is closely related to Integrated Sustainability Assessment (Weaver and Rotmans 2006)
We therefore propose to complement complex systems theory with key elements from the fi eld of Integrated Assessment Integrated Assessment is the science that deals with an integrated systems approach to complex societal problems embedded in a process-based context IA aims to analyze the multiple causes and impacts of a complex problem in order to develop policy options for a strategic solution of the problem in question The IA-toolkit is rich including both analytical toolsmethods (such as models scenarios uncertainty and risk analyses) and participatory methods (such
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
A Complex Integrated Systems Perspective 125
as focus groups policy exercises and dialogue methods) For a survey of IA methods the reader is referred to Rotmans and Dowlatabadi (1998) and Rotmans (1998)
The very idea is to develop a perspective that blends key aspects of com-plex systems theory with the integrated systems approach embedded in a process context This is what we call a complex integrated systems per-spective We try here to combine the best of both worlds The abstract agent orientation of complex systems theory combined with the real-world physical orientation of integrated systems science Complex systems theory usually focuses on many homogenous agents with relatively simple behav-ior with hardly any real-world application at the level of social systems Integrated assessment focuses on an integrated but simplifi ed representa-tion of social systems integrating social economic and ecological aspects of social systems but usually without agent representation The challenge is to combine the physical integrated representation of social systems with a heterogeneous (both individual and collective) agent representation There are already examples of this combined agent-physical representation (Krywkow et al 2002 Valkering et al 2006)
This complex integrated systems approach provides more balance between structure and agency It attempts to integrate physical institu-tional and infrastructural elements with heterogeneous agents focusing on real-world social systems applications In this systems perspective agents infl uence the physical institutional and infrastructural conditions but also vice versa So agents adapt to their physical environment but the physical environment is also infl uenced by agent behavior This mutual infl uencing leads to an interesting interplay and dynamics between agents objects and processes (Van der Brugge and Van Raak 2007) The emer-gence of structures can be viewed as the result of this adaptive behavior Next to the adaptive capacity of the system there is anticipatory capacity through agency In case the future state of the system or parts thereof can be projected the agents can become anticipatory agents and the system an anticipatory system This emphasis is important in understanding both the limitations of the use of concepts and metaphors from studies into purely adaptive systems (like ecosystems) as well as the opportunities for forms of governance aimed at coordinating and mobilizing the anticipa-tory potential in social systems
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
II3 Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Transitions
In this section we describe a conceptual framework consisting of three interlinked conceptual building blocks which in turn provide an outline of a transition theory in its early stages of development The framework is used for the exploration of transition patterns pathways and the underly-ing mechanisms The research focus is on pattern and pathway identifi ca-tion tracing projecting and monitoring
The research base is rooted in complex systems science and grounded in a conceptual framework that consists of the following transition concepts
The multi-phase conceptbull The multilevel conceptbull The multi-pattern conceptbull
An overall attempt is made to synthesize existing transition concepts in order to describe and explain transition mechanisms patterns and pathways
II31 MULTI-PHASE CONCEPT
The multi-phase concept describes the dynamics of transitions in time as a sequence of alternating phases of relatively fast and slow dynamics that together form a strongly non-linear pattern where there is a shift from one dynamic state of equilibrium to the other In particular the direction speed and size of a transition can be described in this manner The following four phases are distinguished (i) the pre-development phase of a dynamic state of equilibrium in which the status quo of the system changes in the background but these changes are not visible (ii) the take-off phase the actual point of ignition after which the process of structural change picks up momentum (iii) the acceleration phase in which structural changes become visible (iv) the stabilization phase where a new dynamic state of equilibrium is achieved (Rotmans et al 2001a)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Transitions 127
The usage of different phases or stages in long-term developments is not new and has been used for portraying long-term macro-economic devel-opments For instance Rostow (1960) and Boulding (1970) used multiple stages for describing a transition from a controlled economy to a market economy accompanied by the evolution of new political and social institu-tions Rostow suggested fi ve stages of economic development (i) a tradi-tional stage in which the economy is dominated by substance activity where output is consumed by producers rather than traded (ii) a transitional stage which contains the preconditions for take-off increased specialization gen-erates surpluses for trading and emergence of transport infrastructure to support trade (iii) a take-off stage in which industrialization increases with workers switching from the agricultural to the manufacturing sector (iv) a drive-to-maturity stage which involves diversifying of the economy into new areas producing a wide range of goods and services with less reliance on imports (v) a high-mass-consumption stage in which the econ-omy is geared towards mass consumption and the service sector becomes increasingly dominant
Although this fi ve-stage model is useful as an ordering framework for long-term macro-economic analyses it is a typical Western model not applicable to least developed countries Essentially it is about growth rather than development in a broader context and because of its general-ized nature its predictive capability is very limited
What is new in our multi-phase concept is that it is used for describing and explaining broad societal transformative changes in coherence (Rot-mans 1994 Ness et al 1996 UN 1997) This means that the concept of transitions is used to structure diverse societal phenomena in a simpli-fi ed yet communicative manner The overall aim is to unravel societal rather than economic transitions in different development stages using knowledge from a variety of disciplines This emphasizes the explorative nature of such a multi-phase analysis rather than its predictive nature which is obviously limited we cannot accurately predict when which phase will occur
The manifestation of alternating phases is the so-called S-curve an aggregation of underlying curves The S-curve represents an ideal transi-tion in which the system adjusts itself successfully to the changing internal and external circumstances while achieving a higher order of organization and complexity However other manifestations in time are also possible including non-ideal or even reverse transitions as is illustrated in Figure II32 By increasing path dependence for instance choices made in the past exclude different opportunities in the present eg by ingrained behavior or ideas that get stuck so that a lock-in situation emerges The only way to clear such a lock-in situation and turn it into a transition is by apply-ing force from outside the system Choices made early on can also reduce the necessary diversity causing a backlash Insuffi cient knowledge support
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
128 Transitions to Sustainable Development
or embedding in the system can cause so much resistance that the system innovation path will be blocked And fi nally an overshoot collapse situa-tion may occur In this case a reverse transition takes place and the system collapses and eventually dies
The smooth curves of Figures II31 and II32 are deceptive with respect to a longer period of one to two generations transitions appear to take place gradually but in the short term transitions display changeable dynamics with many sudden changes and unexpected events Although the sequence of phases follows a certain pattern it does not lead to a fi xed pathway the transition is surrounded by great uncertainty and complexity so the degree of predictability is relatively small But the transition pattern does imply specifi c generic patterns such as path dependency that indicate the future transition path The purpose of ordering the phases is not to forecast the course of the transition through time but to create an opportunity to recognize the various phases and as such to provide some guidelines for achieving a desirable end (in terms of sustainability) and a desirable direc-tion for the transition as a whole Still missing are indicators that demarcate the shifts from one phase to the other in order to more accurately position a particular transition in a temporal context These phase-demarcating indi-cators need to be developed for instance regarding the level and nature of resistance of the regime the tensions between the regime and niches the clustering of niches the number of transition experiments and the existence of a niche-regime
Transition processes usually cover at least one generation (25 years) and contain periods of slow and fast developments However it should be noted that ldquoslowrdquo ldquofastrdquo and ldquoaccelerationrdquo are relative notions A tran-sition is not a quick change in the short term but a gradual continuous process Transition processes are relatively slow because the established equilibrium implies stability and inertia As a result of this stability a transition implies that an essential change of generally shared assump-tions and role distribution must take place This could be triggered by unexpected intermittent occurrences and events for example war large accidents (Chernobyl) or an oil crisis which could speed up or slow down a transition process
If we examine the phenomenon of transition from the point of view of a complex system we defi ne a transition as a time span in which a transformation from slow dynamics to quick development and instabil-ity (chaos) takes place which fi nally results in relative stability again but with a higher order of complexity The most important system character-istics of a transition are i) a shift from one relative (dynamic) equilibrium to the other ii) the determinants of the new equilibrium can differ from those of the previous equilibrium iii) the new equilibrium is located at a different system level than the old equilibrium and iv) stability is a rela-tive notion and certainly does not indicate a permanent state The new
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Transitions 129
equilibrium is a dynamic equilibrium ie there is no status quo because much is changing below the surface In general a transition has three system dimensions (i) the speed of change (ii) the size of change and (iii) the time period of change (see Figure II32) These three dimensions determine the nature of the transition ie the fi nal equilibrium and the direction (pathway) to it In principle it is possible to have different paths to the same equilibrium level These paths can differ with regard to speed size and time period It is also possible for the same transition pattern to be realized in different ways
There are also strong dynamics where positive and negative feedback mechanisms can strengthen or weaken the speed of transition Analytically transitions are characterized by strong non-linear behavior During the pre-development and stabilization phases there is a regime of negative feedback mechanisms that dampens the system response (ie this phase is relatively orderly and stable) In contrast the take-off and acceleration phases are dominated by positive feedback mechanisms that reinforce each other and amplify the response of the system causing a relatively short period of chaos and instability
A transition is the result of long-term developments in stocks and short-term developments in fl ows Since stocks change slowly the dynamic path-way of a transition is characterized by a logistical S-shaped curve Every domain has its own dynamics Cultures only change slowly just like eco-logical systems (Fischer-Kowalski and Rotmans 2009) Economic changes however take place in the short-term and are usually determined by the life span of capital goods Institutional and technological changes are some-where in between The whole picture therefore forms a hybrid mixture of fast and slow dynamics The various time axes may overlap and constantly infl uence each other The pace and direction of the entire dynamics are to a great extent determined by the slowest processes ie by the developments in stocks
Based on experiences with practical usage of the multi-phase concept there seem to be a number of misconceptions to it First of all it is not meant as a deterministic concept and does not represent a blueprint The multi-phase concept cannot be used for predicting the course of a transi-tion in view of the fundamental uncertainties that surround transitions Nor is the S-shaped curve a fi xed pathway with a fi xed starting-point and a single end-point Every S-shaped curve is an aggregate of underlying curves and the end-point of any transition curve may be the beginning of the next transition curve And as denoted earlier there are multiple manifestations of transitions both successful and unsuccessful as can be seen in Figure II32
In the light of the above misconceptions and potential misuse of the multi-phase concept what is the usage of the multi-phase framework It is primarily employed as a descriptive ordering framework for the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
130 Transitions to Sustainable Development
direction pace and magnitude of a transition describing the changes in phases and as an explanatory framework for explaining the driving forces and mechanisms behind the phases and their changes (from relative order and stability to chaos and instability and vice versa) And it offers useful information about certain generic patterns with path dependen-cies that mark future transition pathways So overall the main usage of the multi-phase concept is to recognise different phases and offer desired targets and levers to infl uence the direction In order to fulfi ll the multi-phase modelrsquos descriptive usage and in particular its explanatory usage we need to develop specifi c phase-indicators as mentioned above This is still work in progress
As-of-yet-unknown aspects of the multi-phase concept are the indica-tors on the vertical axis which is now rather meaningless (indicator for social development or for systems change) and needs to be formulated more accurately Also the time period on the horizontal axis is not fi xed and may vary considerably It further needs to be empirically grounded that there are four phases underlying a transition (there could be more or less) And fi nally the ultimate point of irreversibility (threshold value) of transition pattern is not known yet This relates to the idea of tipping points both in the ecological sense (thresholds above which irreversible change occurs) and societal tipping points (where societal awareness creates incentives for action and response)
The main challenge to further develop the multi-phase concept lies in the refi ning of the too coarsely defi ned phases of the transition The pre-development phase for instance may take decades and needs to be refi ned and subdivided into sub-phases
Figure II31 The different phases of a transition (Rotmans et al 2001)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Transitions 131
II32 MULTILEVEL CONCEPT
The multilevel concept describes the dynamics of transitions in (functional) space as the interactions between three different functional scale levels the macro meso and the micro levels in which transitions only take place when trends developments and events on the three scale levels strengthen each other in one and the same direction ie when modulation occurs This conceptualization is based on Rip and Kemp (1998) but differs from Rip and Kemp in the sense that they use techniques technologies or a tech-nological selection environment as reference unit while we use a societal system or sub-system as a reference unit
The three scale levels are functional scale levels rather than spatial or geographical ones they represent functional relationships between the actors regime- and niche-actors each with their own structure culture and practices
The higher the scale level the more aggregated the components and the relationships and the slower the dynamics between these actors trends and developments are The fi rst scale level distinguished is the macro level where the so-called landscape changes take place trends with a relatively slow prog-ress and developments with a highly autonomous character At this level we may fi nd global trends such as globalization individualization changes in the political arena culture paradigms transnational actors such as the UN and the WTO and global agreements such as the Kyoto protocol and GATS The macro level is not necessarily bound to the global level but does include universal trends that often function at the global level (see also Geels and Schot 2007) Operating at the meso level are regimes systems of dominant
Figure II32 Alternatives for S-shaped curve
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
132 Transitions to Sustainable Development
structures culture and practices that are shared by groups of actors At this level there is much resistance to transformative change and innovation because existing institutions networks and organizations want to maintain the status quo ie the existing confi guration of regulations working prac-tices and vested interests At the micro level short-term developments follow each other in rapid succession and then disappear again quickly Niches may develop within which non-conformism develops such as new initiatives new techniques and new forms of culture and management Niches may also emerge within a regime and not only at the micro level See Figure I21 for a graphical representation of the multilevel concept
Within niches there are learning processes regarding innovations new practices or behavior As a result of these niches options can be developed from ideas to alternatives There is a process of variation and selection at this micro-level resulting in path dependencies (lock-ins) which may lead to the exclusion of other paths If the path dependency is so strong that all other possibilities are excluded then we have a lock-out the strongest form of lock-in The variation and selection processes are dependant on the choices of individual actors but also determined by developments at the meso and macro levels The existing regimes at the meso level often slow down the processes of change but the power of regimes may also be uti-lized to bring about a transition Often in the early period of a transition the regime acts as an inhibiting factor and later on once a niche-regime unfolds and comes into its own acts as an unleashing factor (snowball effect) Developments at the macro-level can on the one hand play a role in speeding up or slowing down a transition while on the other hand changes in worldviews (belief systems) and macro policies (such as the agreements in WTO rounds or CFC control policy) can produce a transition It is as if the macro landscape forms gradients that channel certain paths
From a micro perspective this means that a number of individual actors so-called frontrunners (individuals companies local governments) can create stepping stones that make it possible for these actors to function as a catalyst for supporting the transition process Innovations in technol-ogy behavior policy and institutions the way which society and markets are organized can remain at the micro-level for a very long time before they break out Certain innovations develop at the micro-level but do not break out This is an example of invisible change in the existing social equilibrium If a transition originates from developments at the micro level it forms and stabilizes an alternative regime (niche-regime) upon which both micro- and meso-level learning processes take place On the other hand such a take-off at a micro-level can also be produced or stimulated through developments at the meso- and macro-level (for example a change in ethics institutional changes and changes to regimes)
Transformative changes to regimes can occur through two different mechanisms On the one hand pressure from the social surroundings can lead to the discussion of regime structure culture and practices while on
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Transitions 133
the other learning processes concerning alternative options and the form-ing of new actor networks in niches can produce bottom-up pressures to regimes Such pressures are taken up by the regime-actors who may take a defensive approach (by discrediting the other actors) a reactive accom-modating approach (of system improvement) or an innovative approach by contributing actively to a transition They may also do all three things in the course of time Regimes thus play a crucial decisive role in transitions
Regular misconceptions with regard to the multilevel concept pertain to its assumed absolute character while it is relative and recursive the scale levels distinguished are not spatial or geographical but in particular func-tional the reference point of the scale levels may vary from a particular technology to a societal sub-system and fi nally the quasi-dynamic char-acter of the multilevel concept In the core this concept is static it gives a photo and does not give insight into the dynamics of a transition ie it does not deliver a movie If we want to know the dynamics of the functional relationships at the different scale levels we need to know the basic inter-dependencies over time according to certain laws or rules And because of its heuristic character and the intrinsic uncertainties surrounding these functional relationships we do not know the rules for these dynamic inter-dependencies What we can do however is produce best guesses in a quali-tative manner but this is not rooted in scientifi c laws or rules and therefore more diffi cult to verify solidly
Given the above misconceptions and constraints what is the potential usage of the multilevel concept It mainly provides a descriptive ordering framework for the functional changes of transitions at various scales It unravels the dynamics of transitions at a certain time by introducing dis-crete scale levels with different dynamics from quasi-autonomous slow change at the macro-level to fast changes at the micro-level In terms of its explanatory character it explains the origin of transitions where and how a transition arises but not the dynamic pattern(s) of a transition It basi-cally provides a snapshot in time of the transition dynamics at the various scale levels It shows that the transition dynamics do not start in one place but at different locations at different scale levels Only when these oppos-ing dynamics modulate a scaling-up effect (and thus a spiral effect) can emerge as a necessary condition for achieving a transition For a specifi c system this initially takes place within the meso-regime and from there subsequently diverges to the micro- and macro-levels
Still weakly developed aspects of the multilevel concept are the reposi-tory character of the macro level containing too many incomparable and unlike components (see Geels and Schot 2007) The imprecise defi nition of the vertical axis a consistent division of what exactly is situated on what scale level is still lacking The concept is still too amorphous in terms of more accurately defi ning what the various components of the scale levels are and what the scale levels represent while also the controversy on the reference point of the scale level still remains
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
134 Transitions to Sustainable Development
The main challenge lies in answering the question whether three scale levels form an adequate ordering for the complex multiple-scale interference of transitions It becomes increasingly obvious that much of the dynamics between niches and regimes occurs in between the micro- and meso-level eg the formation of niche-regimes crosses these two scale levels So per-haps we need to introduce one or more other scale levels as proposed by Haxeltine et al (2008) within the context of the EU-project MATISSE
Haxeltine et al (2008) introduce fi ve scale levels Next to the macro- meso- and micro-levels the level of an empowered niche (niche-regime) in between the micro- and meso-level and the support canvas below the micro-level called undercurrent in the form of (lack of) support by citizens may exert pressure on niches or on the regime Using these fi ve levels it is possible to describe and explain different patterns of transformative change in transitions
Landscape quasi-autonomous slow developmentsRegime dominant actors institutions and practicesEmpowered niche niche powerful enough to attack the regimeNiches typical sites for radical innovation outside the regimeSupport canvas undercurrent level
An alternative ordering is proposed by Loorbach (2007) using a complex adaptive systems representation where its dominant structure is a patch-work of regimes (or sub-systems) rather than a single regime This enables the analysis of multiple regimes in which (sub-)transitions take place at dif-ferent speeds and at different moments in time
Analyzing the multilevel concept from a complex integrated systems perspective gives rise to the following insights (i) many transforma-tive dynamics occur in between the three scale levels distinguished eg the empowered niches (or niche-regime see below) operate between the
Figure II33 Complex systemsrsquo model based on the MLP
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Transitions 135
micro- and meso-level (ii) the functional distance between the scales is not fi xed but varies over time eg during the take-off and acceleration phase of a transition the meso- and micro-levels coincide forming a new regime out of the incumbent and emerging ones (iii) niches are not bound to the micro-level but also occur and emerge at the meso-level This weakens the distinction between the meso- and micro-level which was originally based on the discrimination between niches and the regime
Thus from a complex integrated systems perspective we tend to reject the multilevel concept The whole idea of introducing (only three) discrete scale levels may be at odds with the continuous character of non-linear dynamics of transformative change and functions as a straitjacket Nevertheless for want of anything better we still use the multilevel concept in our transition analysis and the case studies in the remaining chapters Meanwhile we are working on an alternative along two different lines either an extension of the scale levels distinguished in line with what Haxeltine et al (2008) proposed or representation of the complex niche-regime dynamics along just one scale the temporal scale
II33 MULTI-PATTERN CONCEPT
The multi-pattern concept describes the nature of the dynamics of transi-tions in terms of generic patterns that result in irreversible changes in the system By mechanism we refer to an identifi ed societal process which is important to the core dynamics of regime change Examples of mechanisms are variation and selection adaptation emergence clustering empower-ing transformation decay and building up Mechanisms are triggered either by certain changes in the landscape or by interactions between two sub-systems (eg clustering of niches) A pattern can be identifi ed as a particular combination and sequence of mechanisms And a pathway is a manifestation of such a pattern A transition pathway results from a tran-sition pattern plus a starting-point and end-pointmdashdescribing the initial state of the system and the end state of the system Of major importance to our work on sustainability transitions is the need to explore a transition pathway in order to make statements about whether a particular transition has resulted in a more or less sustainable state
We conceptualize a transition as arising out of a complex interplay between a dominant (or incumbent) regime and set of competing niches The dynamics involve tensions between the regime and its environment (both from the landscape and niches) out of which threats may arise to the currently dominant regime and a response (or no response) on the part of the regime The regime may be threatened from the niche-level or from changes at the broader landscape level of economic ecological and cultural trends or from internal misalignment amongst regime-actors (De Haan and Rotmans forthcoming Geels 2005b) Once a threat is recognized
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
136 Transitions to Sustainable Development
regime-actors will mobilize resources from within the regime and in some cases from within niches to respond to it (Smith et al 2005 Geels and Schot 2007) a range of different responses can be identifi ed in the empiri-cal evidence base
In systems terms we defi ne three different sub-systems at three different functional levels a regime a niche and a niche-regime (empowered niche) A niche-regime represents a niche that has grown powerful enough to gain a number of new characteristics most important of which is the ability to attack (sometimes effectively) an incumbent regime (and therefore to poten-tially take over from it) Crucially we assume that niches will be subject to or have access to the structure of the dominant regime Thus under certain circumstances the niche may be able to take a free ride on the infrastructure of the regime (for example by making use of an existing physical infrastruc-ture to deploy a new technology) In other situations this may manifest as constraint with the ability of the niche to be innovative being constrained directly by the regime
As defi ned above we use the landscape as underlying but powerful currents that inexorably change the context of opportunities challenges and problems facing both the regime and niches through differentiated response mechanisms we conceptualize how landscape signals can favor either the regime and stability or niches and an eventual transition
Each of the designated sub-systems is assigned with the attributes of structure culture and practices as described above The regimersquos cognitive normative and regulative structure acts to establish and reinforce stabil-ity and the cohesion of societal systems but this structure can also tend to limit innovation in practices to localized incremental improvements Niches operate outside or peripheral to the regime as loci for radical inno-vation A niche sub-system (referred as a niche) is understood then as being the same type of sub-system as the regime sub-system It consists of a constellation of structure culture and practices associated with a particu-lar set of actors who are active in the niche
The different functional levels of sub-system are all embedded within the wider landscape We do not defi ne a specifi c hierarchy (in systems terms) between the different types of sub-system Each sub-system has a variety of resources at its disposal fi nancial resources physical resources (material fl ows) and energy and information and knowledge
The device of defi ning the niche and regime as sub-systems represents a way of conceptualizing the dynamics of niche-regime interactions without need-ing to individually resolve every actor involved Thus rather than attempting to describe behavior at the level of each individual actor associated with the regime we instead defi ne a set of abstracted mechanisms that approximate the outcome of the behaviors of many individual actors These mechanisms describe the emergent behaviors at the level of the regime (or a niche)
We apply the term ldquobehaviorrdquo to the regime and niches but with the recognition that this represents an abstract representation of the behavior of many individual actors who in most cases will not be acting explicitly
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Transitions 137
with a unifi ed purpose and who may not even identify themselves as belonging to a regime or niche However we do wish to capture how emergent properties at the level of the regime may then affect the behavior of individual actors
Although multiple patterns are involved a key pattern is the follow-ing niches emerge and cluster and by empowering a niche cluster a niche regime unfolds the niche regime becomes more powerful whereas the regime is weakening and in the end the niche-regime takes over the incum-bent regime that is transformed
Three variants of this key pattern are developed (see De Haan and Rot-mans 2009) (i) a micro-meso pattern where niches emerge at the micro-level cluster and form a niche-regime that attacks the incumbent regime which ultimately is transformed into a new regime (ii) a meso-meso pat-tern where niches emerge at the meso-level and form a niche-regime within the incumbent regime that gradually incorporates the niche-regime and evolves into a new regime and (iii) a macro-meso pattern where a massive fast change in the landscape leads to a striking pressure on the regime that results in a regime change This is not so much related to niche develop-ments but rather to fairly rapid top-down changes that profoundly impact the regime The distinction in multiple transition patterns is important because it provides levers for infl uencing transition processes and it gives insight into the effectiveness of governance strategies and instruments
In certain transition patterns a transition is associated with this process of overthrowing the incumbent regime In other transition patterns niches may be absorbed or combine with the regime Some niches may exist very close to the regime and therefore both benefi t from the support of the regime and be constrained by it while other niches may be protected from the infl uence of the regime in some way (eg through the support of politi-cal actors at the landscape level) Thus both competitive and symbiotic relationships between the niche and regime are possible (Geels and Schot 2007 De Haan and Rotmans forthcoming)
In our conceptualization a transition arises from a) the dynamic interplay of the regime niche-regime and niches b) their differentiated responses to events and ongoing change in the landscape c) the internal dynamics of the niche and regime d) interactions between any combination of the fi rst three elements A transition is then represented as a sequence of transformations mechanisms by which one type of sub-system changes into another type of sub-system This involves a fundamental change in the nature or func-tioning of the sub-system in terms of structure culture and practices We distinguish the following transformation processes
(i) transformation of a niche into a niche-regime A niche will auto-matically transform to become a niche-regime once it reaches a certain critical size as measured in terms of its ability to infl uence the regime The essential difference between a niche and a niche-regime is that the latter is able to actively challenge the currently dominant regime
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
138 Transitions to Sustainable Development
(ii) transformation of a niche-regime into a regime A niche-regime becomes the new dominant regime once it has a greater ability to in-fl uence than the existing regime The regime is downgraded to a niche-regime with an associated penalty on its institutional capacity
(iii) transformation of a regime into a niche-regime This mechanism covers the situation where the currently dominant regime effectively collapses but at the same time there is an absence of a niche-regime that is able to immediately take its place The regime becomes weakened because either it is no longer well-suited to landscape conditions (and is not adapting fast enough) andor because of competition from niches and niche-regimes A threshold effect causes it to be downgraded to a niche resulting in a period with no dominant regime
Next to these transformative mechanisms we distinguish a number of adaptive mechanisms These represent adaptations the regime may exhibit in response to external events or threats from either other sub-systems or the landscape When we use the term ldquoadaptationrdquo to describe how a sub-system interacts with other sub-systems we are referring to the emergent changes that we might expect to see in social systems as suggested in the transitions literature (eg Smith et al 2005) Such adaptations at the sub-system level are the result of the many individual actors (that make up the regime) adapting in response to multiple stimuli collectively these individ-ual adaptations result in an emergent adaptation at the level of the regime and it is this that we are trying to capture
(i) Adaptation absorption of a niche by the regime We identify two potentially distinct variants of this mechanism In the fi rst variant of this mechanism the motivation is pure competition the regime absorbs a niche in order to remove a (current or potential) threat In the second variant of this mechanism the regime realizes a need to change a prac-tice as an adaptation to a landscape change (or in response to competi-tion from niches or driven by its own goals or vision) and so attempts to move within the practice space towards a new practice
(ii) Adaptation competition with the regime This mechanism cov-ers direct competition between the niche-regime (which automatically competes with the regime) and the regime (which counters) We allow a niche-regime to proactively attack the regime when it has gained a suffi cient potential to infl uence (as measured by its institutional capac-ity) Attacks are not usually immediately fatal Rather if successful an attack results into damage to the attacked sub-system (defi ned as a reduction in institutional capacity) The regime is allowed a counter-attack which may erode the nichersquos institutional capacity
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Transitions 139
(iii) Adaptation changing practices The structure culture and prac-tices of the regime (or niche) may become less optimal as landscape conditions andor other subsystems change In the short-term response to this situation the regime may (or may not) attempt to change its practices If it attempts to change its practices it may or may not be successful This adaptation mechanism assumes that either an external event or the reaching of an external threshold can be defi ned based upon which adaptation response of the regime is triggered (as in initi-ated) This represents the emergence within the sub-system of an adap-tive response based on the decisions and actions of the multiple (and diverse) individual actors that make up the regime
II34 ANALYTICAL SYNTHESIS
A fi rst preliminary attempt at synthesizing the three transition building blocks (multilevel multi-phase and multi-pattern) yields the following internal transition logics In the pre-development phase of a transition the regime often acts as an inhibiting factor Typically it will seek to maintain social norms and belief systems as well as to improve existing technologies and policies The strategy is aimed at fi ghting off new threatening devel-opments The take-off phase is reached when a modulation of develop-ments takes place at the micro- and macro-level often caused by a series of external disturbances due to many attempts in the pre-development phase to change the system This means that certain innovations at the micro-level eg in terms of behavior policy or technology can be reinforced by changes at the macro-level eg changes in worldviews or macro policies It can go either way breakouts at the micro-level fi nd fertile soil at the macro-level or a breakthrough at the macro-level can be accompanied by suitable initiatives at the micro-level In the acceleration phase the regime has an enabling role through the application of large amounts of capital and inno-vation The regime changes as a result of self-examination or in response to bottom-up pressures from the micro-level or to top-down pressures from the macro-level Through the reinforcement of modulated developments at the three different levels things change rapidly and irreversibly The system is in an unstable situation because revolting elements of a new regime com-pete with established elements of the existing regime In the stabilization phase the acceleration slows down due to a new regime that has been built up again resisting new developments The stabilization phase is no end-point on the contrary it represents a dynamic equilibrium which could accommodate the seeds of change for another transition
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
II4 Research into the Governance of TransitionsA Framework for Transition Management
Transition management is a new governance mode that attempts to resolve persistent societal problems The underlying assumption is that full control and management of these problems is not possible as in classical manage-ment but that we can manage these problems in terms of adjusting adapt-ing and infl uencing by organizing a joint searching and learning process focused on long-term sustainable solutions (Loorbach 2007 Rotmans 2006) Transition management rather than being directly focused on a solution is explorative and design-oriented As such it is geared to experi-menting with various relevant aspects of a range of management and policy forms and efforts to integrate and combine the accompanying instruments The essence of transition management is that it focuses on the content as well as the process by organizing an interactive and selective participatory stakeholder searching process aimed at learning and experimenting
The concept of transition management is rooted in two different strands of science that of complex systems science and that of the research on new forms of governance Complex systems science delivers the insight into non-linear dynamics of complex adaptive systems Central notions here are co-evolution emergence and self-organization Guidelines partly descrip-tive and partly prescriptive have been developed that take these complex-ity notions into account Further transition management links into new forms of governance that have been developed during the last 15 years and have common characteristics multilevel adaptive participative interactive and deliberative governance Transition management can be described as a form of intelligent long-term planning through small steps based on learn-ing and experimenting which is why it basically is a kind of perspective incrementalism (Kemp et al 2007)
A fi rst attempt to synthesize insights from complexity theory and new forms of governance has resulted in a common framework of understand-ing a set of theoretical principles that were translated into a practical management framework The operational framework has been designed
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Research into the Governance of Transitions 141
as a cyclical process of development phases at various scale levels The cycle of transition management consists of the following components (Rot-mans 2003 Loorbach and Rotmans 2006) (i) structure the problem in question and establish and organize the transition arena (ii) develop a transition agenda a vision of sustainability development and derive the necessary transition paths (iii) establish and carry out transition experi-ments and mobilize the resulting transition networks (iv) monitor evalu-ate and learn lessons from the transition experiments and based on these make adjustments in the vision agenda and coalitions In reality there is no fi xed sequence of the steps in transition management and the steps can differ in weight per cycle In practice the transition management activities are carried out partially and completely in sequence in parallel and in a random sequence
In this chapter we present the transition management framework and show how this is based upon insights from complex system science and governance studies We do this by identifying relevant insights from these two fi elds that are relevant for dealing with transformative societal change towards sustainability We start studying the challenge of managing soci-etal change from a complex systems perspective addressing the structure (systemic) part of transformative societal change Next we present a gov-ernance perspective on societal change addressing the agency (actor) part of transformative societal change In exploring the duality between agency and structure we need both approaches which display similarities and turn out to be quite complementary Both the structure and agency side are rep-resented in the transition management framework
II41 MANAGING SOCIETAL CHANGE FROM A COMPLEX SYSTEMS PERSPECTIVE
What does complexity as described in Chapter 2 mean in terms of guid-ing or directing complex systems Perhaps the most crucial insight from complexity theory is that it is impossible to control a complex system Any command-and-control strategy is doomed to fail or even be counterpro-ductive This is related to the limited predictability of the behavior of a complex system In the remainder when we speak of managing complex systems we do not refer to command-and-control but to infl uencing the process of change of a complex system in a certain direction eg in a sus-tainable direction It means that we do not view complexity as a problem or obstacle but rather as a means of leverage for management Adaptive management means adjusting while the structure of a system is changing whereas anticipative management means directing while estimating the possible future behavior of the system The underlying rationale is that bet-ter insight into the dynamics of a complex system leads to a better under-standing of the possibilities of infl uencing it
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
142 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Here we use insights from complexity theory to develop guidelines for managing complex systems It is not intended to result in a deterministic collection of rules for management Refl exivity is inbuilt with respect to the assumptions as well as the possible effects of such a form of direction This results in an understanding of the limitations of and scope for the management of complex systems and at the same time provides insight into the opportunities and conditions under which it is possible to direct such systems
During the last decades others have attempted to draw lessons for man-aging complex systems Kickert (1991) and Kooiman (1993) are examples even though their guidelines were rather abstract and not coherent In the meantime complexity theory has evolved further and more empirical knowledge has been gained from practical experience with the manage-ment of complexity (eg Geldof 2002 Rotmans 2003 Teisman 2005 Loorbach 2007) Based on theoretical knowledge and practical experience with complexity theory we present a number of guidelines for management below These guidelines are partly descriptive in the sense of basic prin-ciples and partly prescriptive in terms of rules for management
Management at the system level is important Unintended side effects bull and adverse boomerang effects can only be recognized at the system level A systemrsquos level perspective helps to get a better insight into spillovers of the complex problem This implies management at vari-ous (spatial or functional) scale levels emergent properties might be hidden at a lower scale level but are already beginning to emerge at a higher scale levelInsight into the dynamics of the system is essential for effective man-bull agement The dynamics of the system create feasible and non-feasible means for management this implies that content and process are inseparable Process management as such is not suffi cientmdashinsight into how the system works is an essential precondition for effective managementObjectives should be fl exible and adjustable at the system level The bull complexity of the system is at odds with the formulation of specifi c quantitative objectives With fl exible evolving objectives one is in a better position to react to changes from inside and outside the system While being directed the structure and order of the system are also changing and so the objectives should change too However fl exible qualitative long-term objectives can be combined with short- and medium-term quantitative targets and can be complementaryTiming of the intervention is crucial The nearer one is to the critical bull point in the system ie on the dividing line between two attractors the more effective the intervention Immediate and effective intervention is possible in both desirable and undesirable crisis situations which can create room for maneuvering towards a favorable attractor
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Research into the Governance of Transitions 143
Managing a complex adaptive system means using disequilibria bull rather than equilibria In the long term equilibrium will lead to stagnation and will in fact hinder innovation Non-equilibrium (the period in between multiple equilibria) means instability and chaos which forms an important impetus for fundamental change The rela-tively short periods of non-equilibrium therefore offer opportunities to direct the system in a desirable directionCreating diversity to stimulate the formation of emergent struc-bull tures Through diversity management small cores of agents can align themselves to a new confi guration This stimulates the formation of emergent structures that may be successful in breaking through the existing deep structure of the system and ultimately taking it over These small cores need a certain degree of protection to permit agents time energy and resources
The challenge is to elaborate on these guidelines for managing complex systems while applying them to social systems Complexity theory uses relatively simple analytical principles to describe and explain nonlinear patterns in time space and functionality The question arises to what extent these simple but elegant systems principles can be applied to social systems The underlying premise is that social systems are complex adap-tive systems (Rotmans 2006) It further requires a one-to-one transposi-tion between the formalized deductive abstractions of complexity theory and the tenacious complex real world Nevertheless the analytical prin-ciples of complexity theory have been increasingly applied to ecosystems and social systems during the past decade (Allen 2001 Gunderson and Holling 2002 Walker 2000 Rotmans 2006 Van der Brugge and Van Raak 2007)
The management principles underlying transition management are built around the management paradox that societal change is too complex to handle in terms of managing but still we have formulated a set of rela-tively simple rules for how to infl uence societal change The rationale for handling this management paradox is that insight into societal complexity by taking a complex systems approach can help in fathoming the possibili-ties for infl uencing societal complexity This logically connects content and process which are explicitly linked in transition management the com-plexity analysis of a societal system under observation also determines the opportunities for managing such a system (Loorbach 2007) Using analyti-cal concepts such as multi-phase and multilevel as introduced in the last chapter provides opportunities for identifying patterns and mechanisms of transitional change Once we have identifi ed transitional patterns and mechanisms we can determine process steps and instruments to infl uence these patterns and mechanisms Our approach differs from earlier attempts to use a complex systems approach for management of policy issues (eg Kickert 1991 Kooiman 1993 Stacey 1993) Our approach is more
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
144 Transitions to Sustainable Development
oriented towards refl exive planning no deterministic but refl exive rules We have formulated rules for managing societal change but once we apply these rules in a process context we realize they need to be adjusted because the conditions and dynamics (content) will change as a result of applying these rules This is why learning searching and experimenting are crucial in transition management
II42 THEORETICAL PRINCIPLES OF TRANSITION MANAGEMENT RELATED TO COMPLEXITY THEORY
Based on the above insights from complexity theory we have derived core theoretical principles of transition management The fi rst principle is that of creating space for innovation in niches or arenas This principle origi-nates from that part of complexity theory that indicates that a small ini-tial change in the system may have a great impact on the system in the long run In complex systems terms we call this phenomenon emergence which results in emergent structures environments that offer some pro-tection for a small group of agents An emergent structure draws only little energy from the system and has not yet been molded by the existing equilibrium so it doesnrsquot do much harm and is not immediately threat-ening for the system The self-organizing capacity of the system gener-ates new dissipative structures in the form of niches A niche is a new structure a small core of agents that emerges within the system and that aligns itself with a new confi guration The new alignment is often the emergent property of the system An emergent structure is formed around niches to stimulate the further development of these niches and the emer-gence of niche-regimes
A focus on frontrunners is a key aspect of transition management In complex system terms frontrunners are agents with the capacity to generate dissipative structures and operate within these deviant structures They can only do that without being (directly) dependent on the structure culture and practices of the regime In the context of transition management we mean by ldquofrontrunnersrdquo agents with peculiar competencies and qualities creative minds strategists and visionaries Transition management draws together a selective number of these frontrunners in a protected environment an arena In order to effectively create a new regime agents are needed at a certain distance from that regime However the continuous link with the regime is of importance which is why regime agents are needed as well in particular change-inclined regime agents
Another principle of transition management is guided variation and selection This is rooted in the notions of diversity and coherence within complexity theory Diversity is required to avoid rigidity within the sys-tem Rigidity here means reduced diversity due to selection mechanisms
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Research into the Governance of Transitions 145
which means that the system cannot respond fl exibly to changes in its environment Coherence refers to the level of interrelatedness among the entities of a complex system In the equilibrium phase there is continu-ous variation and selection but when a regime settles this becomes the dominant selection environment and thus decreases the diversity But a certain amount of diversity is required see Van den Bergh et al (2005) to explore a diversity of innovative options instead of looking for the optimal solution Rather than selecting innovative options at a too-early stage options are kept open in order to learn about the pros and cons of available options before making a selection Through experimenting we can reduce some aspects of the high level of uncertainty so that it leads to better-informed decisions
Transition management relies on Darwinist processes of guided varia-tion and selection instead of planning Collective choices are made along the way on the basis of learning experiences at different levels Different trajectories are explored and fl exibility is maintained which is exactly what a manager would do when faced with great uncertainty and complex-ity rather than defi ning fi xed targets for development he sets out various options in different directions and is careful to avoid premature choices
The principle of radical change in incremental steps is a paradox that is derived from complexity theory Radical structural change is needed to erode the existing deep structure (incumbent regime) of a system and ultimately dismantle it Immediate radical change however would lead to maximal resistance from the deep structure that can-not adjust to a too-fast radical change Abrupt forcing of the system would disrupt the system and would create a backlash in the system because of its resilience Incremental change allows the system to adjust to the new circumstances and to build up new structures that align to the new confi guration Incremental however does not mean gradual development Transitional change is characterized by periods of rela-tively drastic sudden and radical changes also known as punctuated equilibria (Gould and Eldredge 1977 Gersick 1991) Radical change in incremental steps thus implies that the system heads for a new direction towards new attractors but in small steps To reconcile these seemingly incompatible aspects of radical versus incremental change is at the core of transition management
Empowering niches is an important principle of transition manage-ment By ldquoempoweringrdquo we mean providing with resources such as knowledge fi nances competences lobby-mechanisms exemption of rules and laws and space for experimenting (Avelino 2007) An empowered niche may cluster with other empowered niches and emerge into a niche-regime This arises from the notion of co-evolution in complexity science A regime co-evolves with one or more niche-regimes infl uencing each other in an irreversible manner with an unknown outcome Crucial is the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
146 Transitions to Sustainable Development
co-evolution of a regime within the existing power structure and a niche-regime at the periphery of the power realm The niche-regime may take over the incumbent regime but may also be absorbed and encapsulated by the incumbent regime
Learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning Social learning (Social Learning Group 2001) is a pivotal aspect of transition processes aimed at reframing changing the perspective of actors involved Two important components are learning-by-doing (developing theoretical knowledge and testing it through practical experience) and doing-by-learning (developing empirical knowledge and testing it against the theory) Social learning in transition processes creates variation in terms of multiple pathways and experiments but it also provides a selection environment Variation then refers to creating a diverse but balanced portfolio of pathways and experiments Selection puts limits to variation and is based on transition criteria such as contribution to long-term transition challenge scaling up potency and high risk of failure In particular transition experiments offer important levers for learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning Three mechanisms are used to manage transition experiments deepening (learning as much as possible from a transition experiment) broadening (repeating an experiment in an adjusted form in a different context) and scaling-up (embedding an experiment in the existing structures of the incumbent regime)
Anticipation and adaptation Anticipating future trends and develop-ments or in other words taking account of weak signals and seeds of change acting as the harbingers of the future is a key element of a pro-active long-term strategy as transition management This future orientation is accompanied by a strategy of adaptation which means adjusting while the structure of the system is changing This requires adequate insight into the dynamics of a complex system not in the sense that the future state of such a system is predictable but there are periods when the system behaves in a relatively orderly manner and to a limited extent is predictable But there are also periods in which chaos rules and the behavior of the system is quite unpredictable Relatively long periods of equilibrium order and sta-bility are interspersed with relatively short periods of instability and chaos So although the degree of predictability is rather small transitions do imply generic patterns that indicate the future pathway Path dependency is an example of such a pattern
A transition is the result of a co-evolution of economic cultural techno-logical ecological and institutional developments at different scale levels So transitions by defi nition cross multiple domains and scales Complex systems also involve multiple domains and scales They are nested and encompass various organization levels where higher-level structures arise from interaction between lower-level components A common distinc-tion made involves the macro-level at which novel emergent structures are
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Research into the Governance of Transitions 147
found that arise from the interactions between components at the micro-level Every transition domain has its own dynamics cultures only change slowly but economic changes take place in the short term whereas institu-tional and technological changes are somewhere in between The various domains overlap and constantly infl uence each other through interactions and feedbacks The resulting dynamic is a hybrid picture of alternating fast and slow dynamics Analyzing the interactions and feedbacks across levels and domains is of importance for identifying patterns and mecha-nisms of transitional change and for determining instruments to infl uence these patterns and mechanisms
The above management principles are refl exive in the sense that they interpret managing as searching learning and experimenting rather than as command and control They refl ect a limited degree of managing tran-sitions not in a top-down manner but rather in a subtle way by expedit-ing and stimulating transition processes towards a more sustainable state Through experimental implementation of the complex adaptive systems approach to transitions in societal systems we have translated the theo-retical principles underlying transition management into so-called systemic instruments Table II41 summarizes the main insights from complexity theory and their translation into theoretical principles of transition man-agement as well as systemic instruments
Table II41 Linking Complexity Characteristics Theoretical Principles of Transition Management and Systemic Instruments for Transition Management
Complexity characteristics
Theoretical Principles TM
Systemic Instruments for TM
emergence creating space for niches transition arena
dissipative structures focus on frontrunners transition arena and competence analysis
diversity and coherence guided variation and selection
transition experiments and transition pathways
new attractors punctuated equilibria
radical change in incremental steps
envisioning for sustainable futures
co-evolution empowering niches competence development
variation and selection learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning
deepening broadening scaling up experiments
interactions feedbacks multi-level approachmulti-domain approach
complex systems analysis
patterns mechanisms anticipation and adaptation
multi-pattern amp multi-level analysis
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
148 Transitions to Sustainable Development
II43 MANAGING SOCIETAL CHANGE FROM A GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE
The fi eld of governance studies concerns the changes in governmental prac-tices and organization from hierarchical to decentralized and horizontal structures Due to societal developments the power of central government to make policies and implement these has decreased leading to increas-ingly diffuse policy-making structures and processes (Hooghe and Marks 2001) Generally referred to by the term ldquogovernancerdquo (Kooiman 1993) the current practice of government in policy making is in interaction with a diversity of societal actors At the European level for example this devel-opment has led to multilevel participatory decision-making structures in which regions are dealing directly with EU offi ces in which NGOs and businesses are involved in the development of policies and in which top-down decisions are limited to the politically most controversial issues But governance has also become common practice on a global as well as on a regional scale where infl uence of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) business and science slowly becomes part of policy-making processes rather than an external force or passive subject of government In general the transition from government to governance is seen as a response to increas-ing societal complexity (Mayntz 1993 Jessop 1997)
Governing societal change or how to structure and infl uence societal development in a desirable direction has been the focus of research by public administration and political scientists and other social scientists for many decades There seems to be an increasing degree of consensus in this hybrid research fi eld that new forms of steering are a response to societal challenges with a high degree of complexity Classical top-down steering by government (the extent to which social change can be effected by gov-ernment policies) as well as the liberal free-market approach (the extent to which social change can be brought about by market forces) are increas-ingly questioned as effective management mechanisms to generate sustain-able solutions at the societal level Governance literature identifi es the new forms of interactive and participatory decision making as ways to create societal consensus andor pressure as a counterbalance to more hierarchical or bottom-up market approaches (March and Olson 1995 Rhodes 1996 Milward and Provan 2000 Edelenbos 2005)
However this development in governance itself is perceived to be an ambiguous development On the one hand the emergence of new gover-nance modes and approaches is unstructured and quite random while on the other hand the diffuse practice of governance is allowing all sorts of more powerful actors to infl uence decision making in an undemocratic way Some authors put the emphasis on the benefi ts of involving stakehold-ers the democratic and legitimizing benefi ts of interactive policy making and the inevitable necessity of dealing with the reality of networks and diffusion of power (eg Kooiman 1993 Eising and Kohler-Koch 1999
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Research into the Governance of Transitions 149
Hooghe and Marks 2001 Voss and Kemp 2005) Although these authors also stress the negative effects of the shift from government to governance they generally interpret the problems as temporary and try to conceptualize how governance could be more effective and transparent
The inadequacies and problems of current forms of governance are exposed when we consider government failures and the need for new arrange-ments to give direction (see authors such as Mayntz 1993 Scharpf 1994 March and Olson 1995 Fox and Miller 1996 Pierre and Peters 2000 Hooghe and Marks 2001 Teisman 2005) This failure is also emphasized in the light of increased societal complexity and the complex unstructured nature of policy-making processes (see Hisschemoumlller 1993 Kooiman 1993 Lindblom and Woodhouse 1993 Kickert et al 1997 Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999) All the researchers mentioned above point out the impracticability of classical top-down governance but they indicate at the same time that there is still a need to direct complex societal dynamics
In general they all point at specifi c problems related to the diminished capac-ity of planning and the complex nature of a networked society Abstractly speaking these problems are (Voss 2005 Kemp and Loorbach 2005)
Dissentbull Complex societal problems are characterized by dissent on goals and means Different people have different perspectives on the (nature) of the problem and preferred solutionsDistributed controlbull In pluriform societies control cannot be exercised from the top Con-trol is distributed over various actors with different beliefs interests and resources Infl uence is exercised at different points also within government which consists of different layers and silos making uni-tary action impossibleDetermination of short-term stepsbull It is unclear how long-term change may be achieved through short-term steps Short-term action for long-term change presents a big problem to policymakers There exists little theory on thisDanger of lock-inbull There is a danger that one gets locked into particular solutions that are not the best from a longer-term perspectivePolitical myopiabull From historical studies we know that transitions in socio-technical systems take one generation or more and thus span various political cycles Long-term policies in some way must survive short-term politi-cal changes
The underlying causes for the shift towards new modes of governance in general is addressed in Part III Chapters 2ndash3 of this volume Here we analyze the governance literature in terms of what insights can contribute
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
150 Transitions to Sustainable Development
to a complexity-based form of governance for long-term societal change towards sustainability In this sense the governance literature does offer a large number of concepts instruments and lessons that we can take as starting points for transition management
II44 GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF TRANSITION MANAGEMENT RELATED TO GOVERNANCE MODES
In managing transitions the ldquowhatrdquo and ldquohowrdquo questions are intertwined This means that the content is explicitly linked to the process itself Ana-lyzing the dynamics of the complex societal system trying to grasp its dynamic behavior unfolds possibilities to infl uence its dynamics in a cer-tain direction This leads to opportunities for managing the system using innovative instruments to use the windows of opportunities created in the system However insight into the complex dynamics of a societal system is necessary but not suffi cient We also need to understand how to organize a process with multiple actors (both individual and collective) with different interests from diverging perspectives Governance studies try to understand this kind of multi-actor multi-domain and multilevel processes
Based on a general overview of the existing literature the general assumptions behind the emergence of governance as a new form of policy coordination are
All societal actors direct being aware of the opportunities as well bull as the restrictions and limitations of directing Through agency and interaction in networks society is shaped as well to which we concep-tually refer as governanceTop-down planning and market dynamics only account for parts of bull societal change network dynamics and refl exive behavior account for other partsSteering of societal change is a refl exive process of searching learning bull and experimentingThere is a strong relationship between the specifi c societal domain or bull sector and the most effective form(s) of governanceAdvocacy coalitions and their agendas drive policy change Besides bull individuals and external surprises policy change is the result of lobby groups coalitions that utilize policy windows to infl uence or change policies
This brings us to the following key characteristics of modern forms of gov-ernance which should be at the core of any prescriptive governance model focusing on complex societal issues We here only briefl y address these char-acteristics in so far as they are relevant for the deduction of the transition management framework in the next section A more elaborate description
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Research into the Governance of Transitions 151
of how governance literature addresses these issues can be found in Part III of this book (especially Chapters 2ndash3)
A Multi-Actor Approach
The concepts of networks and network-steering have become dominant in the fi eld of governance of the last decade Societal actors create formal and informal networks by interacting for different reasons sometimes because they have the same vested interests and are striving towards the same objectives sometimes because they cannot do very well without each other because they can achieve their objectives better jointly than individu-ally Especially literature on networks and process management (Dirven et al 2002 Kickert et al 1997 Marin and Mayntz 1991 Sabatier and Jen-kins-Smith 1999 Dijk 2001 De Bruijn et al 1998) and interactive policy making (eg Edelenbos 1999 Kickert et al 1997 Eising and Kohler-Koch 1999 Milward and Provan 2000 De Bruijn and Ten Heuvelhof 1997 Grin et al 2006) address the issue of multi-actor processes related to policy making However these are often not based on a selective form of participation relating to the objective of stimulating social change or transi-tions A more specifi c form of interactive policy making has become that of participation or participatory methods (Van Asselt and Rijkens-Klomp 2002 Kasemir et al 2003 Grin et al 2006) Participatory methods are more specifi c in selecting actors related to policy goals in a certain context while interactive policy making refers to the process of interaction between different actors in the context of policy making in general
A Multilevel Approach
In any societal system there are different levels of organization with dif-ferent dynamics which require different strategies At each level specifi c types of actors participate specifi c (policy) instruments are used and dif-ferent competencies are needed A specifi c emerging form of network gov-ernance is multilevel governance as observed to develop in the European Union (Scharpf 1994 Hooghe and Marks 2001) Although the idea of multilevel governance has been applied as analytical framework outside the context of the European Union (for example Kuks and Bressers 2000) it predominantly refers to network governance in the EU (regional national and European) in which for example regional actors can participate at the European level and vice versa
An interesting observation regarding this evolution is that multilevel governance does not seem to be equally effective in terms of problem solv-ing in different areas (Scharpf 1997b) Scharpf concludes based on an assessment of evaluative studies on European governance that different areas require different approaches based on their nature structure and state of development (Scharpf 1997b) So the multilevel approach redefi nes
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
152 Transitions to Sustainable Development
the reality of governance as taking place in a multi-leveled network context and opens the way for more prescriptive approaches to network governance or interactive policy making As Van de Graaf and Grin (1999) suggested multilevel policymaking can also be conceptualized as different ldquopolicy gamesrdquo (a term Scharpf also uses) implying that distinct processes actors and rules can be distinguished at these different levels We will come back to this idea in 45 below where we distinguish four different types of policy games relevant in infl uencing transitions
Agendas
Another key concept in network-governance studies has become that of agendas (Baumgartner and Jones 1993 Kingdon 1995) and (advocacy) coalitions (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1999) related to policy change Actors organize themselves in coalitions that hold similar or shared beliefs and ambitions in order to further their agenda and objectives The Advo-cacy Coalition Approach has become a model to analyze such policy-change processes (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith 1993) but a prescriptive concept or method to infl uence or organize such processes effectively has not been developed
Pluriformity Integrative and Multi-Domain Approaches
Transitions inherently operate in multiple domains Input from other domains than the prevailing domain is therefore important in terms of lessons learned innovative ideas and actors involved but also in terms of integral policy This demands a pluralistic approach that assumes the basic principle of plurality of interests and values for coordinated action in such a way that the compliance of all actors involved is achieved (Eising and Kohler-Koch 1999 Grin 2004) This implies an attempt to clarify the different perspectives (systems of norms values motives and perceptions) of the parties involved (stakeholders) (Rotmans and De Vries 1997) At an abstract level these different perspectives can be linked to worldviews and their according management style (Thompson et al 1990) Based on the existing diversity of worldviews the importance of acknowledg-ing pluriformity and diversity among different stakeholders seems obvious Agreement on collective issues and goals from this perspective can only be reached when there is a suffi cient degree of convergence of the partiesrsquo perspectives on a specifi c solution for a multi-actor issue This however is not by defi nition a consensus on all values norms and beliefs (a similar point was raised by Luhmann 1995) but rather an agreement on a very abstract level the existence of a specifi c shared problem and the consensus that there is a need to act upon this problem Problem structuring therefore becomes an intrinsic and crucial element in policy making (Rosenhead 1989 Hisschemoumlller 1993 Hisschemoumlller and Hoppe 1996)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Research into the Governance of Transitions 153
Learning
A fi nal relevant concept in the context of governance and complex society is learning For a more elaborate description of the importance of learn-ing in the context of governance for persistent problems see Part III of this book and Grin and Loeber (2007) Social learning theories (Social Learning Group 2001 2002 Allen and Strathern 2003) have come to the forefront as a way to analyze and conceptualize social change Often referred to as second-order or double-loop learning (Argyris and Schon 1978) social learning is about individuals groups or organizations that question and refl ect on the values assumptions and policies that drive their actions and through this change them This form of learning about uncer-tainty and complexity has become an important part of societal steering processes because the uncertainty and the increasing complexity in gov-ernance processes are often of a structural nature This is not so much cognitive learning but social learningmdashdeveloping interaction with others from an alternative perspective on reality (Social Learning Group 2001 Leeuwis 2003 Loeber et al 2007) The infl uence of the social context on learning is often central both in the encouraging and in the impeding sense (Loeber 2004) It is very important in such a context to gain insight into the perceptions of others who are learning at the same time Through creating stimulating contexts and facilitating the exchange of information and knowledge social learning can be stimulated (McElroy 2002)
Transition management contains main characteristics of new forms of governance network management interactivity pluralism multilevel focus and social learning Transition management is by defi nition a multi-actor process with participation from government societal organizations companies knowledge institutes and intermediary organizations Because of this participation at various levels a multilevel network emerges within which different themes are discussed and tackled (Loorbach 2007) Transition management facilitates a range of processes and points them in the same direction with a combination of network management and self-steering Various groups with a wide range of interests and ambitions attempt to get their own themes placed on the political agenda Through negotiation adaptation co-production and debate actors change their own vision and redefi ne their own position and perceive the problem in a different manner
Transition management also has some similarities with well-established forms of governance such as incrementalism (Lindblom 1979) see also Part III Chapter 4 of this book and Grin (2004) for in-depth analysis of the relevance of Lindblomrsquos work on governance and transitions notably the focus on uncertainty learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning and the organization of a searching process with several solutions On the other hand there are also major differences such as the focus on radical and structural (irreversible) change and the visionary aspect which Lindblom
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
154 Transitions to Sustainable Development
(1979) considered to be rather repugnant (particularly blueprint thinking) Transition management also involves elements from adaptive governance (March and Olson 1995 Gunderson and Holling 2002) But transition management is not only adaptive but also anticipating (focused on the long term) which does not necessarily assume a reduction in uncertainty but rather accepts that structural uncertainty cannot be fully reduced Transi-tion management also contains insights from innovation theory especially the work on technological transitions (Freeman and Perez 1988) and the work on path-dependence (David 1985 Arthur 1989)
In order to couple the formalized deductive abstractions of complexity theory and the inductive often empirically developed management concepts of governance we use notions from social theory conceptualizing transitions as societal processes in which co-evolution between structures actors and practices occurs Structure emerges from the intended and unintended effects of acting whereas structure contributes to the determination of practices that form a means for acting of societal actors (Giddens 1984 Luhmann 1995 Beck 1999 Grin et al 2004) that all take societal complexity as a starting point albeit from various perspectives and scale levels
Apart from characteristics embedded in the above forms of governance transition management has distinguishing characteristics The combina-tion of visionarity the long-term perspective and sustainability as norma-tive guiding principles is a distinguishing aspect from other (new) forms
Table II42 Linking Complexity Characteristics Theoretical Principles of Transition Management and New Governance Concepts
Complexity characteristics
Theoretical Principles TM
New governance characteristics
Emergence creating space for niches adaptive governance
dissipative structures focus on frontrunners selective participatory process
diversity and coherence guided variation and selection
diversity management
new attractors punctuated equilibria
radical change in incremental steps
long-term envisioning
co-evolution empowering niches co-evolutionary form of governance
variation and selection learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning
deepening broadening scaling up experiments
interactions feedbacks multi-level approachmulti-domain approach
refl exive governance
patterns mechanisms anticipation and adaptation
anticipative and adaptive governance
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Research into the Governance of Transitions 155
of governance But in particular the combination of analytic insight into systems complexity and understanding of the process of governance com-plexity is new and has resulted in a specifi c management framework which we will discuss in more detail below
The challenge here is to translate the above relatively abstract man-agement rules into a practical management framework without losing too much of the complexity involved and without becoming too prescrip-tive We have attempted this by designating transition management as a cyclical process of searching learning and experimenting in development phases at various scale levels Obviously this doesnrsquot do justice to the full complexity of the process of transition management but it serves mainly as a communication vehicle The cycle of transition management consists of the following components (Loorbach 2002 Rotmans 2003 Loorbach and Rotmans 2006) (i) structure the problem in question and estab-lish and organize the transition arena (ii) develop a transition agenda a vision of sustainability development and derive the necessary transition paths (iii) establish and carry out transition experiments and mobilize the resulting transition networks (iv) monitor evaluate and learn lessons from the transition experiments and based on these make adjustments in the vision agenda and coalitions In reality there is no fi xed sequence of the steps in transition management as Figure II41 suggests and the steps can differ in weight per cycle In practice the transition management activities are carried out partially and completely in sequence in parallel and in a random sequence
The framework for transition management distinguishes between four types of activities that can be considered different types of policy games (Van de Graaf and Grin 1997) or different levels of policy making stra-tegic tactical operational and refl exive (Loorbach 2007 Loorbach 2010)
Strategic processes of vision development strategic discussions long-bull term goal formulation etcTactical processes of agenda-building negotiating networking bull coalition building etcOperational processes of experimenting project building implemen-bull tation etcRefl exive processes of monitoring evaluation and learningbull
Each type of activity can be related to specifi c types of actors that partici-pate specifi c (policy) instruments that are used and different competencies that are needed Taking an actorrsquos perspective transitions are the outcome of the interactions between actors on one level and interactions between levels Actor strategies inform short-term activities and competing com-panies for example will follow similar trajectories Transitions are the result of interactions among all actors in society governments businesses
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
156 Transitions to Sustainable Development
NGOs universities and citizens It is necessary to acknowledge not only the infl uence of all actors on processes of societal change but also to value the various perspectives and the diverse knowledge of these actors
The activities of transition management are aimed at infl uencing orga-nizing and coordinating the different types of governance activities (stra-tegic tactical operational refl exive) so that these are (more) aligned and reinforce each other To this end different transition management instru-ments are used at different levels (transition arena transition agenda transition experiments) and different actors are involved based on their competences knowledge input and role During the transition management process an increasing number of actors is or gets involved in operational and refl exive activities while only a relatively small number of actors will be involved in strategic and tactical activities
In effect transition management comes down to creating space for front-runners (niche-players and regime-players) in transition arenas forming new coalitions around these arenas driving the activities in a shared and desired direction and developing coalitions and networks into a movement
Figure II41 Activity clusters in transition management (Loorbach 2007)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Research into the Governance of Transitions 157
that puts societal pressure on regular policy In the transition management framework activities related to the content (systems analysis envisioning agenda building and experiments) are linked to activities related to the pro-cess (network and coalition building executing experiments and process structuring) The preferred actors to be involved (based on the necessary competencies) and instruments (like scenarios transition-agendas moni-toring instruments etc) are derived from this framework The four activity clusters as depicted in Figure II41 are described in more detail below
Problem Structuring and Establishment of a Transition Arena
The transition arena is best viewed as a virtual arena or network which provides room for long-term refl ection and prolonged experimentation Such a transition arena has to be supported by political actors or regime-powers but not dictated by them for example through the support of a minister or a director In general around 15ndash20 front-runners are involved in the beginning of the transition arena while over time only around fi ve will become the core group Within such a transition arena each actor redefi nes its own role competences and modus operandi in interaction and co-production with the other actors Through a process of co-production of visions and agendas and coordination of activities actors are facilitated to formulate joint goals and develop common strategies that involve societal uncertainties power relations and institutional barriers as well as ambi-tions targets and desires (Van Buuren and Loorbach 2009)
Within the transition arena which basically involves multiple in-depth discussions structured according to the integrated systems approach facili-tators synthesize discussions and work towards convergence of perspectives assumptions and ambitions The transition arena develops a shared under-standing of the persistency of a problem at the level of a societal system the necessity of a transition or radical change and the defi nition of the chal-lenge this poses A key outcome is a new shared perspective and language to discuss the transition and the defi nition of a set of guiding principles for the envisaged transition This relates to the earlier mentioned phenomenon of emergence the awareness of and insight into the complexity of their environment helps individuals to better understand the complexity and the possibilities for them to infl uence that system on a small scale
An integrated systems analysis forms the basis of every transition man-agement process in order to provide a common ground for a variety of actors and enough information for informed debates and discussions Informed insight into the complexity of the system its major defi ning sub-systems the dominant causal relations feedback loops and the roots and the nature of structural problems establish a baseline as well as conditions for discuss-ing visions strategies and actions in the future At the same time such a preliminary assessment yields knowledge about the main actors infl uencing the system in both a conservative and innovative manner and helps to guide
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
158 Transitions to Sustainable Development
the selection of participants for the transition arena Such a selection is of vital importance because participants need to have some basic competen-cies at their disposal they need to be front-runners have the ability to look beyond their own working area and be open-minded They must function autonomously within their organization regime or niche but also have the ability to convey the developed vision(s) and develop it further within their organization As the process progresses the transition arena will expand slowly involving new actors while at the same time some participants will leave the transition arena
Developing Sustainability Visions Pathways and a Transition Agenda
Long-term visions of sustainability can function as a guide for formulating programs and policies and for setting short-term and long-term objectives These visions must be appealing and imaginative so as to be supported by a broad range of actors Inspiring fi nal visions are useful for mobilizing social actors although they should also be realistic about innovation levels within the functional sub-system in question Last but not least they repre-sent a consensus among different actors on what sustainability means for a specifi c transition theme Most visions of sustainability are still imposed by the government upon other parties in a top-down matter or originate from a select group of experts who are far from representative of the broad social setting Transition visions however are developed by front-runners in a transition arena and embrace multiple transition images (a basket of transi-tion images) to represent a variety of possible options Transition images represent integral descriptions of (sub)systems which evolve over time and depend on new insights and learning effects The transition images include transition goals which are qualitative rather than quantitative and multi-dimensional representing the three dimensions of sustainability economic ecological and socio-cultural
Various transition pathways lead to a particular transition image (a sustainability vision comprises various transition images) and from vari-ous transition images a particular transition pathway may be derived Transition images are the translation of the generic guiding principles or sustainability criteria to specifi c concrete settings sub-sectors or themes These images must be appealing and imaginative so as to be supported by a broad range of actors and inspire and guide short-term action Inspiring images are useful for mobilizing social actors and represent a consensus among different actors on what sustainability means for a specifi c transi-tion theme which could evolve over time as new insights emerge Transi-tion images embrace multiple transition pathways to represent a variety of possible options They include transition goals which are qualitative rather than quantitative and multi-dimensional representing the three
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Research into the Governance of Transitions 159
dimensions of sustainability economic ecological and socio-cultural The transition images can be adjusted as a result of what was learned by the players in transition experiments The transition process is thus a goal-seeking process where the transition visions and images as well as the underlying goals change over time This differs from so-called blueprint thinking which operates from a fi xed notion of fi nal goals and correspond-ing visions
Based on a process of variation and selection new visions and images emerge others die out and existing ones will be adjusted Only during the course of the transition process will the transition visions and images be chosen that appear to the actors as the most innovative promising and feasible This evolutionary goal-seeking process means a radical break with current practice in environmental policy where quantitative standards are set on the basis of studies of social risk and adjusted for political expedi-ency Interim objectives are used which are derived from the long-term objectives (through back-casting) and contain qualitative as well as semi-quantitative goals and measures
The interim objectives are part of a common transition agenda which con-tains a number of joint objectives action points projects and instruments to realize these objectives So the transition agenda contains both content objec-tives process objectives and learning objectives While the transition visions transition images and transition objectives form the guidelines for the transi-tion agenda the transition agenda itself is the compass for the front-runners which they can refer to during their search and learning process
The Initiation and Execution of Transition-Experiments
From the transition vision images and pathways transition-experiments can be derived which are either related to or combined with existing activi-ties Transition-experiments are high-risk experiments with a social learning objective that are supposed to contribute to the sustainability goals at the systems level and should fi t within the transition pathways (Kemp and Van den Bosch 2006) It is important to formulate sound criteria for the selection of experiments and to make the experiments mutually coherent The crucial point is to measure to what extent the experiments and projects contribute to the overall system sustainability goals and to measure in what way a particu-lar experiment reinforces another experiment Are there specifi c niches for experiments that can be identifi ed What is the attitude of the current regime towards these niche experiments The aim is to create a portfolio of transi-tion-experiments that reinforce each other and contribute to the sustainabil-ity objectives in signifi cant and measurable ways Around and between these experiments all sorts of actors can be involved that will not engage regularly in debates about long-term issues small business consumers citizens local groups etc Here as well the emphasis is on involving front-runners
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
160 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Monitoring and Evaluating the Transition Process
Continuous monitoring is a vital part of the search and learning process of transitions We distinguish between monitoring the transition process itself and monitoring transition management Monitoring the transition process involves physical changes in the system in question slowly chang-ing macro-developments fast niche-developments and seeds of change as well as movements of individual and collective actors at the regime level This provides the enriched context for transition management Monitor-ing of transition management involves different aspects First the actors within the transition arena must be monitored with regard to their behav-ior networking activities alliance forming and responsibilities and also with regard to their activities projects and instruments Next the transi-tion agenda must be monitored with regard to the actions goals projects and instruments that have been agreed upon Transition experiments need to be monitored with regard to specifi c new knowledge and insight and how these are transferred but also with regard to the aspects of social and institutional learning Finally the transition process itself must be moni-tored with regards to the rate of progress the barriers and points to be improved etc Integration of monitoring and evaluation within each phase and at every level of transition management may stimulate a process of social learning that arises from the interaction and cooperation between different actors involved
In each of the above activity clusters coalition and network formation is of vital importance combined with the systemic structuring and synthesiz-ing of discussions The transition arena is meant to stimulate the formation of new coalitions partnerships and networks Mostly coalitions emerge around transition pathways or experiments or around specifi c sub-themes where arenas from arenas arise The very idea behind transition manage-ment is to create some kind of societal movement through new coalitions partnerships and networks around arenas (and arenas from arenas) that allows for building continuous pressure on the political and market arena to safeguard the long-term orientation and goals of the transition process
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
II5 Case Study IParkstad Limburg Regional Transition Management
Between 2001 and 2004 transition management was experimentally applied in a regional context in Parkstad Limburg a regional cooperation between eight municipalities in the most southern part of the Netherlands The context was a project to develop a regional spatial vision (in Dutch structuurvisie) commissioned by regional government This project offered the possibility for an experimental implementation of the initial ideas of transition management as formulated in Rotmans et al (2001) At the start only the basic assumptions underlying the transition management approach and only initial ideas on how to implement the approach were formulated In hindsight this project provided a fruitful context for developing ideas on system analysis the transition arena and the transition agenda In this sense this project provided much of the empirical basis for ideas on the transition management framework and instruments presented before In addition it also led to signifi cant adjustments and improvements in the theoretical part of the transition management approach
II51 TYPE OF TRANSITION AND TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
This project concerned the application of the transition approach on a regional scale The regional system Parkstad Limburg was defi ned as the unit of analysis In terms of the transition typology however such a sys-tem is still considered to be of the highest level of aggregation it concerns a societal system including multiple interwoven sub-systems across mul-tiple levels We will elaborate on the system itself and its dynamics in the next sections but the general situation at the start of the process was that of a region in demographic and economic decline with political opposi-tions between the different municipalities and a negative attitude towards the future among citizens and policy offi cials This was identifi ed as the dominant regime institutionally structured at the level of nine municipali-ties in a distinct regional area The situation was stable but threatened by the ongoing decline and stalemate between the municipalities preventing innovation reorganization and new courses of development The transition
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
162 Transitions to Sustainable Development
management process needed in this situation to prove to be one that focused on problem structuring on defi ning the need for and direction of a desired transition and thus on developing a new belief in the future
II52 PARKSTAD LIMBURG THE CONTEXT FOR TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
In 1998 the municipalities of Brunssum Heerlen Kerkrade Landgraaf Onderbanken Nuth Simpelveld and Voerendaal came to an agreement to start a form of cooperation to deal with a multitude of regional and local challenges The region had experienced a long period of problematic devel-opment because of historic reasons In 19651 the Dutch government closed the national coal mines (DSM De Staatsmijnen) which resulted in a dra-matic rise of unemployment in the region Low education levels and polluted sites contributed to high levels of occupational health problems that exist to this day Although compensation to the region was provided in the form of relocation to Heerlen of national institutes like the national offi ces of the Pension Fund Agency (ABP) and the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS) a period of negative and introvert development characterized the region well into the nineties The downward trend was reinforced by the peripheral location of the region in the southeast of the Netherlands and far away from national government in The Hague A lack of governmental coherence and strategy added to the problem by not drawing substantial cash fl ows from national government to the region so that apart from the relocation of large institutions not much extra investment was made in the region
In 1999 a regional agenda was set which incorporated four themes economic social and spatial planning policies and strategic efforts con-cerning coordination between the region and provincial national and international (EU regional) governmental bodies and policies To under-line the importance of regional cooperation the new name ldquoParkstad Lim-burgrdquo was presented The overall goal was formulated as follows ldquoto raise the social-economic development of the region to the same level as the rest of the Netherlands and to make use of the advantages of the location near the border with Germany and Belgium within the next 10 yearsrdquo2 But in spite of the governmental agreement to cooperate the individual munici-pal councils were hardly willing to give up local autonomy During the fi rst years of the cooperation some small-scale changes were accomplished such as meetings between local offi cials the establishment of a regional council (on which one offi cial representative served from each municipal-ity involved) and the development of a communication plan Agreement was reached upon a joint regional project the development of a regional structure plan This spatial planning vision for the region should have a time horizon of 20 years or more and take into account social-cultural economic and ecological elements
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study I Parkstad Limburg 163
II53 TRANSITION ARENA PARKSTAD LIMBURG
The basis for the project that should lead up to the vision was formulated in the ICIS3 quotation ldquoVision development for Parkstad Limburg in transi-tionrdquo (ICIS 2001) Intense discussions preceded the exact formulation of the approach and exact outcomes of the project In these discussions two basic demands of the project team were granted the project was positioned independently from regular policy and the product would be an open and societal vision Unlike a blueprint for regional planning this vision was per-ceived to form an integrative frame for further development of the region and regional policies
This approach developed before the start of the project comprised a blend of systems thinking and a participatory process The terms ldquotransi-tionrdquo and ldquotransition managementrdquo were not commonly used at the time within ICIS or within policy making in general but the report by Rotmans et al (2000) and the NMP4 (VROM 2001a) had just been fi nished for publication This resulted in a process plan for the project which was based on the transition concept the approach was defi ned as multi-domain (inte-grated strategy) multilevel (in time and in space) and multi-actor (from dif-ferent social groups and with different knowledge and experience) It was based upon some of the basic notions underlying transition management
Outsiders are better able to develop radical visionsbull (Institutional mental) space is needed to develop well-founded under-bull standing of a complex issue and a vision dealing with this issueA broad vision allowing multiple pathways should be guiding short-bull term action
II54 PREPARATORY PHASE SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND PROCESS DESIGN
A fi rst step in the project was to perform a system analysis (in this case based on the so-called SCENE-model (Grosskurth and Rotmans 2005) This is essentially a stocks-and-fl ows model which allows combining quantitative and qualitative data to be able to produce a synthesized analysis of the state of a system The SCENE-model is mainly used in a participatory setting to support the process of developing a shared perspective on reality and a shared language to discuss problems and solutions amongst a diverse group of participants The desk study drew mostly from existing sources4 and was complemented with several interviews It resulted in the Situatieschets Park-stad Limburg (Situation sketch) (Van de Lindt et al 2002b) This analysis distinguished in line with the transition concepts external trends and inter-nal developments and projected possible scenarios By placing the analysis in a long-term perspective historic transitions were identifi ed
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
164 Transitions to Sustainable Development
The document concluded with a synthesis that described Parkstad Lim-burg as a system and analyzed its state of development as predevelopment but close to take-off The system analysis is an instrument to put together dif-ferent types of knowledge in order to facilitate a general discussion about the dynamics patterns and historical development of a system based on factual as well as tacit knowledge As complex system insights suggest full and deter-ministic understanding of a system is unattainable The study explicitly had the purpose of providing the basis for discussion but perhaps even more to evoke debate between participants with different backgrounds and perspec-tives By framing the discussion in system and transition terminology the par-ticipants were to develop a joint understanding of the system dynamics and a common language to talk about sustainable development in the region
Textbox II51 is taken from that synthesis and gives a good idea of the persistence of the problems facing the region and how the future develop-ment was framed
II55 DEVELOPING THE TRANSITION ARENA AND PROCESS DESIGN
The next step was to design the envisioning process and select participants Parallel to the work on the Situatieschets intensive discussions about transition management were going on within the project team especially between the transition researchers and the policy offi cials The initial orga-nizational structure and process design was based on the transition man-agement cycle with ten steps which had been developed at the same time by ICIS (see Figure II52)
Figure II51 SCENE-model Parkstad Limburg as presented on February 17 2002
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study I Parkstad Limburg 165
Textbox II51 Summary from ldquoSynthesis Analysis Parkstad Limburgrdquo (Van de Lindt 2002)
Parkstad Limburg as a region is located in the middle of the dynamic regions of Aachen (Germany) Liege and Hasselt (Belgium) and Maastricht (the Neth-erlands) The region is confronted with problems that are far greater than local authorities can handle whereas governance is still organized at the level of the municipalities These problems are complex multi-domain multi-level and multi-actor
Socio-cultural domain In Parkstad Limburg the population (ca bull 270000 inhabitants) is ageing and young people leave the region in search for education and employment elsewhere which leads to a decrease in overall population Educational levels and income levels are relatively low compared to the rest of the Netherlands Social cohesion is strong due to cultural ties local community life (carnival marching bands and leisure clubs) and good local facilities Crime is a nuisance especially in Heerlen and Kerkrade mainly drugs-related The housing stock is dated and there is an overall shortage there is a surplus of cheap family rental homes and a shortage of more expensive houses leading to social segregation and problem areas In view of the ageing population there is also a shortage of service fl ats for the elderly On a more posi-tive note the living area is valued highly especially in the more rural and small municipalities Overall there are not enough attractive living areas and houses to attract new citizensEconomic Domain 35 of the population fi nd employment in the bull (mainly product-) industry 20 in services Tourist industry (1 mil-lion visitors every year) is an important part of the economic structure As a result of the mining history unemployment levels are high (espe-cially long-term unemployment) and there is a large degree of occupa-tional disability (diseases like lung diseases (black lung) rheumatism and back injuries) The activities of research institutes and small and medium enterprises are attuned to a certain level but there is quite a misfi t between core research fi elds of med-tech and ICT and (applica-tion in) industry and business There is enough room for new busi-ness locations but because of the lack of high-skilled labour and the peripheral location of the region there is not a lot of interest from the side of businessEcologic domain Main selling point of Parkstad Limburg is its land-bull scape and cultural heritage There is a very high quality in nature and biodiversity although there are some highly polluted former mining areas The hills fi elds and small streams combined with the castles large old farmhouses and picturesque small villages make a very attrac-tive recreational and living area This forms the spatial characteristic of Parkstad Limburg a continuous alternation between green and built-on
(continued)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
166 Transitions to Sustainable Development
areas Although this can be seen as strength it has also led to an inco-herent and fragmented spatial structure so that most citizens do not recognize the park-city landscape The quality of air soil and water is pressurized by pollution mainly from neighbouring areas (like the Ger-man Ruhrgebied) and nearby airports
To sum up one could say that Parkstad Limburg is still dealing with (and liv-ing in) the past The dominant culture is introvert and resigned and people are not expecting much progress but fi nd comfort in local communities Due to the introvert political culture cooperation is diffi cult and development at the level of the region is cumbersome Extrapolating the negative trends would lead to an even more unsustainable development of the region which is already one of the worst in the Netherlands This necessitates not only cooperation at the level of the region but also an integrated interactive and long-term effort to turn this around and generate a sustainable development Important corner stones for an envisioning process are therefore
the guiding principle of sustainable development bull the network principle (Parkstad Limburg as network of networks) bull fostering small scale development by operating on a larger scale (pro-bull tecting small scale facilities by creating a network and thus operating on a larger scale)developing spatial cores that hold different levels of functions and facilities bull
Textbox II51 (continued)
Figure II52 First (ten-step) version of the transition management cycle (Dirven Rotmans and Verkaik 2002)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study I Parkstad Limburg 167
In the design these steps were combined into three phases The most notable changes compared to the initial quotation which was formulated fi ve months earlier were the term ldquotransition arenardquo instead of ldquocore grouprdquo and putting the development of an integrated vision before the development of the transition paths and agendas The changed process design was the result of new ideas developed in the context of discussions with the Ministry of Economic Affairs concerning the process design for the Energy Transi-tion project In these discussions a comment was made that the process should be shielded from short-term concerns especially from the political arena This comment led to the idea of calling the group of front-runners that would explore a future vision and agenda a transition arena But the changes also emerged out of the interaction within the transition manage-ment team where the government offi cials were slowly introduced to the transition management approach and could participate in the specifi c adjust-ment of the general ideas to the specifi c context of Parkstad Limburg
The concept of transition arena was found to be useful in underlining the need to create a forum separate from the political arena to assure a more social process of visioning and agenda building with a focus on the long term The development of an integrated strategy (transition agenda) to complement the envisioning was seen not only as a way to produce con-crete recommendations for policy (which was a continuous concern for the policy offi cials involved) but also as a key element of a transition arena approach Explicitly the approach emphasized the need for participatory processes in which participants exchanged perspective and experiences in structured discussions thereby internalizing a specifi c way of framing an issue and co-producing a strategy for dealing with it
Simultaneously with the development of the process architecture the project team started inviting and selecting possible participants in the core group A number of selection criteria were defi ned by ICIS based on the assumption that front-runners with different backgrounds could develop a basis for a much broader societal process
Textbox II52 Initial Arena Selection Criteria
representatives should come from different backgrounds so that differ-bull ent societal perspectives would be represented (business NGOs inter-mediaries knowledge institutes and government) equal distribution among societal representativesthe core group should be limited to a maximum of 15 people based on bull the idea that it would be better to develop an in-depth vision before sharing it with the larger publicthe individuals should have an expressed desire to innovatebull the individuals should have the capability of strategic thinking of (tem-bull porarily) letting go of short-term concernsthe individuals should have a certain level of authority in their fi eld of bull work and have a good network
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
168 Transitions to Sustainable Development
The actual envisioning process started in the beginning of June 2002 The transition arena included participants with a variety of backgrounds a housing corporation media business and industry an environmental NGO the church the tourist agency the regional theater and health-care organizations The meetings of the transition arena were held in inspiring venues such as castles and historical houses throughout the region In a period of 11 months the core group met 10 times including a meeting with the advisory board (people who attended the kick-off meeting as well as other interested actors)
In the fi rst meetings the initial system analysis was presented and dis-cussed This proved to be more complex than anticipated by the transition management team there was dissent about the urgency of the problems and even about the existence of specifi c problems Although most participants agreed that to some extent the historical development of the region had led to underdevelopment in the economic sense the feeling some had was that overall the region was in much better shape than comparable other regions in the Netherlands or even the bigger cities with their own specifi c prob-lems Furthermore the participants did not immediately recognize each otherrsquos problems or were unaware of them For example the problems of organizing tourist accommodation on a regional level or the environmen-tal problems related to spatial development were not immediately seen as central or very urgent On the other hand almost all participants regarded problems such as the aging population and the economic and mobility problems as important
With the project running for a couple of months and almost half a year after the kick-off meeting the project leaders and commissioning board requested a meeting with the advisory group composed of roughly 80 rep-resentatives from the region Within the transition management team there were doubts about whether to organize such a meeting since there were no concrete results in terms of plans and actions at that point there was only an extended problem analysis and a consensus within the transition arena on the urgency of the problems and the need for a transition This resulted in a broad meeting with the advisory board on July 3 2002 that was full of confusion and tension between academic theory and day-to-day prac-tice It became clear that the transition arena process was far too abstract and unclear to satisfy the needs and expectations from the advisory board As one participant a hotel owner put it ldquoHow does this whole process make sure that my beds are fi lled this winterrdquo
The meeting with the advisory board seemed rather disastrous at that moment This made the project leaders very nervous because of the negative publicity and negative impact on public support for the project However it also proved to have a positive infl uence on the process the transition arena itself became more committed to developing a tangible vision and concrete plans and at the same time the project leaders also grew convinced that the transition arena should be shielded for an extended period from the pressures from the regular policy arena In the transition arena process that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study I Parkstad Limburg 169
followed the participants became increasingly committed to the process and the substance developed
A fi rst step was that they found a joint problem defi nition A general commonality of the problems seemed to be the fact that the organizational level of scale within the region was that of the individual municipalities although most of the problems identifi ed were present at the regional level In addition the organizations involved were already active at the regional scale for example the tourist and health care organizations but also the housing corporation and the media This had already been signaled in the Situatieschets but had now become a joint perception of the participants What was then ultimately defi ned as a shared problem defi nition was that Parkstad Limburg (regional level) should be the minimal scale to operate on It was concluded that this would be a good starting point to develop the vision but that additionally the different sub-themes should be worked out more concretely in smaller working groups including domain experts
The themes selected for the working groups were spatial characteris-tics economy and socio-cultural and institutional domains When the groups met there was fi rst a general plenary presentation on the latest version of the systems analysis including the shared problem defi nition The general feeling was that part of the information provided was com-mon knowledge and that the level of detail was sometimes insuffi cient The overall integrated analysis however was received with more enthu-siasm and the group felt that a new perspective on what constituted Park-stad Limburg had been developed and levers for change were identifi ed In general it could be said that participants were motivated to contribute and become part of the growing transition network for the region while simultaneously they were being challenged to deepen the analysis and ideas regarding (their) specifi c themes
When the discussions were started within the working groups in which two or three members of the transition arena participated the systems lan-guage including the rough analytical framework (SCENE) proved to be very useful when it came to provoking discussions causal reasoning and integrated analysis The working group sessions provided more and detailed informa-tion but also showed a growing support for the approach and the overall need for change in Parkstad Limburg Finally the groups formulated some basic desires regarding the different themes which would later on become part of the transition images In the next session the focus of the discus-sions shifted from the problem analysis to the future Based on the working group output two basic scenarios were presented and discussed ldquoParkstad Limburg caring regionrdquo and ldquoParkstad Limburg adventurous regionrdquo The fi rst image put emphasis on small-scale development on social cohesion and regional culture and on suffi cient but small-scale economic activities The latter scenario presented a picture of Parkstad as an international region with a dynamic culture and high-level economic activities In a sense these two opposing and in many respects confl icting images presented two different sides of Parkstad in an extreme and stereotypical sense
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
170 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Already a year into the process the transition arena fi nally entered the phase in which full focus was on the future The group coined a label for the vision Eigen Wijze Regio which literally translates as ldquoSelf-willed regionrdquo The vision would combine the strengths of the region the cohesion and high quality of living on a local scale combined with an outward-looking culture and economy (though not a very modern or ICT-based economy rather a modern industry) It was decided that a smaller section of the transition arena would work on the vision more intensively before the next meeting of the whole group Within this so-called core group consisting of the six most committed inspired and dedicated members of the original transition arena the overall vision was developed in four very intensive sessions
A number of critical decisions were made during this fi nal phase One was that the overall vision would be presented in terms of sustainability conditions or necessary choices for the region In transition terms these could be interpreted as shared guiding principles that together would func-tion as an attractor in the sense that they were supposed to become leading for a short-term decision The principles would be translated to different sub-themes for which transition images were to be developed This meant that no overall scenario or image was developed but rather a collection of thematic images that combined with the guiding principles would sketch the future of the region Another decision was that different sub-themes were selected but these needed to be integral Examples of these transition themes are economy and knowledge green areas cultural passion and rec-reational diversity
By the summer of 2003 the outlines of a fi nal document had emerged though the form presentation and actual coherence between all elements was by no means obvious During the summer the core group together with the transition management team drafted the fi nal document which was fi nally called ldquoOp Hete Kolenrdquo (a Dutch saying that means ldquolike a cat on hot bricksrdquo ldquoKolenrdquo (literally ldquocoalsrdquo) refers to the mining history of the region) The fi nal document contained all the elements of the transi-tion arena process the problem analysis and defi nition the shared guiding principles the selected sub-themes and their transition images It also iden-tifi ed transition experiments and projects possible within the sub-themes (see table below) The whole document was refl ected upon and improved by the transition arena and fi nalized by the end of August 2003 some eighteen months after the beginning of the project It included a number of specifi c ideas that had been further developed by individual members of the transition arena Examples of such proposals are collaboration between higher education and local industries in education and training focused on entrepreneurial and industrial activities
The core elements of this transition agenda relate to important elements in the transition management approach and represent the outcome of what we could call social learning and reframing The integrated problem analysis and problem defi nition represent the group understanding of the complexity
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study I Parkstad Limburg 171
Textbox II53 Key Elements of the Parkstad Limburg Vision ldquoOp Hete Kolenrdquo
Integrated Problem Analysis
Environmental (pollution airwaterground spatial coherence ) bull Social (employment levels education levels ageing population ) bull Economic (low incomes underused knowledge structure low attractive-bull ness for business)Institutional (no cooperation pro-active lobby) bull
Shared Problem Defi nition
Parkstad Limburg (regional level) is the minimal scale to operate onbull Operating on this level necessitates a shared perspective and shared bull actionThere is a high sense of urgency despite the institutional fragmentation bull to act quickly to deal with the major problems facing the region
Future Vision Five Necessary Choices (basic shared principles)
Natural landscape and qualities leading in spatial planning and regional bull developmentFrom fragmentation to coherencebull Unity through diversitybull Integral (triple) sustainability bull From introvert to extravert thinking and actingbull
Six Opportunities (transition images and paths)
Brain economy and active knowledgebull Green areas revitalizedbull Care for welfarebull Recreational diversitybull Cultural passionbull Regionalization bull Space for Parkstad (spatial planning concept) bull
A Short Term Agenda (linked to the six themes)
Local profi les (17 lsquostadsdelenrsquo)bull Cooperation (housing and health care organizations) bull Cooperation educationknowledge institutes and localregional businessbull Development of thematic plans visions and networks (tourism rural bull areas culture)Coalitions in healthcare education tourismbull Media attention TV-seriesbull Public debatesbull Etcbull
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
172 Transitions to Sustainable Development
and the persistency of the problems in the region With this understanding comes the realization that there is not one actor that can solve it by itself there are many ways to deal with the problems and there are many uncer-tainties in the long-term process to deal with the problems Based on this the vision or sustainability criteria defi ne the conditions under which such a long-term and uncertain process should be approached Anything goes as long as it meets the overall criteria The necessary choices and experi-ments represent the ideas and activities proposed by the participants of the transition arena but not necessarily all possible actions Rather they give an idea of the type of ideas and actions which could contribute to the overall direction
The transition vision and transition agenda for Parkstad Limburg were presented before the executive board of Parkstad Limburg two mayors and other offi cials involved in the region The reactions were positive and the peo-ple expressed their agreement with most of the analysis as well as the neces-sary choices identifi ed This marked the formal end of the project but it was clear both through the text and the way it was presented and communicated by individual members of the transition arena that the process of transi-tion and the operationalization of the transition vision and transition agenda were not fi nished here It was agreed that the different working groups on the specifi c sub-themes would continue their work to specify the plans in more detail and come up with additional actions for the region By the end of that year this would culminate in the fi nal vision document which was presented to the public on behalf of the transition arena and the project leaders
II56 IMPACT OF THE PROJECT
While the ultimate question whether this project set in motion a regional transition can obviously not be answered unequivocally a number of impacts and follow-up activities suggest that at least the vision and agenda drew attention and support and provided a good basis for further regional development The most direct result of the project was the decision of the municipalities to start the process to form one region In fact this had been perceived to be one of the main barriers beforehand (and in the Situati-eschets) In November 2005 the cooperating municipalities agreed upon the so-called Wgr+ regulation (Wet gemeenschappelijke regelingen law on joint regulations) which basically meant the transfer of authorities from municipal to regional level The consensus that was reached and the argu-mentation behind the agreement were explicitly based on the problem anal-ysis and recommendations from the fi nal report
In mid-2004 a group of representatives from the world of business semi-public and intermediary organizations presented their vision on the region in the document ldquoOp Hete Kolenrdquo The signal was clear there is a high sense of urgency for Parkstad Limburg to act the spatial structure is weakened
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study I Parkstad Limburg 173
the image is negative and the population is aging ldquoOn Hot Coalsrdquo states that we the local government need to take action make choices support the economy and strengthen local government The Parkstad Limburg council has taken up this challenge in the fi rst place by further streamlin-ing the regional agenda The conclusions of this report however do not only have an impact on the substance of the regional agenda Institutional arrangements need to be strengthened as well This will be achieved along two lines the Wgr+ and a strategic alliance with the province (Parkstad Limburg (2005) translation Derk Loorbach)5
Moreover in this way the regional policy agenda was also infl uenced by the transition vision in the sense that themes were redefi ned and other priorities were set It was presented as a milestone for the future develop-ment of the region and was described in the regional newspaper the next day under the headline ldquoMassive support for Parkstadrdquo (136 aldermen for and 5 against) The article opened
Forty years after the announcement of the closing of the mines by Joop den Uyl (then PM DL) the municipalities of the former mining area decided to go beyond the usual cooperation
(Limburgs Dagblad November 16 2005 translation Derk Loorbach)6
The following future spatial plan developed by the council literally based itself on Op Hete Kolen and proposed very similar guiding principles nec-essary choices and transition paths (see Stipo-Consult 2005) Another con-crete result was the spatial study commissioned by the housing corporation involved which was explicitly based on the spatial structuring framework part of the transition vision The basic idea is used as guiding principle for the development and restructuring of the urban areas This was initiated by the director of the housing corporation involved in the transition arena who provided the basis for the regional housing vision statement ldquoAt home in Parkstad Limburgrdquo The vision was developed and supported by the Park-stad municipalities and the three major housing corporations in the region Part of the vision is the development of local housing areas (woonmilieus) such as social castles mining colonies and hill-homes The regional news-paper wrote the day after presentation
The housing vision is part of the Parkstad vision lsquoOn hot coalsrsquo that was presented by the end of last year In this vision Parkstad strongly expresses the will to develop a better living and housing environment
(Limburger August 27 2004)
The idea of OGO (entrepreneurial-based education) that came out of the transition arena was followed up in terms of the development of a concrete coalition between education institutions and small and medium enterprises in the regional and actual educational programs with integrated internships
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
174 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Two initiators of these programs were members of the transition arena In the fi eld of tourism and recreation much more emphasis was put on regional profi ling (shared marketing of tourist attractions regional offers including accommodation bike rental and recreation) and much more attention has been paid to the EU-regional context A driving force in this process has been the director of the regional tourist offi ce who was also a member of the transition arena Another transition arena member that voiced his opinion in public debate was the director of the Parkstad Limburg theatre He made a strong argument for coherent cultural policy and has personally taken various initiatives to stimulate and accommodate regional culture
On a more general level it seems that the individuals involved in both the transition arena and the process that evolved around the transition arena (the meetings with the advisory board the working groups and the external presentations) also stimulated the public debate and the general perception of the region A growing number of actors seem to be convinced not only of the urgency to act but also of possible opportunities to turn the region around The negative and self-pitying way of thinking seems to be abandoned by a growing number of actors Some quotes from individuals show this ldquoWe shouldnrsquot depress ourselves because the processing industry is leaving the region It changes and we have to change with itrdquo7 and ldquoThe strength of a region in fl ux is the opportunity to start something completely newrdquo (Limburgs Dagblad December 16 2005)8
Two other developments support the assumption that a change in per-ception is taking place The fi rst is the choice for sustainable energy as a pri-ority Parkstad has formulated very high ambitions in this area and wants to integrate sustainable energy businesses with the history of the region and future economic and social developments Courage a consistent pol-icy and funds are needed to implement these plans and it has been a long time since such high ambitions were voiced by regional government (Lim-burger August 27 2004) A nice initiative in this area is sustainable energy from heated water in former mines which creates a link between regional history and the future The second development is a new eacutelan in spatial and architectural development based on a more profound awareness of the regionrsquos historical development and current problems which need proactive strategies rather than defensive ones In a newspaper article titled ldquoClose to the Renaissancerdquo prominent citizens of Parkstad argued for more inno-vation and courage and a shock to the self-image and profi le of the region (Dohmen May 13 2006) The article clearly explains the complex regional history and its persistent problems along with a plea for cultural change
Concrete follow-up activities were (and still are) also taken up in a struc-tured way by the Parkstad Limburg Development Organization (PLDO wwwontwikkelingsmaatschappij-parkstadnl) This organization already existed prior to the envisioning project but was unable to fi nd either a coherent strategic agenda or a legitimate mandate to act Already dur-ing the envisioning process a number of actors involved in the transition
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study I Parkstad Limburg 175
arena and advisory board and the PLDO started to integrate the transi-tion agenda with their own operations The transition vision has become a guideline for their operations since (literally they say that the guideline for their operations is ldquoOn Hot Coalsrdquo) Examples of concrete activities they have undertaken since based on the transition agenda are an image cam-paign (targeted at Parkstad Limburg residents to create awareness of the regional profi le history and future) a co-siting project for regional SMEs (Corio Bazar) a care-services market (development of diversifi ed services in health care) Parkstad Popcity (creating a regional music and cultural infra-structure) and the project ldquoParkstadrsquos third agerdquo (creating awareness about the aging population and formulating 250 concrete actions) In a sense the PLDO has taken over the role of the transition arena as a societal platform for innovative ideas and action based on shared long-term goals
In conclusion we can say that a fi nal evaluation of the impact of the envi-sioning project shows an overall impact that clearly outreaches the project Although it is diffi cult to fully claim the above-mentioned results it is clear that the project had an impact on individuals networks and institutions in the region and led to follow-up activities and action In that sense the project can be seen as a major success and as a strong case for the use of transition management in such a context However the follow-up process as well as the actual project could have benefi ted even more by allowing more time energy and money to be invested In future transition arena projects it seems advisable to reserve substantial time and money for activities besides the core arena-process In the case of Parkstad Limburg a start was made to organize follow-up strategy sessions based on the defi ned transition paths and work-ing groups (in the vision) but this was not followed up due to personnel changes within the government organization The feeling is that this could have led to even better diffusion of ideas involvement of even more actors and implementation of a larger number of concrete projects
II57 LESSONS LEARNEDmdashEVALUATING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TRANSITION MANAGEMENT
Roles of the Researchers
The researchers involved in the Parkstad Limburg project acted in differ-ent roles as researchers (performing integrated assessments providing the arena with continuous updates of enriched assessments and additional information developing the concept and method of transition management further) as participants (in the discussions in suggesting ideas) and as proj-ect managers (co-deciding on project structure and management on com-munication) It seems that in applying the transition management approach into a specifi c context these different roles along with their specifi c compe-tences and expertise are all required
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
176 Transitions to Sustainable Development
In general the researchers infl uenced the project on two levels They not only structured organized and facilitated the process but also structured integrated and proposed substance It meant that the researchers often had to switch roles whereby they acted during the sessions mainly as facili-tators and participants and in between the sessions more as researchers and project managers As an example of transition research (Rotmans et al 2004 Loorbach 2007) it built on the research tradition developed in innovation programs such as DTO (Sustainable Technology Development) and in Technology Assessment (TA) in using a back-casting approach inte-grating technological with social innovation and in the use of participatory processes as means to generate value and diffuse solutions The research approach also integrated new elements such as theory development inte-grated assessment systems thinking and the transition concept It becomes clear from this case such a research approach provides a fruitful way of developing new knowledge testing hypotheses and sharpening assump-tions It is however also necessary to develop more scientifi c methodol-ogy and underpinning for such an approach that combines action research grounded theory and integrated assessment with expert and desk research combined with interviews and scientifi c evaluation
In essence we could say that although the transition arena produced numerous ideas questions and proposals it would have been impossible to achieve the fi nal outcome without the infl uence of the researchers or that at least the results would have been fundamentally different The actual steer-ing involved in the process mainly took place in between the sessions and consisted of preparing the sessions and also managing the interface with regular policy and in general the outside world In this project it seemed that although individual participants had the necessary knowledge net-work and capabilities (for which they were selected) they lacked time over-view and experience with systems thinking to quickly aggregate integrate and coordinate process and substance It seemed that just because of the interaction between the researchers involved and individual experts from the fi eld something new emerged which the participants felt to be their own product In essence the results of the transition arena were at least partly co-produced by the researchers involved raising questions regard-ing the democratic legitimacy of the results However the fi nal vision and plans were wholeheartedly embraced by the participants and afterwards diffused to various organizations and the region
Role of the Transition Management Team and Transitionizing a Policy Context
The project itself was in general characterized by highly non-linear and chaotic processes uncertainties doubts intense debate and substantial ten-sions Within the transition management team but also in the contacts with other government offi cials the Parkstad Limburg management offi ce
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study I Parkstad Limburg 177
and the advisory board there was a constant battle to transfer the transi-tion management approach gain support for next steps to be taken and create a consensus on things like input and facilitation for an arena session This resulted in an excessive amount of time spent on the project by the researchers involved In addition the outcomes in terms of substance and process were under constant debate whether the outcome would be a for-mal spatial plan or a transition vision a set of detailed scenarios or general images only a long-term plan or also a concrete action agenda etc The defi nition for instance of what a vision should include and more specifi cally what this implied in the case of Parkstad Limburg was not yet fi xed but had to be developed during the process
It seems that such a diffuse cumbersome process full of tensions is at the heart of facilitating and organizing a transition arena In any context a group of outsiders developing innovative visions for a larger community will be subject to criticism skepticism and doubt Besides posing a possible threat to existing structures and powers the transition arena also allows for a form of elitist and innovative process that is not always understood It will always require a lot of time to explain the process persuade oppo-sition or those who are doubtful react to external changes and conduct counter-productive activities In this sense the transition management team can function as a pivot between the transition arena and the regular policy context This aspect of the role of transition management experts in a tran-sition management team cannot be too highly valued
It seems that the general recurring tension within such a project is between the pressure to deliver concrete results (products) that are valued in the formal policy environment (a document recommendations project proposals) and the drive to generate self-governing and innovative processes (reframing co-creation spontaneous action social learning) In the regular policy arena the products are seen as goals in themselves and are therefore often produced without any link to follow-up or a broader societal pro-cess in general In transition management the products are seen purely as means and thus fl exible and adaptive to the context of an evolving process This implies that agreed-upon process plans can evolve and change during the process and that the products can be redefi ned according to their role in the process This is a totally different way of thinking which many gov-ernment offi cials and bureaucrats have a hard time getting accustomed to
One of the main lessons that came out of this project though was the importance of understanding the context in which such a process takes place ie the regular policy arena This was especially the case in this project because a classical planning process had to be transformed into a transition management process Since transition management starts from a fundamentally different paradigm than that underlying regular or for-mal policies but always in a context of these regular policies reframing or a mental switch is needed from government offi cials and participants involved Although this transitioning of a regular policy context and actors
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
178 Transitions to Sustainable Development
from the regular policy arena is time-consuming and even tiring it is also an almost necessary precondition for later diffusion of the approach and ideas developed and therefore worthwhile In the case of Parkstad Limburg the time and energy invested in these activities not only was successful at an individual level but also produced signifi cant and lasting results
Lessons Learned Regarding Transitions and Transition Management
Following a transition approach in trying to understand the region as a complex adaptive system proved very useful in the participatory setting to structure and facilitate the development of a common language and outlook on the world In analytical terms the stocks-and-fl ows analysis (SCENE) offered new insights in the dynamics of the system how they were deter-mined historically and what possible future development trajectories could be This way the space for innovation was identifi ed in relation to the struc-tural problems as fundamental fl aws in the system Although obviously such an assessment is to a certain extent subjective such an analysis from a complex adaptive system perspective provides a solid basis for participa-tory valuation and debate about the persistency and urgency of the problem and the need to use or maximize the space for innovation (Grosskurth and Rotmans 2005) This in turn could provide the basis for a transition man-agement process
It has become clear that the Parkstad Limburg project was not only a process of vision development but also a methodological and theoretical evolution it was a real-life experiment an experimental garden Very much in line with the idea of transitions as emergent and uncertain processes this project had all the characteristics of a complex participatory policy-supportive process Through the project lessons about how to develop a process of sustainable development were learned that were very context-specifi c (for instance relating to the specifi c governmental culture in the region) but the majority seem generic (such as those relating to participant selection process instruments framing of issues and so on)
The project as a whole showed that the basic principles underlying tran-sition management as a form of participatory policy making based on com-plex systems thinking were valid as well as useful on the one hand rough outlines frameworks and concepts that provide structure and on the other hand day-to-day processes with high levels of chaos surprise and uncer-tainty Managing such processes requires specifi c knowledge competences and experience as well as affi nity experience and commitment to cum-bersome processes that often seem directionless or unproductive These competences relate to managing the participatory process as well as to tran-sitioning the regular policy context (ie those actors involved in funding co-organizing and facilitating the process) It is important to distinguish between these two roles since they require quite different competences and skills (see Loorbach 2007 Chapter 6 for elaboration)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study I Parkstad Limburg 179
The skills and competences required in such processes imply a profi le different from that of a regular process manager facilitator or researcher What is looked for in transition management researchers is a combination of the different elements that enable them to structure process and sub-stance while simultaneously explaining and conveying this process and substance to the outside environment in such a way that they diffuse and become adopted The inverse of this statement is that a process manager will not be able to manage a transition arena effectively because of his or her lack of knowledge and skill concerning transitions and systemsrsquo think-ing and his or her lack of attention for the context of the process For those who are strictly researchers it will also be impossible to facilitate and orga-nize a participatory process effectively
With hindsight it proved to be possible to infl uence and even guide the transition arena process though not in a classical top-down manner Steer-ing in this context meant infl uencing creating space for new ideas creating circumstances providing information or access to new ideas making new network connections communicating at different levels (from strategic to tactical and backwards) and thinking through and analyzing the output of the transition arena Through intensive interaction between all partici-pants involved a continuous refl ection on progress made both in terms of substance and process and critical but supportive representatives from government in the transition management team this form of steering in a sense emerged
A central notion that arose from refl ecting upon the project was that transition management had an important effect in mobilizing actors and stimulating a new more positive and future-oriented way of thinking The approach based on the transition framework and a broad defi nition of sus-tainable development helped actors to understand the complexity and per-sistency of the problems at hand but also to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant issues and how they could have potential impact on the regional development course Because gradually the transition arena partic-ipants internalized this understanding along with the potential for a transi-tion to sustainability they became ambassadors for the transition agenda The adoption of the transition agenda as the new regional framework for policy and the enthusiasm and discussion it has generated has contributed to a shift in thinking and stimulated a new eacutelan
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
II6 Case Study IIThe Dutch Energy Transition
In 2001 the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) started developing transition management to accelerate and direct a transition of the Dutch energy supply system This process has been labeled the energy transition (ET) and is an example of a coordinated attempt to accelerate and direct a transition at the national level It was based on the early transition man-agement principles as formulated in the report by Rotmans et al (Rot-mans et al 2001b) and the National Environmental Policy Plan 4mdashNMP4 (VROM 2001b) Based on the basic principles underlying the transition management approach the ministry itself further developed and imple-mented a transition management process and method in cooperation with all sorts of actors (Kemp and Rotmans 2009) This has been a process of learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning in which (transition) researchers have played an active role In this sense the evolving practice of transi-tion management as implemented by EZ contributed to the development of transition management as presented in this book While in many ways the Ministry followed its own course (also inspired by other approaches policy models and innovation strategies) as we will see in the following chapter it also offered the context in which transition researchers could experiment with hypothesize and learn about central themes in managing transitions
In this sense the ET project as developed by EZ is neither a strict imple-mentation of the transition management approach as defi ned in this book nor something completely different The Ministry started out its new energy policy experiment based on the initial notions of transition management even though the scientists involved pointed at the lack of theory as well as empirical evidence Since the initial ideas of transition management fi t so well with the challenges the Ministry had formulated for itself regard-ing long-term sustainable innovation they chose to adopt the approach At that time new policy offi cials were appointed to participate and run the project and the Ministryrsquos focus turned from strategy development to implementation In this phase the scientists initially involved in the devel-opment of transition management were kept at a distance and more and more conventional policy offi cials got involved in the process This led on the one hand to a very rapid and broad diffusion of the transition concept
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study II The Dutch Energy Transition 181
and ideas but also to a watering down of the concept because increasingly traditional policy instruments were used to fi nance structure and facilitate the process Gradually though learning effects as well as critical refl ec-tion by transition researchers infl uenced the Ministryrsquos course leading to for example other strategies regarding niche-actor involvement support of front-runners and refl ection on policy and fi nancial instruments (Kemp and Rotmans 2009)
In this sense the case described here is mixed if not as an exact scientist might put it contaminated EZ based its process on an initial model but combined this with existing approaches and instruments Then researchers were involved that refl ected on the process and infl uenced its course and structure However it is still a project which contains elements of the tran-sition management approach as well as conventional policy elements As a case study it illustrates (Loorbach 2007 Loorbach et al 2008)
how transition management can lead to new innovative policies at a bull national level for a specifi c domainwhat the possibilities and diffi culties of implementation of transition bull management at the national level are andhow the implementation process itself can transitionize a regular pol-bull icy context
We will fi rst describe the Dutch energy system from a multilevel multi-phase transition perspective Next we will describe the implementation of transition management by the Ministry of Economic Affairs as well as the involvement of transition researchers and their infl uence on it Finally we refl ect on the limitations and possibilities of transition management and attempt to evaluate whether or not the Ministryrsquos approach has been suc-cessful so far
II61 CHARACTERIZING THE ENERGY TRANSITION
The Dutch energy system could be defi ned as the system of provision and consumption of energy including all relevant social economic ecological technological cultural and institutional factors The Netherlands like many other Western industrialized countries has an energy system based on fossil fuels (oil gas coal) with a large domestic supply of natural gas In general natural gas is used for heating (mainly in households) and energy provision (imported) oil is mainly used in transportation and industry and coal is used both in energy provision and in industry A minor percentagemdash24 of the total energy consumption (CBS 2005)mdashis considered sustainable The system is dominated by large energy companies and has over the last 15 years been liberalized under pressure from national and EU govern-ment The dominant policies are increasingly defi ned at the European level
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
182 Transitions to Sustainable Development
although Dutch ministries still have a strong infl uence on both the market and limiting the emissions caused by energy production and consumption (through environmental and regulatory policies) Consumers do not feel a sense of urgency to limit energy consumption since prices are (still) rela-tively low and incentives for reduction are largely absent This is illustrated by the ongoing increase in consumption of energy intensive products the increase in energy use in households and the low level of interest in the issue in public debates
The question is how many more years the Dutch fossil energy regime can maintain its internal organization given that it is embedded in a changing macro-energy landscape The strongly increasing global energy demand the Middle East confl ict and uncertainties about climate change and mar-ket development have led to high oil and energy prices Although over the last decades there has been a growing awareness regarding environmental issues and the necessity to save energy energy consumption is still rising because of economic growth on both the national and the international level Furthermore population growth accelerates this increase while the scarcity of available resources adds to the pressures on the existing regime This macro-pressure is accompanied by bottom-up niche-development of alternative energy technologies fi nancial and regulatory arrangements and consumer practices and preferences Technological innovations range from wind and solar technologies to heat pumps co-generation hybrid vehicles and hydrogen applications On the production side new approaches are being developed such as industrial ecology increasing energy effi -ciency and increasing sustainable energy produced through waste- and biomass-treatment methods (eg incineration digestion) A large number of decentralized small-scale energy solutions are being developed (manure digestion for example) which so far have remained niche-level develop-ments even though they seem quite promising in the light of increasing pressures on the regime (Raven 2005) On the consumption side the past few years new concepts have emerged such as collective energy provision and the consumer as energy producer These could make a potentially big contribution to a sustainable energy system
So far however the numerous technological and other innovations have barely managed to penetrate the regime Bio-energy sustainable energy technologies like wind and solar and energy-saving policies are still at a niche level in the context of regular energy policies and dominant technolo-gies while research suggests that there is much more potential that could be realized with much more concerted and differentiated policies (Hoogwijk 2004) The current dynamics in the energy system can be visualized as in Figure II41 It represents the current regime that is challenged by various sorts of innovations and niches Not only new technologies but also alter-native visions approaches lifestyles etc put pressure on different parts of the current regime Combined with external landscape developments there are increasing possibilities for breakthroughs at different levels The fi gure
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study II The Dutch Energy Transition 183
also captures the different sorts of niches some are niche-regimes close to the regime (such as wind and solar energy which are already part of the portfolio of major energy companies) and some are outside the regime (alternative decentralized systems transition management for energy new approaches and awareness)
Synthesizing this brief sketch of the Dutch energy system leads us to suggest that this transition is in a phase approaching take-off As described in Part II Chapter 3 a late predevelopment phase follows a long period of relative stability at the regime level while gradually societal preferences and context factors have been changing and innovations have slowly been maturing Late in the predevelopment phase cracks will start to show in the regime because regime-actors begin to engage seriously with the alter-natives innovations evolve into niche-regimes or the societal and political pressure on the regime to change increases In this period often smallmdashand over time larger and more frequentmdashproblems and crises start to occur in the regime Such transition dynamics whereby the future path of develop-ment is still very uncertain offer specifi c levers and possibilities for transi-tion management
The basic framework for transition management suggests governance strategies in the predevelopment phase that aim for a combination of creat-ing an integrated understanding of the persistency and complexity of the problem an understanding of the challenge in terms of (structural) change a shared direction for the process of change and the development of collec-tive strategies The transition management approach is to target the front-runners in society who are already active promoting sustainable alternatives and innovation When the societal transition process is already underway the main goal of transition management in this phase is to coordinate and
Figure II61 Sketch of the energy system (Loorbach 2007)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
184 Transitions to Sustainable Development
interlink ongoing activities by companies citizens governmental agencies research and so on It tries to do so in a way that prompts the emergence of a system of governance activities that creates more space for the innovations and contributes to their scaling up In other words the ongoing dynam-ics at the different levels can be infl uenced in different ways they can be stimulated slowed down or counterbalanced Key transition management instruments in this phase and context are transition arenas visions transi-tion pathways and transition experiments
II62 ENERGY TRANSITION MANAGEMENT BY THE MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
When the various ministries started implementing transition management in 2001 (VROM 2001b) the concept itself was still in its infancy Espe-cially the process approach was weakly developed In the period after its introduction the concept of transition management was elaborated theo-retically and operationalized in an iterative manner through involvement of transition researchers in the implementation One of the key domains in which this co-production took placemdashand takes placemdashis the Energy Transition project of the Ministry of Economic Affairs Already at the end of the 1990s the Ministry began to make an inventory of all relevant actors and activities related to sustainable energy nationally and internationally It did so mainly because of strategic concerns about the fi niteness of the national natural gas supply (circa 2020ndash2025) but it was also driven in part by the promise of the economic opportunities of new energy tech-nologies Based on this inventory supported by scientifi c data the working group ldquolange-termijn visie energievoorzieningrdquo (long-term vision energy supply system) produced the scenario report ldquoEnergy and Society in 2050rdquo (EZ 2000) This quite straightforward scenario-study combined the analy-ses of different trends related to economic growth energy consumption and industrial development with projections about yield and supply of (alter-native) energy resources ranging from fossil resources to biomass In its analysis the report distinguished four possible future worlds along the axes long-term (gain) versus short-term (gain) and regional versus international In each of these worlds (scenarios)mdashGlobal solidarity Global markets Regional networks and Regional isolationmdashthe need for and sources of energy were identifi ed Based on this analysis the so-called robust elements of the future energy system were believed to be those that fi t in all four sce-narios namely biomass natural gas energy effi ciency and wind energy
Based on the different scenarios a number of quality criteria were defi ned for a desirable future energy supply These criteria would gradually become the building blocks of the overall vision and the frame within which the transition management process was implemented At this time the Min-istry itself did not perceive or defi ne its project as transition management
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study II The Dutch Energy Transition 185
however The Ministry reasoned that by formulating a direction and linking it to an innovation approach in which it would partly subsidize the develop-ment of promising new energy technologies the energy market would itself generate sustainability The quality criteria they defi ned were
1 Securing the supply reliable provision of energy services 2 Economic effi ciency low prices thanks to economic effi ciency and
market dynamism 3 Sustainability minimal negative environmental and social impacts
(EZ 2000)
The Energy and Society in 2050 report was evaluated by the Central Plan-ning Agency (CPB) and an independent German Institute (Fraunhofer Insti-tute) and was presented on the Ministryrsquos website At the same time a few individuals involved in the Energy and Society 2050 study were also involved in the formulation of the national environmental policy plan (NMP4) in which the transition concept was taken up and the idea of transition management put forward as a novel approach for dealing with among other things the energy transition In a personal communication with one of these individuals it was confi rmed that the long-term think-ing that already was part of the Energy and Society 2050 working group perfectly matched with the more process-oriented perspective of transitions and the action perspective of transition management The publication of the NMP4 was perfectly timed for EZ because through its focus on energy transition it provided a perfect opportunity to develop a governance strat-egy as a follow-up of the long-term study and scenarios In addition the individuals involved in the long-term study and in the NMP4 process were not only professionally but also personally committed to an experimental project to explore and develop more radically innovative solutions
The initial document that formulated EZrsquos ambition to initiate and facil-itate the energy transition (EZ 2001) was presented and discussed in inter-nal meetings working groups stakeholder meetings a website forum and a fi nal conference organized by EZ The process was also aimed at analyz-ing and building support for the transition approach and the four themes The discussions showed that the choice for the main routes was recognized by the stakeholders and supported by the market The Ministry contacted the business and industry involved in sustainable energy and in a number of meetings the transition approach was enthusiastically received while among businesses and science in particular there was much readiness to participate Although there were some discussions about the involvement of solar and wind energy as themes the consensus was that these options were not innovative enough or already established in some form and therefore they should not be part of at least the fi rst phases of the process
The general ambitions were translated into four thematic areas (later on called main routes of the energy transition) which were identifi ed
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
186 Transitions to Sustainable Development
based on the scenario study and consultations with a very selective group of stakeholders Perhaps with hindsight the choice for sub-themes based on analysis and expert judgment was too classical and top-down and did not fully acknowledge the ongoing innovation dynamics in society In that sense it did not follow the transition management approach which also was refl ected in the exclusion of important themes such as wind and solar energy but also hydrogen built environment or consumer behavior The fi rst generation of transition platforms however was based on the robust elements from the scenario study
1 New (effi cient and green) gas 2 Modernization of energy chains (effi cient energy and material use
throughout production-use chains) 3 Biomass International (for products materials and energy) 4 Sustainable Rijnmond (industrialized and urbanized region in the
Netherlands)
Separate platforms were set up for each of these four themes so as to start up interaction with stakeholders build up a network of innovators and identify possible promising transition paths and experiments
II63 SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS
Based on the consultation and the preparatory work of the working group EZ started the Project Implementation Transition management (PIT) in 2002 The PIT project theoretically refl ected the type of governance needed the Ministryrsquos role and the broad outlines of the process under the heading ldquopolicy renewalrdquo The project team consulted with business and other stakeholders to fi nd out whether there was support from private par-ties to participate in a transition process These consultations established that the Ministry was expected to be trustworthy manage its owns affairs well be consistent and create greater consistency between different policy domains be able to bring together parties (conduct match-making) not be too much technology-oriented but fi nd a balance between technology and institutional organization be a partner of forerunners offer fi nancial sup-port and fi nally be committed to sustainability and a long-term process (Beleidsvernieuwing 2003)
The central idea of a necessary energy transition was heavily discussed among business and scholars On the one hand people saw possibili-ties for innovation and business such an approach would offer but on the other hand serious doubts were articulated regarding the possibilities for actually managing such a process However through these debates terms like ldquotransition imagesrdquo ldquotransition pathsrdquo and ldquotransition exper-imentsrdquo from the ICIS-MERIT report gradually became part of the EZ
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study II The Dutch Energy Transition 187
vocabulary For example the PIT team formulated goals to be realized within two years (EZ 2003)
A long-term vision developed and supported by societal stakeholders bull as a basis for transition pathsCommitment to the energy transition by the societal stakeholdersbull EZ to remove the barriers for transition experiments and meet the bull stakeholder demands as much as possibleA proposal for the organization of knowledge related to the bull transitionCompleted analysis of international developmentsbull Communication activities in support of the transitionbull A proposal for the next phasebull
At this time the process was visualized as followsPlatforms were set up for each of the four transition themes to enable
and facilitate discussions within the framework of the overall ambition and the context set by the scenario-study The Ministry chose to appoint chair-men from the energy business sector for each platform that had infl uence in their area and a broad network These chairs who were not selected for their innovative capacities were given the task to select other participants for their platform Stakeholders involved in the platforms were predomi-nantly organizations from business and science that were explicitly active in the areas at hand They were not so much selected for their (individual) competencies equal representation or their specifi c roles within networks but rather for their possible contribution to the development of new tech-nologies or markets
Figure II62 Process design energy transition (based on EZ 2003 10)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
188 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Textbox II61 Examples of Possible Transition Experiments (taken from Dietz Brouwer and Weterings in Van den Bergh Bruinsma 2008)
Within the Theme New Gas
The greenhouse as an energy source bull Traditionally horticultural green-houses use enormous amounts of natural gas and produce a lot of CO2-emissions However greenhouses could be designed in such a way that they supply net energy In summer the surplus (solar) heat is stored in the groundwater from where it is retrieved in winter for the greenhouse itself and for houses in the neighbourhoodMicro-generation of heat and power bull In 2007 Gasunie will launch heat and power boilers that households can use to generate power in addition to heat Any surpluses can be sold to the electricity company In future the individual power units could be linked into a network operating as a virtual power plantAdding hydrogenbull With support from the European Commission Gasu-nie will examine opportunities in Europe to mix hydrogen with natural gas
Within the Theme Sustainable Mobility
Cars using natural gasbull the Netherlands Organization for Scientifi c Research and TNO have demonstrated that cars using natural gas are preferable to petrol and diesel cars in all environmental respects Practi-cal tests must show whether consumers are willing to use natural gasFormula Zerobull sustainable car racing by using hydrogen will be made more attractive for young people by means of a travelling demonstration road show of emission-free cars which is called Formula ZeroOil from plants bull there are a number of clever ways (pyrolysis HTUreg) of extracting oil from vegetable material Experiments concern the whole chain the preparation of the plant mass the process itself and the use of the vegetable oil as an energy carrier
Within the Theme Green Resources
Bioplasticsbull a manufacturer makes plastic packaging material from veg-etable raw materials This bioplastic is biodegradable and the packaging can therefore go straight into the bio-bin The experiment must show how citizens respondPlant material from salt marshesbull plant production for energy (lsquoenergy cultivationrsquo) may compete with food production This risk does not arise if energy cultivation takes place in areas that are unsuitable for food production such as saltwater marshes and river deltasEnergy from algae and seaweedbull water plants (micro) algae and sea-weed are highly effi cient at converting sunlight into biomass Pilot proj-ects must show which kinds are most suitable and how the lsquoharvestrsquo can best take place
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study II The Dutch Energy Transition 189
The platforms were given the explicit task to develop shared visions transition paths and transition experiments as concretely as possible Sub-sequently most platforms started to develop thematic visions some quan-titative (Biomass green resources to have replaced 30 of the resources used for our energy supply in 2030 (Van Herwijnen et al 2003)) and some qualitative (Sustainable Rijnmond ldquoTo C or not to C thatrsquos the questionrdquo (Bosma et al 2003)) Within the context of these thematic visions paths were worked out by the transition teamsrsquo new gas biomass international sustainable Rijnmond and modernizing energy chains In addition 80 spe-cifi c ideas (70 proposals) for transition experiments were collected in the areas of new gas biomass energy effi ciency and industrial ecology The box below sums up some of the interesting ideas for transition experiments which are partly being funded by the Ministry already The overall aim of the transition experiments and paths was to achieve an energy system char-acterized in the overall vision through learning about different options bottlenecks and uncertainties
The general approach thus was to formulate general qualitative ambi-tions which served as a framework for similar discussions on the level of the different options (main routes) These options and later on the pathways linked to these were technologically defi ned while only poorly articulating the societal and institutional aspects related to these While a technologi-cal perspective seems logical in the case of the energy supply the dominant schools of technology studies stress the importance of a socio-technical approach (Collingridge 1980 Schot and Rip 1997 Grin and Grunwald 2000 Geels 2002) Similarly a transition management perspective would put emphasis on the changes in societal structures needed to facilitate tech-nological innovation With the framing of the energy transition in predomi-nantly technological terms in a sense the process was limited to include mainly technological experiments For each of these options ambitions were formulated by the transition teams based on stakeholder consulta-tion The general conditions within which the discussions should take place were set by the exploratory phase of the scenario-study and the participa-tory process underlying it The real debates however about how specifi c options could or should be used and what their potential would be were held on the sub-level of the main routes This meant a bottom-up defi nition of options and sometimes an explicit choice for leaving different compet-ing options open The discussions about biomass for example provided a new forum for interaction of a wide variety of stakeholders active in this fi eld and for debates about different perspectives on the issue
It soon became clear that although there was a shared interest in devel-oping the biomass network and concrete ideas for application there was much difference in the expectations of the yield of different sources of bio-mass and the best way to process these forms of biomass These discussions already were quite functional in providing insight into the complexity of the issue and the variety of options While not all actors agreed with the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
190 Transitions to Sustainable Development
specifi cs a more general level of understanding was created to enable con-vergence with regard to formulating ambitions and transition paths For 2030 the formulated ambition was to replace 30 of the resources in the primary energy supply by green resources (biomass) This ambition could be achieved according to the platform by using green resources in four areas the so-called transition paths The ambition was that in 2030 60 of total fuels 25 of resources in the chemical sector 25 of resources for electricity and 17 of resources for heating will be green
Industry NGOs the Ministry and scientists who also formulated pos-sible routes to these outcomes defi ned these goals collectively There was much debate upon the value of the numbers the actual credibility or plau-sibility of the ambitions and the different areas in which the ambitions should be realized However by debate of ambitions between stakeholders with different perspectives it seems that the ambition became increasingly concrete and achievable While in 2002 an overall ambition of 30 was believed to be far too ambitious in 2006 it was already seen as perhaps too modest under the infl uence of biofuels breaking through new technologi-cal developments in the chemical sector and the involvement of more inno-vative and ambitious stakeholders The strategic goals for 2030 were called ambitions something to aspire to It should be noted that the ambitions are not hard goals for policy they will not be used for hard-nosed politi-cal evaluation They are soft goals refl ecting uncertainty about the options and the economic and political-administrative context and will be adapted with time A quintessential element of transition management is that no collective choice is made as to energy technologies and sources The four transition paths for biomass (biofuels biochemicals bioelectricity bioheat) comprise some 30 specifi c technological and societal options that will be explored in the so-called transition coalitionsmdashcoalitions between technol-ogy developers companies researchers NGOs and government
Next to organizing and facilitating the stakeholder process the Min-istry has tried to undertake activities supporting the development of the transition network For example there has been an evaluation of existing policy programs from the point of view of their contribution to the energy transition One such program is the GAVE program a chain demonstra-tion program for climate-neutral fuels that had not been explicitly based on transition management but had some of the characteristics The goal of the evaluation was to learn from the experiences based on a transition analysis and through the evaluation process develop more insights about the operational aspects of transition management (ICIS 2003) Another policy integration exercise was the evaluation of the government energy-related research and technology development (Energy Research Strategy EOS) where 63 projects have been analyzed on the basis of two criteria knowledge position of the Netherlands and contribution to sustainable energy systems This led to the identifi cation of arrow-point projects that scored high on both accounts Projects with a positive contribution to a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study II The Dutch Energy Transition 191
sustainable energy system and weak knowledge position of Dutch fi rms were labeled ldquoknowledge import themesrdquo whereas projects with opposite scores were labeled ldquoexport themesrdquo The EOS evaluation appears not to be a direct result of the governmentrsquos commitment to transition manage-ment showing that the government was already using a strategic portfolio approach for energy RampD
Simultaneously the Ministry tried seriously to alter existing fi nan-cial instruments so that they fi tted the energy transition In addition new instruments were developed such as the ldquoRegeling Ondersteuning Transitie Coalitiesrdquo (Support Transition Coalitions Regulation OTC) for transition experiment coalitions and the ldquoUnieke Kansen Regelingrdquo (Unique Oppor-tunities Arrangement UKR) of 35 million Euros for transition experiments In order to qualify for support the experiments should
Be part of an offi cial transition pathbull Involve stakeholders in an important waybull Have explicit learning goals for each of the actors of the consortiumbull
In its role of facilitator EZ has also undertaken efforts to remove insti-tutional barriers A good example is the Trendsettersrsquo Desk (TD) a gov-ernment service point which is meant to service initiators of experiments and transition-related activities This includes both fi nancial support and support in the areas of policy and legislation For example it helps busi-nesses whose Energy Transition projects are hampered by permits legis-lation or regulations The Trendsettersrsquo Desk looks for solutions to these bottlenecks The service point received some 50ndash60 questions in 2005 but in 2006 received over 10 a month Most questions came from SMEs and related to fi nancial and institutional barriers An interesting observation is that most of the problems could be solved the only category in which only a very small percentage of the problems could be dealt with was govern-ment coherence
According to the Ministry itself the transition approach gives new impulses to the innovation system in three ways (EZ 2004)
The process of visioning in the sub-trajectories includes active involve-bull ment of business governments and societal organizations and knowl-edge institutes resulting in shared sense of directionNovel coalitions have been founded of parties who were previously bull each otherrsquos enemies (an example being the biomass coalition of busi-ness and the environmental movement and the involvement of Green-peace in offshore wind energy)Niche markets are being sought for a number of transition pathsbull
In 2004ndash2005 the energy transition process gained speed Partly this was because of external developments such as destabilization of the Middle
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
192 Transitions to Sustainable Development
East rising oil prices and acceptance of climate change For a large part however this was also because of internal reasons such as the growing interest in the process documents developed and concrete successes (an energy-producing-greenhouse heating company) The growing attention for the issue along with the progress made by the platforms led to a further growth of the energy transition network In 2005 a platform for sustain-able mobility was added to the energy transition (previously a separate tran-sition process) in 2006 two new platforms on sustainable electricity and on energy and built environment were established and in 2008 a platform was established around the concept of the energy-producing greenhouse
Two important developments in this phase were the establishment of the so-called taskforce Energy Transition and the Interdepartmental Proj-ect directorate Energy Transition (IPE) in 2005 The taskforce led by Rein Willems (CEO of Shell Netherlands) was a strategic group of around 15 high-level representatives from science business NGOs and government It was given the assignment to refl ect on the overall process of energy transition defi ne a shared direction and stimulate in general the impact of the energy transition in the fi rst place by identifying economic opportuni-ties The taskforce collected the transition paths and experiments of the different platforms and combined these with a scenario-study on future developments in energy production and consumption into the overall Tran-sition Action Plan (TAP) ldquoMore with energyrdquo (Taskforce-EnergyTransi-tion 2006) In the TAP the Taskforce presumes that fossil resources will remain the main source of energy in 2050 and our energy consumption will continue to grow but that with increased energy effi ciency gradual growth of sustainable energy sources and implementation of new clean fossil technologies the emissions can be reduced by 50 The main issues raised by the TAP are the need for consistent energy policies that transcend political trends and a substantial increase in government investments in sustainable energy
In 2007 these issues were adopted by the newly elected government as central to their energy and sustainability policy ldquoMore with lessrdquo (Meer met minder) For the coming years the collective transition agenda rep-resented by the TAP will function as guiding rod for the exploration of the transition paths and implementation of the transition experiments The adoption into government policy has accelerated the debate upon the role of the Ministry in the transition process For EZ the following things are on the policy agenda revision of generic policy (for instance greening of the tax system) based on experiences with the energy transition widening of the group of stakeholders involved (including citizens) in the energy transi-tion discussion of energy transition policy with other countries (in the EU and IEA) review of the energy research strategy (EOS) and other fi nancial instruments monitoring and evaluation of the energy transition process active communication and involvement of the public and further investiga-tion of the link between current policy and transition approach (EZ 2004)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study II The Dutch Energy Transition 193
The taskforce dissolved after publication of the TAP and the acceptance by the involved ministries of their core messages A new strategic group started in 2008 to reassess the progress and refl ect upon future actions
The Interdepartmental Project Directorate Energy Transition (IPE) was established because of the perceived need for policy integration but also explicitly because of the desire to learn from the experiences in the con-text of the energy transition and in other domains Energy is seen as an integrative theme And the energy transition should function through the IPE as a fl ywheel for other transitions In the IPE innovative government offi cials concerned with transitions in their domains (energy agriculture mobility housing and themes such as knowledge and innovation) together refl ect upon the process and the outcomes with two goals to better facili-tate and govern the energy transition process and to innovate policy and government institutions in line with the requirements of transitions The establishment of the IPE itself is considered to be a novelty in energy policy since it also included policy offi cials from ministries of the environment transport foreign affairs and fi nance In this sense it is also an example of policy learning within the ministries because it was created after experi-ences within the process that indicated a lack of coherence innovation and learning at the strategic policy level The IPE could be considered as the successor of the project group Policy Renewal which was the EZ internal working group (niche) where energy transition management was developed in the fi rst place The IPE will function as a semi-autonomous think tank for the energy transition
II64 TRANSITION MANAGEMENT OR REGULAR ENERGY POLICY
As stated in the introduction to this chapter it would be unfair to evalu-ate eight years of energy transition management as implemented by the Ministry based on the current scientifi c knowledge about transition man-agement In this section however we start from the most recent scientifi c understanding of transition management not only to evaluate the problems regarding the energy transition project or the failures of it but predomi-nantly to draw lessons for improvement and identify critical issues for man-aging transitions In the next section we will focus on these lessons and also relate these to the successes achieved by the Ministry
An overall assessment suggests that the activities of EZ stimulated a lot of activities and new coalitions and succeeded in creating a sense of shared direction among energy-related actors as well as a shared discourse and language Within a period of seven years an experimental process has led to the involvement and commitment of hundreds of professionals a shared agenda and concrete projects The process contributed to creating more sense of urgency for the issue and political attention for the subject
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
194 Transitions to Sustainable Development
In that sense it seems that in terms of creating more opportunity for busi-ness and more support for innovation the transition process was acceler-ated In terms of defi ning the direction of the transition it seems that the overall sustainability criteria the acknowledgement of the necessity for a transition to take place and the TAP with its platform visions and transition paths have all contributed to convergence of the expectations and ambi-tions of the actors involved We have to remember that when EZ started the energy transition it was regarded as a policy experiment and there were only very rough ideas about how to manage transitions Realizing this it is important to understand why the process has been successful so far and perhaps even more important what lessons we can learn from it that could benefi t transition management in other sectors and in the future
The transition approach of EZ is conceptually based on transition man-agement as defi ned in Rotmans et al (2001b) Especially the transition instruments and process components used by the Ministry are recogniz-ably drawn from the scientifi c work on transition management ldquotransition imagesrdquo ldquotransition pathsrdquo ldquotransition experimentsrdquo ldquotransition plat-formsrdquo and ldquotransition coalitionsrdquo are all terms integrally part of the jargon of the ministry The actual process management approach the operation-alization of the transition instruments and the concrete products developed seem to be signifi cantly different from how these are defi ned in the tran-sition management literature Obviously the unfolding energy transition management has been heavily infl uenced by the individuals working for EZ directly and indirectly (eg platform chairs) but a very important fac-tor in this seems to be the infl uence of EZ policy culture and structures In a way EZ operationalized transition management in such a way that it was in line with their focus on innovation and market development and their organizational structure This explains the dominance of market actors in the process the infl uence of intermediary agencies such as Senternovem the use of existing fi nancial instruments and so on
In line with the transition management starting points but also in line with its own existing practice EZ opted for a participatory approach and consulted a large number of advisors and consultants scientists and other actors The process architecture in a sense emerged it was facilitated partly structured and managed but also organized by small sub-networks and coalitions infl uenced by societal developments and sometimes sud-denly enforced Evaluating this from the transition management approach it seems that in general the lack of vision and strategy of EZ regarding the process architecture gave space for certain actors to infl uence and domi-nate the process Weaker alternatives outside perspectives critical scien-tifi c refl ection and radical innovations this way did often not get access Although it is generally believed that the past few years have shown a new development in policy making it is still questionable whether the imple-mentation of transition management by EZ so far is really a break in the development of policy making and whether it will be lasting
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study II The Dutch Energy Transition 195
With hindsight it thus seems that in the fi rst phase EZ underestimated the potential of transition management and the importance of providing a solid basis for the transition management process (Loorbach and Kemp 2008) In terms of analysis and in terms of process the fi rst phases of transition management (expert preparation and the transition arena) were skipped and a type of process management was used that has all the char-acteristics of a stakeholder-network and consensus approach but not that of a selective front-runner-oriented multilevel approach EZ perhaps in its desire to achieve concrete results and to primarily stimulate business opted for creation of networks within themes in which developments were already ongoing and large companies were active in innovation In a sense the Ministry did not pay much attention to the strategic level during the fi rst years and did not include the demand side The focus was on creating business based on the belief in market forces to facilitate the transition to a sustainable energy system The approach has led to network building within the sustainable energy fi eld and a large number of projects and experiments in the selected areas but it seems that by lacking a strategic transition management and strong actors promoting alternative visions the up-scaling potential of the experiments is limited societal awareness is lag-ging behind and important chances for sustainable energy (behavior) in various societal sectors have been missed
In the practice of the energy transition the strategic level has been underdeveloped for the fi rst few years and only in 2006 was a new group the taskforce established This taskforce did not meet the criteria for a strategic transition arena because of three reasons the individuals involved were selected based on status representation and power the substance of their message was to reduce transition to numbers and a business-as-usual scenario and the underlying process of envisioning did not include strategic actors nor did it explore radically different futures The taskforce how-ever did create space at the strategic and tactical level by drawing attention to the issue putting it on the political agenda and signaling the possibili-ties for creating sustainable energy business A real transition arena is an instrument for societal steering that develops strategies in which the gov-ernment is a part but not always the necessary condition it catalyzes and stimulates societal solutions and activities rather than offering recommen-dations only The focus on regime-actors and business combined with the governance approach that is still based on a more or less traditional rela-tionship between government business and science is also present at the tactical level It is refl ected in the composition of both the taskforce and the different platforms where an institutionalized large-scale and regime-associated organization dominates the process (Hofman 2005) It is ques-tionable whether this will be different in the successor to the taskforce
Instead of either a planning or a market approach transition manage-ment would include both strategies along with a society-based type of governance (Energieraad and VROM-raad 2004) In that sense it also
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
196 Transitions to Sustainable Development
represents a different philosophy regarding the role of the state and mar-kets Setting it apart from regular energy and innovation policy the focus of energy transition management should be on the energy system as a whole and a much longer time frame This is the fi rst complexity-based manage-ment strategy that enables a more fundamental refl ection on the nature of the current problems and a more integrated and comprehensive vision on the desired direction of development A thorough (integrated systems) analysis and understanding of the dynamics of the energy system should be the basis for governance This does not only imply framing the problem of creating a sustainable energy system in terms of market effi ciency of ecologic impact but also to see the necessary transition to a sustainable energy system as a societal process that includes a whole range of changes and thus the whole of civil society When the problems related to energy are framed this way the door is opened to much more inclusive participatory processes more in-depth problem structuring critical self-refl ection and more targeted use of (policy) instruments and experiments This approach stimulates the awareness that this transition will require a transformation of the existing regime (especially the routines institutions policies and behavior) that is fundamental and will not automatically lead towards a sustainable energy system
II65 LESSONS LEARNED
The energy transition as the process of societal change from a fossil-based to a sustainable energy supply system might be the most complex long-term transition in any society It is interwoven with economic sec-tors (mobility housing agriculture) and in fact deeply rooted in our soci-etal structures routines and culture It is a highly unpredictable process in which external events and changes are determining to a large extent the dynamics on the ground The room for infl uence therefore seems limited but nevertheless there still are possibilities The case of the Dutch energy transition approach refl ects this struggle between the unmanageability of the transition in a broad societal sense and the possibilities for promoting and creating change on a modest level It seems that the main impact has been achieved in creating business and political conditions for change and acceleration (of which in the coming years the importance and success will become clear or not) and in interlinking and broadening experiments
Regarding transition management a number of crucial insights have emerged over the past six years The Energy Transition project has in gen-eral served as a breeding ground for numerous innovations in the transi-tion management context and a number of new concepts and instruments have been rapidly adopted and implemented in its context It is generally regarded as one of the prime examples of transition management (with its pros and cons) and has national and international allure However as
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Case Study II The Dutch Energy Transition 197
the critical evaluation shows the Energy Transition has often made use of conventional policy instruments involved predominantly regime actors and was despite its explicit societal ambition technologically fi xed Nev-ertheless it created a community of professionals and scientists interested and involved in transition provided a real-life experiment for transition researchers and succeeded in creating fi nancial political and societal space for sustainable energy technologies Overall the Ministry can be said to have made use of transition terminology and some of the concepts without actually following the actor-and-process strategy aiming for radical change and front-runners in society (Hisschemoumlller 2008)
The energy transition process has followed the analytical structure offered by transition management almost literally A broad vision transi-tion images pathways and experiments along with transition arenas and networks were developed In general this seems to certainly have had a structuring guiding and coordinating effect in the sense that a multitude of sometimes very different participants were better able to see their spe-cifi c place within the whole and where they could contribute It therewith guided the thinking in the growing transition network that all actors are involved in a joint process without having to fully agree on everything The idea of a (necessary) energy transition has since then become almost com-mon knowledge and part of regular policy (in fact of the regime)
There are serious doubts among transition researchers (Loorbach et al 2008 Hisschemoumlller 2008) about the extent and depth of the use of the analytical transition management frame This is especially the case when assessing the processes organized to develop visions images and experi-ments and the ultimate substance given to these It seems for example that participants were mainly recruited from business and predominantly regime-type actors The sessions organized were often meetings where agreement and consensus was sought The focus of much of the delibera-tions was either policy recommendations or technological innovation Put another way the processes organized were not so much used to create pio-neering capacity societal self-organization and socio-technical innovation as they were put in practice as participatory innovation policy
Even though the mobilizing effects of the approach are widely recog-nized the prime function of transition management should be to build capacity for more radical innovation One of the lessons that could be drawn regarding the implementation of transition management is that to build up such a capacity a certain distance to the regime is crucial There is need for a continuous input from outsiders but also a need to continuously re-create the space for more fundamental refl ection debate and innovation This in turn requires capacities and skills that were present in the Energy Transition but to a too-limited extent With the explosive growth of the project a huge number of offi cials were involved seeing and treating it as regular policy process and being unaware of the underlying theoretical notions and concepts
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
198 Transitions to Sustainable Development
This translated to an often sub-optimal solution (from a transition perspective) For example instead of creating new regulation fi nancial support policy instruments based on the transition management and its outcomes the main refl ex of policy offi cials involved is to adjust and adapt existing ones This way there is a breakdown of existing regime structures and incremental adaptation instead which leads to sub-optimal solutions and support for the transitions For example the transition paths are seen as offi cial instruments to support investment in technology resulting in a formalization and technological fi x The UKR fi nancial scheme has been complemented with criteria regarding involvement of market actors but this has induced only slightly adjusted proposals for technology experi-ments Another example is the composition of the taskforce where the ten-dency was once again to involve the major stakeholders instead of selecting based on the idea of front-runners and social innovators
Finishing this short overview on a positive note we have to say that these lessons and insights (and many more) are indeed also an outcome of the co-production between policy and research By engaging in transi-tion management practitioners and researchers are engaged in a collective search- and-learning process whose greatest merit is that those involved actually fi nd out how things work and can be improved by themselves Con-cretely the policy offi cials themselves are increasingly seeing the benefi t of a front-runner approach the necessity to create niches for socio-technical innovation the need to deal with uncertainties the limits to what govern-ment can control and so on Perhaps the greatest benefi t of transition man-agement this case shows then is that gradually a refl exive capacity is being built that is a necessary precondition for policy and governance to support a long-term process of sustainable development (Loorbach 2007)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
II7 Self-Evaluation of the Development and Prospects of Transition Management
It is clear that over the last few years our defi nitions of transitions and transition management and our practices related to the transition arena model have matured We have become more critical and accurate regarding the transition arena model in terms of actor selection criteria in terms of the substance of transition visions and agendas and in terms of methodolo-gies used At fi rst we operated more or less intuitively in many areas but nowadays we are able to defi ne and execute actor selection facilitation and analysis based on a sound theoretical underpinning combined with empiri-cal evidence The actor selection for example while at fi rst more or less based on intense discussions with project leaders is now structured-based on in-depth interviews a competence check and an ideal group-composi-tion There were also elements that we underestimated beforehand which came to the forefront during the various transition arenas Examples of these elements are the importance of problem structuring the mobilizing power of a transition agenda the transformative capacity individuals can have and the impact transition experiments can have on the direction of transformative change Increasingly the elements of transition management are regarded as systemic instruments in their own right through strategic transition experiments other processes are infl uenced and directed and through problem structuring and envisioning processes individuals develop the capabilities and perspective to promote changes in their own regular environment A fi nal important change in our thinking with regard to the transition arena is that now much more space is created for involvement of innovative change-inclined regime actors instead of exclusively focusing on niche-actors In practice (for example in the transition arena Parkstad Limburg) regime-actors were always involved but it was only later that we integrated this in our theoretical approach The transition management approach has thus been refi ned and adapted over time based on lessons learned in practice and vice versa
In essence this is what makes the transition management approach interesting it provides a way of thinking about governance that is concrete enough for implementation but that simultaneously allows enough room for refl ection adaptation and learning When implemented it leads to new insights more refi ned concepts and theoretical development This in turn
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
200 Transitions to Sustainable Development
can inform more structured or intelligent implementation etc In its core transition management is about searching learning and experimenting As such this has proven to be a sophisticated and interesting process imple-mentation does not only inform theory but also the other way around there is continuous co-evolution between theory and practice Transition management defi nes qualitative criteria for a successful transition manage-ment process without too concrete illusions about an end state or fi xed expectations about predictable outcomes This allows for broad explora-tions while maintaining realistic expectations to be combined with small-scale experiments and incremental steps forward Basically this approach is also a way of thinking in which limitations to control are not seen as barriers but as starting points for exploring possibilities that lack of control can offer This potential of the transition management approach can also become a weakness because of the unpredictability of transitions and the awareness of limited control transition management can become regarded as an escape from straightforward action We could say that one of the major conclusions of the research so far is that successful transition man-agement depends on a balance between transition management and regu-lar policies in a way that transition management positively infl uences and stimulates the conventional policy process without becoming part of it
The transition management model used in the Netherlands for achiev-ing systemic change is not a megalomaniacal attempt to remake society but a new governance model for interactions between market state and civil society It is a model for working towards a sustainability transition even when the very idea of achieving this is revealed as illusionary We make our histories but not our future yet we can do things that help to achieve better futures even in the face of perplexing complexity and over-whelming uncertainty The road to progress is rarely a smooth road and it is true that the further you travel the harder it becomes to unravel to undo things Transition management helps to pursue policies for system innovation in a prudent way It combines advantages of incrementalism (doable steps which are not immediately disruptive) with those of planning (articulation of desirable futures and use of goals) perspective incremen-talism (Kemp 2007)
One may criticize the modernistic approach that is implicit in transition management an issue we will address below But there is still a need to gov-ern our society in more sustainable directions The plurality of interests of a variety of stakeholders must be translated into planning and action We claim that this is best done in a refl exive manner using problem-structuring process visioning dynamic portfolios and adaptive policies informed by learning experiences Transition management is an example of such a new governance model There is a danger that transition management in prac-tice smoothens processes of confl ict and indeed something like this is hap-pening in the Netherlands where we do not have the kind of heated debates about energy futures as in Germany or the UK But if politics will play itself out anyhow it is better played out in a society committed to system
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Self-Evaluation and Prospects of Transition Management 201
innovation than in one committed to system improvement Our own cau-tion is instead of opting for technologies instruments and practices of the past explore new ways of meeting needs
We still cannot answer unequivocally the question whether transition management really works And it might take another decade before we can answer this question But the potential and positive effects of the transition management approach are clear and encouraging which is also refl ected in the rapidly expanding practice of transition policies research and proj-ects Perhaps we may have underestimated the diffi culties that transition management involves in practice and perhaps we have overstated the scope of transition management but we remain convinced that it is an attractive and useful model for governance towards sustainable development
II71 LEARNING-BY-DOING INDUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRANSITION MANAGEMENT APPROACH
The cases described in section illustrate how based on the theoretical assumptions and basic starting point of transition management the tran-sition management framework and instruments were developed tested and refi ned They are symbolic for the wide diversity of transition man-agement projects and processes that have emerged over the last eight years since its introduction into the policy and sustainability arena It is in this diverse practice of transition management that much of the theo-retical development is accelerated new ideas emerge and new research themes are put on the agenda An interesting spin-off of this approach has been the diffusion of transition management and transition thinking into society and policy Below we give a short overview of ongoing and past transition management activities
In Dutch national policy for sectors (agriculture mobility energy water bull management and recently also the health-care and building sectors)
Water sector In 2007 the Dutch cabinet formalized its water vision1 In this document prepared by the Department of Water Manage-ment in collaboration with a variety of social partners the challenge of transforming our current water management practices and infra-structure is framed as transition A strategic national transition arena is being established to bring the public and political debate further along and articulate the transition vision more broadly An interesting icon-experiment in preparation is that of the fl oating city
Construction sector a transition arena process for the building sec-tor was initiated in 2006 to develop an inspiring future perspective for the building and construction industry In the transition agenda the dominant paradigm in construction that innovation already takes place and in a matter of months is increasingly questioned by the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
202 Transitions to Sustainable Development
position that fundamental change is required which will take the sec-tor 15ndash20 years2
Health care in 2006 a project started to transitionize a traditional innovation program in the health-care sector into a transition experi-ments program The 80-million Euro budget is now being invested in 26 experiments that qualify as transition experiments in terms of scope actor coalition learning challenges and possible contribution to an overall transition The innovation projects are now integrated in a new program called Transition Program Long-term Care3 As a parallel trajectory a national transition arena has started with about 20 front-runners from inside the health-care sector but also outside such as the food care and construction sectors
Roof transition in 2007 the leading producer of raw bituminous materials for roofs started an initiative to transform all 35 million square metres of black roofs in the Netherlands into sustainable roofs within 15 years The initiative is explicitly based on the transition management approach and led by the CEO of Esha a transition arena and network of over 200 parties has evolved This network includes the manufacturers of roofi ng products but also designers and archi-tects builders roof construction and maintenance companies science and education organizations municipalities water managers and so on The core idea is to link (partially already existing) sustainable solutions for roofs (eg water retention green roofs solar roofs heat storage) to social problems This way roofs can actively contribute to solving sustainability problems locally In this process the whole sec-tor will need to develop new practices structures and culture (Loor-bach et al 2009)4
In Flemish policy (housing and living and waste management)bull
Plan C Flemish waste agency OVAM started in 2003 to think about the possibilities for a new generation of waste management that did not focus on the management of waste but on the management of production to prevent waste Under the header ldquomaterial or resource policiesrdquo they started an exploratory transition research project (Loorbach et al 2004) and in 2006 based on this project a transi-tion arena5
DuWoBo A transition arena for sustainable living and building started in Flanders in 2004 to develop a vision and shared agenda to accelerate and guide the transition to sustainability in this area6 The project was also a fi rst experiment with the transition approach outside the Netherlands The two-year project leading up to the tran-sition agenda and broad network was offi cially completed in 2006 but it still continues to this day
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Self-Evaluation and Prospects of Transition Management 203
At the regional and city level for governments (Parkstad Limburg Prov-bull inces of Zeeland and Utrecht Rotterdam Almere Haarlemmermeer)
Parkstad Limburg was the fi rst experiment with the transition man-agement approach and the project in which the transition arena meth-odology originated (Loorbach 2007) Much has been achieved since the end of the formal transition arena project a new eacutelan has been introduced in the region more space for innovation and entrepreneur-ship has been realized (through the regional governmental coopera-tion) and various innovations suggested in the transition agenda in housing education and health care have been realized7
Zeeland a three-year transition management process ended in the fall of 2008 with the presentation of a transition agenda for Zeeland Twenty-fi ve front-runners from Zeeland have invested quite some time and energy in about 15 arena meetings to develop this innovative agenda for a future Zeeland called ldquoWatermerkrdquo (Watermerk 2008 wwwwatermerkningcom) which includes a challenging vision of Zeeland by 2048 seven transition pathways and ten future-determining innova-tive projects The next step is to implement this agenda possibly sup-ported by offi cial policy in Zeeland
Rotterdam Climate Initiative what started out of political pragma-tism is now turning into a transition program for the Rotterdam region8 The high ambition of a 50 CO2 reduction in 2025 has been translated into an innovation program with a variety of projects relat-ing to sustainable energy mobility housing and industry A project is ongoing to transitionize the RCI program
Old Rotterdam Harbor the traditional Rotterdam harbor area is being transformed into a living-working-recreation area It is a huge area comprising 1600 hectares the size of the town of Gouda and transi-tion management has been adopted as an offi cial policy for this long-term transformation process which is supposed to take 50 years An integrated vision of a sustainable implementation of the harbor area has been developed as part of the transition management approach
Urgenda various innovation programs in the Netherlands have been bull shifting the focus from micro-level innovation to system-innovation and transition9 The transition network has initiated a joint future agenda with a sense of high urgency called Urgenda10 (urgent agenda) in which the 10 innovation programs (representing an innovation bud-get of over 500 million Euros) combine their efforts to implement this future agenda for a sustainable Netherlands which covers 40 targets for 40 years regional projects and so-called icon-projects (illustrative for a future Netherlands) The Urgenda aims to evolve into a social move-ment to expedite the process of creating a sustainable Netherlands
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
204 Transitions to Sustainable Development
The cases described in this book (Parkstad Limburg Energy Transition) and the examples above are very different in terms of set-up organizational con-text scope and substance They are not the result of a careful selection process and we havenrsquot been looking for cases that would fi t the theory of transitions and transition management in development On the contrary the cases are demand-driven in all cases there was a specifi c demand mostly from the gov-ernment (national provincial or regional) to apply a transition management approach in order to start accelerate or strengthen a transition process For brevityrsquos sake we could only present two case studies in this book one regional transition (Parkstad Limburg) and an ongoing sector transition (energy)
On the one hand the cases are representative of our learning experi-ences with transition management and illustrate the gradual evolvement of the theory of transitions and transition management On the other hand we have now more extensive and richer case-study material that we cannot present yet in this book while we still fi nd ourselves on the steep part of the learning curve Thus we have not yet reached an optimal diversity of case studies even after having done ten case studies in the Netherlands and Bel-gium At least ten more case studies are needed and preferably some more abroad before we can think we have reached a steady-state part of the learning curve But even then we possibly will be surprised by the context-specifi city that often drives transition cases However at least we feel bet-ter equipped to perform complex cases in a more systematic and adequate manner having left the intuitive stage behind us So far we have no failures all cases performed support the hypothesis that transition management is helpful in furthering and stimulating transition processes
We now critically refl ect upon the pillars of the transition management approach also to demonstrate the learning experiences in the case studies performed so far
II72 PILLARS OF THE TRANSITION MANAGEMENT APPROACH
In this section we refl ect upon the pillars of the transition management approach the transition arena envisioning experiments and learning evaluating and monitoring
Transition Arena
The transition arena model has emerged out of experimental transition management projects (Loorbach 2007) This model is an effective model to organize and coordinate problem structuring and envisioning processes in such a way that they lead to social learning among a network of inno-vators (front-runners) and the development of a shared vision and a joint agenda (Van Buuren and Loorbach 2009) It is also clear however that
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Self-Evaluation and Prospects of Transition Management 205
there is no blueprint for a transition arena which is in our experience to a large extent context-specifi c A signifi cant result of transition management research so far is that different elements of a transition arena process have been identifi ed and methodologically underpinned and tested Examples include the integrated systems analysis the actor selection based on selec-tion criteria the development of a transition vision and transition agenda including images and pathways and a portfolio of experiments
The success of the transition arena and its output is for a large part dependent on the quality of the organization and facilitation by a transition management team In such a team three types of actors should be repre-sented problem-owners (often a governmental offi cial) transition manage-ment experts and experts on the transition topic in question
Selection of Participants
In retrospect it worked very well to start with inviting a relatively large group of relevant actors (relevant in the sense of being employed important outspoken or active in the specifi c system or on the specifi c topic) From such a group only some will be willing and enthusiastic to invest time and energy on a regular basis or be interested in an envisioning process From this list around 15 people can be selected (the transition arena) based on representation (of different actor-groups) innovative ambition and net-working and strategic capability Throughout the process this group will self-organize and self-select those of the group that have truly internalized the vision and process and are able to translate the ideas to their own daily context (and make use of it) Beforehand it is impossible to envisage who these people will be in particular because of the emergent character of the visionary process The organization and facilitation should thus be focused on developing the group internalization of the ideas developed and stimu-lation of individual contributions from the participants to the strategy
During a transition management process there are continuous ten-sions between the regular policy process and the transition arena which infrequently reach such a high level that they need to be tempered (which requires a sensible communication strategy)
Process Facilitation
The progress in terms of the network building process and the development of a shared overall vision are closely related In practice this has meant that organizing the process (selection of methods topics for discussion and structuring of the discussion) was only possible based on thorough knowl-edge of the methodology and transition (management) concepts Facilitating transition processes therefore requires not only process skills but certainly also methodological competences creative and fl exible capabilities and last but not least confi dence in the process
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
206 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Because of the innovative and complex nature of the transition man-agement process it is impossible to predict outcomes However by fol-lowing the different steps in transition management (constantly adjusted to the specifi c circumstances and context) the chances of the emergence of a shared problem defi nition and joint vision and change in mind-set or ultimately changed behavior and new forms of cooperation are greatly enhanced Contrary to regular policy processes which are very much prod-uct-focused the process-focus of transition management is more risky but certainly potentially more productive
Envisioning
The process of envisioning plays an important role within transition pro-cesses A vision is a future image for which people want to exert themselves A transition vision is a future image with transformative characteristics Transition visions are no fi xed end-points but evolving pictures (Sondei-jker et al 2006) This means that transition visions might be adjusted in case new insights become available and lessons learned after each cycle of the transition management process The basis for a vision is provided by a scenario which we defi ne as a combination of a future image and pro-cesses events and actions mostly in the form of a narrative (Van Asselt et al 2005) It is borrowed from the world of theater where a scenario is a description of subsequent scenes The essence of a scenario in our context is not its predictive ability which is pretty low in the longer term but its abil-ity to explore the implications of ldquowhat ifrdquo questions There is a multitude of different scenarios dependent on how by whom and for whom they are made (Van Notten 2005) An assessment of recent European and global scenarios over the last decades showed that most scenarios analyzed were extrapolations of current trends were not imaginative and did not contain surprises bifurcations and trend breaks and were sector- or theme-specifi c rather than integrative (Rotmans et al 2000)
Contrary to most visions transition visions are meant to be imaginative and inspiring Their transformative character implies that surprises thresh-olds bifurcations (both gradual and events) and trend breaks are starting points for their development Also in process terms they differ from ordi-nary visions because they are developed by front-runners who are supposed to function quite autonomously from the current dominant regime A transi-tion scenario is a web formed by givens countervailing responses discon-tinuities and surprises (Sondeijker et al 2006) It contains multiple future images and a diversity of pathways In a later stage of a transition process images and pathways are selected and fi nally one overarching image and pathway will survive in this evolutionary process of variation and selection based on what has been learned so far This stands far from the determinis-tic blueprint idea behind traditional visions and scenarios
In our experience the primary function of visions in transition pro-cesses is their mobilizing potential mobilizing efforts resources ideas and
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Self-Evaluation and Prospects of Transition Management 207
notions of a selective group of stakeholders front-runners involved in a transition arena The process of envisioning is therefore at least as impor-tant as the vision itself which is one of the major fi ndings of the VISIONS project (Van Asselt et al 2005) Constanza (2000) also emphasized the idea of envisioning as a tool for describing the future and pursuing what we collectively desire He argues that the vision should be judged by the clarity of its goals the acknowledgment of constraints and the representation of a common ground and should be fl exible and evolving
Berkhout et al (2004) are skeptical of the guiding visions as used within the transition management framework They argue that guiding visions are contested and that the process of consensus building on these visions is problematic Also they argue that many historical transitions were not led by overarching visions of the future We have shown however that visions in transition processes have a mobilizing and guiding function just because they contain multiple future images and pathways So consensus is not nec-essary Also transition visions are not produced by the regime as suggested by Berkhout et al (2004) but by front-runners who are supposed to func-tion quite autonomously from the current dominant regime So transition visions divert from ordinary visions produced by the regime that are meant to support the dominant structures We have left the blueprint idea of creat-ing one overall vision and one road onto it behind us
In practice the very idea of transition visions is that they are living mate-rial that contain a shift in mind-set and that are being diffused by front-runners in their own networks and later by other people in broader circuits (Loorbach 2002 Rotmans 2003) The circles-by-circles diffusion process is a primary characteristic of transition visions
In a transition management process transition visions function as a guid-ing compass and have the potency to mobilize front-runners The transfor-mative character of transition visions mirrors the change in mind-set needed in transitions that is supposed to be diffused in wider circles Visions and transition processes are mutually dependent visions are guiding in transi-tion processes but transitions also co-shape the visions developed
Transition Experiments
A transition experiment is an innovation project with a societal challenge as a starting point for learning aimed at contributing to a transition (Van den Bosch and Rotmans 2008) This defi nition emphasizes the social goal of transition experiments (to contribute to solutions for persistent societal problems) compared to the project goal (pre-defi ned result) of conventional innovation projects Transition experiments are related to strategic niche experiments (Hoogma et al 2002) and bounded socio-technical experi-ments (Brown and Vergragt 2008) But they differ from them in the sense of their nature which is social rather than socio-technical and their goal which is to contribute to sustainability transition rather than to technological innovation Regarding the difference in nature strategic niche experiments
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
208 Transitions to Sustainable Development
and bounded socio-technical experiments have a socio-technical nature in which the starting point is often a technological innovation for example experiments with electric vehicles (Hoogma et al 2002) with PV systems in housing (Loeber et al 2007) or with bio-energy technologies (Geels and Raven 2006) Transition experiments are guided by broad social needs and cover a wide range of innovations that go beyond the socio-technical domain but can also be institutional legal fi nancial or social-cultural by nature Examples of transition experiments in practice are experiments with sustainable ways to fulfi ll the need for accommodation and care for elderly mobility in urban areas nutrition for school children and water management (Van Sandick and Weterings 2008) There are not yet many examples of transition experiments however recent empirical research analyzed 35 (potential) transition experiments aimed at realizing sustain-able development specifi cally in mobility and health care (Van den Bosch forthcoming)
The question is how transition experiments can contribute to sustain-ability transitions We have identifi ed three mechanisms through which transition experiments can contribute to sustainability transitions deep-ening broadening and scaling up They provide an important basis for developing management strategies for transition experiments The mecha-nism deepening refers to learning processes through which actors can learn as much as possible about a transition experiment in a specifi c context It builds upon the literature on sustainability transitions which empha-sizes the importance of learning through experimentation in niches (Rot-mans 2003 Smith et al 2005 Geels and Raven 2006 Loorbach 2007 Geels and Schot 2007) What actors learn about when deepening includes shifts in ways of thinking values and perspectives (culture) shifts in doing things habits and routines (practices) and shifts in organizing the physi-cal institutional or economic context (structure) These changes in culture practices and structure are strongly related with respect to each other and their context The learning process is characterized as contextual because the same experiment in another context with possibly a different social net-work different institutions differences in culture etc would yield (at least partially) different outcomes (Van den Bosch and Taanman 2006)
The mechanism ldquobroadeningrdquo refers to repeating a transition experiment in different contexts and linking to other functions or domains Broadening can be recognized in transition literature that emphasizes the importance of experimenting in a variety of contexts (Rotmans 2003 Loorbach 2007) translating practices between contexts (Nooteboom 2006 Smith 2007) conducting multiple experiments in niche-trajectories (Geels and Raven 2006) and a parallel development pattern (Raven 2005) Broadening also relates to innovation literature on diffusion the notion of speciation or generalization (Levinthal 1998 Nooteboom et al 1999) and geographi-cal or spatial scaling up (Douthwaite et al 2003) What is repeated is the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Self-Evaluation and Prospects of Transition Management 209
new or deviant constellation of culture practices and structure which is the outcome of innovation and learning processes (deepening) Through broadening this constellation is extended to broader contexts or broader functions and thus it increases its infl uence and stability
The mechanism ldquoscaling uprdquo refers to embedding a transition experiment in established ways of thinking (culture) doing (practices) and organizing (structure) What is scaled up is not the activity of experimentation but the new or deviant cultures practices and structures that are experimented with (the constellation) Through scaling up a new or deviant constellation of culture practices and structure attains higher infl uence and stability and increases its share in meeting a societal need The constellation increasingly becomes part of the dominant way in which a societal need is fulfi lled Scaling up implies that sustainable practices that are initially deviant or unusual become the dominant or mainstream practice
Our conceptualization of scaling up involves the embedding of experi-ments in the existing structures of a regime (Loorbach and Rotmans 2006) This differs from general notions of scaling up geographically or scaling up markets Scaling up transition experiments not only includes scaling up products services or users but also scaling up perspectives ways of think-ing routines legislation institutions etc This is supported by Douthwaite et al (2003) who distinguish scaling up (institutional expansion from front-runners to incumbent organizations) from geographical scaling out (inno-vation diffusion within the same stakeholder group) and spatial scaling up (the widening of scale of operation)
In all transition management processes performed so far transition experiments play a crucial role as part of the transition agenda They form the link between the often abstract perceived long-term vision and the con-crete reality of today In some cases such as the health-care cases we even started the process with identifying and selecting transition experiments before establishing a transition arena According to our experience transi-tion experiments play a key role in a transition management process and there is no cookbook for how to manage these experiments but at least we have mechanisms (deepening broadening scaling up) by which we can explicitly link them to an ongoing transition process
Learning Evaluating and Monitoring
Learning evaluating and monitoring cannot be separated from each other in a transition process As already indicated learning plays a key role in transition processes By learning we mean here the development of new knowledge competences and norms and values (Van den Bosch and Rot-mans 2008) This may vary from technical learning and conceptual learn-ing to social learning and refl exive learningmdashall these learning variants pass in review in the transition process
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
210 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Transition management itself has been the result of a refl exive learn-ing process in the sense of continuously questioning and reconsider-ing the underlying assumptions it has arisen after several iterations of learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning in various case studies Within the cyclical process of transition management social learning is pivotal and aimed in particular at reframing transforming a persistent problem into a sustainability challenge that offers an alternative perspective on our complex society or a part thereof In the context of transition experi-ments learning means gaining experience about the context-specifi city of experiments about new functions attributed to experiments and about the estimation which experiments have the potential to scale up The lat-ter is most complicated in the sense that it requires an assessment of the potential contribution of an experiment to a sustainability transition Mapping the potential barriers and opportunities within the regime for embedding such a scaled-up experiment is an important element within this learning process
Transition monitoring is here defi ned as observing the dynamics of a transition in order to obtain more insight into the complex dynamics of the transition process with the intention of infl uencing the transition in a more effective manner This is a kind of refl exive monitoring start-ing with a rough design in the form of an ordering framework which is fi lled in specifi cally by stakeholders in a contextual participatory pro-cess The framework is adjusted on the basis of learning experiences in the monitoring process As already indicated we make a distinction between monitoring of the transition process itself and monitoring of the transi-tion management process Monitoring the transition process itself involves measuring the modulation of slow macro-level changes and fast micro-level changes from niche emergence to regime resilience Monitoring transition management involves measuring all actions events policies and strategies to infl uence the transition in question That involves both substance and process elements Substance elements are related to the transition agenda visions long-term and medium-term targets pathways and experiments and changes in mind-set Process elements refer to actor behavior commu-nication emerging networks coalition forming front-runnersrsquo participa-tion policy actions power changes and learning processes
Transition monitoring constitutes the basis for an evaluation process Integration of monitoring and evaluation within each phase of transition management may facilitate social learning that arises from the interac-tion between different individual and collective actors involved at various scales
According to our own learning experiences systematic accounting of social learning processes in a transition management process is a prerequi-site for success In practice however in most cases there are few resources (in terms of money and time) available to do this in a systematic manner which forms an important barrier to scaling up learning experiences
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Self-Evaluation and Prospects of Transition Management 211
II73 CRITICAL SELF-REFLECTION ON TRANSITION MANAGEMENT ADDRESSING POINTS OF CRITICISM
So far the concept of transition management has been received as promising and pointing into the right direction and it has meanwhile been applied quite extensively in the Netherlands Yet transition management invokes criticism as well an issue which we will try to address systematically but briefl y in this section
An overall criticism that emerges from quite a few authors concerns the claim behind transition management that deliberate and systemic inter-vention in pursuit of sustainable goals is possible and potentially effec-tive This is a crucial point and it touches on the rather small empirical basis underlying the theory of directing transitions Indeed research on historical transitions shows that many transitional developments were unintended not planned or not initially foreseen (spontaneous change) But as Meadowcroft (2005) argues this does not mean that directing soci-etal processes in order to establish societal goals is impossible On the contrary governments have often directed transition processes eg in the fi elds of energy (Loorbach et al 2008) waste (Parto et al 2007) agricul-ture and water (Van der Brugge et al 2005) but usually on a smaller and more modest scale than proposed by transition management On the other hand as already stated above our knowledge on how to govern societal change in a desirable direction has advanced substantively over the past decades The innovative concept of transition management is embedded in new forms of governance many of which point in a similar direction pluralistic network approaches where actors from government the market and civil society participate in an interactive manner (Kemp and Loorbach 2003) So there is both a clear need and sound rationale for transition management not in isolation but as part of a research stream studying new forms of governance Nevertheless its value still largely needs to be proven by solidly underpinning the theoretical framework of transition manage-ment by a suffi cient number of empirical case studies The hypothesis that deliberate and systemic intervention in pursuit of sustainable goals is pos-sible and potentially effective however has been partly tested and vali-dated in various case studies and the results are encouraging and support the hypothesis
Transition management has been characterized by some as a top-down blueprint approach and by others in contrast as a bottom-up approach Neither of these perceptions of transition management is correct Transi-tion management contains both top-down and bottom-up elements typi-cal top-down aspects are the envisioning process and the agenda-building process whereas experimenting and learning in niches are typical bottom-up aspects The sustainability vision is translated in long-term goals and transition pathways but not in a deterministic blueprint type of manner Transition management is oriented towards a goal-searching process where
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
212 Transitions to Sustainable Development
social learning might result in adaptation of goals and pathways after every round The vision is partly inspired by already ongoing innovations and experiments which are integrated into the transition process where pos-sible In addition the vision and agenda are set to create room for novel initiatives to be self-organized by societal actors based on the inspirational and invitational character of the vision and agenda
The conceptual strength of transition management lies in the synthesis and continuous iteration between these top-down and bottom-up aspects potentially reinforcing each other The envisioning process implies a heli-copter view on a specifi c persistent problem where the sustainability vision forms the coherent framework within which the transition experiments can be performed and scaled up In this co-evolutionary approach it is not pos-sible to indicate where to start things can go either way from macro to micro developments and vice versa
Several scholars have expressed their concern that transition man-agement involves a rather deterministic collection of rules for manag-ing complex societal systems (Hajer and Poorter 2005) This touches on the management paradox in the face of complexity while you realize that complex adaptive systems are largely unpredictable and cannot be steered in a command and control manner you still aim to develop rules for governing the system in a desired direction With management how-ever we donrsquot mean control but rather infl uencing the direction of a com-plex adaptive system Based on deeper insights into the dynamics of such a complex system we have derived basic principles or guidelines that can be used to infl uence its direction In these guidelines refl exivity is built-in in different ways (i) an adaptive element in the sense that while we try to infl uence the system the system itself is changing so we can adapt to the possible effects of such interventions (ii) an anticipatory element which means that we try to estimate the future dynamic behavior of the system partly possible in certain stages due to path dependencies in the system and anticipate on the possible future behavior of the system and (iii) the guidelines are adjusted as a result of learning experiences with the guide-lines in practical settings The guidelines themselves have evolved over the past couple of years based on what has been learned in empirical cases where transition management was applied (Rotmans et al 2007) The above elements of refl exivity lead to the understanding that in facing the limitations of and scope for managing complex adaptive systems there are opportunities and conditions under which it is possible to infl uence these systems in a desired direction
Transition management is often presented as a typical example of the Dutch consensus approach which supposedly might hinder its application in other countries Indeed what is typical of the Netherlands is the con-sensus democracy and its sublimation in the form of the ldquopolder modelrdquo In this model consensus is sought by means of elaborate public inquiry
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Self-Evaluation and Prospects of Transition Management 213
procedures and forms of participation on the basis of broad societal sup-port This polder model including the underlying consensus democracy is corporatist and primarily represents vested interests as a result of which innovative attempts at introducing reforms almost always fail Consensus democracy therefore has an enormous ability to hinder and diminish cre-ative power (Rotmans 2006) It has been evident for several decades that the Dutch consensus democracy is not really capable of tackling persistent problems and implementing fundamental changes such as transitions The concept of transition management aims to offer an alternative to the Dutch consensus model proliferation of visionary ideas through multi-scale net-work management and self-steering of small innovation networks which might emerge and co-evolve into larger communities In fact this is at odds with the broad consensus-seeking stakeholder participation of the Dutch polder model Transition management aims to involve a selective group of stakeholders where dissensus is a starting point and divergent and confl ict-ing perspectives are worked out alongside various transition paths over a longer time period
Meadowcroft (2005) questions the open nature of transitions in rela-tion to the closure mechanism whether or not the transition will eventu-ally after several decades draw to an end and have solved the problem This touches on the difference between transitions and system innova-tions In our defi nition transitions are related to broad societal systems such as the energy agricultural or health-care systems These societal systems comprise various sub-systems At this level we speak of system innovations organization-transcending innovations that fundamentally alter the relationship between companies organizations and individuals involved Transitions thus require system innovations each of which may have a different speed and rate of progress For instance the Dutch agri-cultural system comprises sub-systems such as dairying and crop farming intensive pig and poultry farming and glasshouse horticulture Whereas the glasshouse horticulture is moving rapidly into a modern innovative more sustainable sub-sector the intensive pig farming is lagging behind hardly moving and resisting structural change This indicates that a transition is far from a smooth uniform shift from state A to B On the contrary a transition contains multiple patterns of change for different subsystems at different scale levels The overall transition never really comes to an end during a period of decades with some system innova-tions left hanging while other system innovations really break through and new ones just begin So if we speak of a successful transition it is usually partially completed with some representative subsystems trans-formed into sustainable ones while other sub-systems might stagnate or even fail to become sustainable
This marks the need for choosing an adequate scale level and system bound-aries to analyze and manage transitions The analysis of which sub-systems
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
214 Transitions to Sustainable Development
innovate rapidly and which move slowly or even stagnate provides the basis for developing an appropriate intervention strategy One of the principles underlying transition management is to focus on rapidly evolving sub-systems rather than on lagging sub-systems Fast-developing sub-systems supposedly have a higher transformative potential which enhances the chance that their direction and pace can be infl uenced by applying transition management guidelines By providing successful examples of transformed sub-systems these front-runners can infl uence more inert sub-systems and expedite their restructuring process Focused effort and energy on forerunning sub-systems turns out to be much more effective than spreading intervention efforts over all sub-systems involved
Meadowcroft emphasizes further the international cross-state charac-ter of most transitions Obviously the types of transitions sketched above exceed the national state level In Rotmans et al (2001) we already indi-cated the importance of an international approach towards sustainability transitions and that it would be fairly useless to stimulate transition pro-cesses within a state without embedding this in an international if not global context On the other hand it makes sense to experiment with transition processes within the state context considering that narrow scale level as a relevant niche Within such a national niche we can learn and experiment with transition management as much as possible As a parallel track to the national transition activities we need to scale up the lessons learned and insights derived to the international level in particular to the EU level In the Netherlands this international track has become an essential part of the transition policy
And fi nally an issue that is often brought up in relation to transitions is that of power Power as object of transition research has become increas-ingly important over the past years Avelino (2007) and Avelino and Rot-mans (2009) have studied a variety of conceptions of power in the scientifi c literature and distilled two power concepts that might be relevant in rela-tion to transitions structural and innovative power Structural power has constitutive capacity and is used by the regime to fabricate manufacture and shape interests and identities of regime parties forming an intricate web Innovative power emerges when a group of individuals that act differ-ently start acting in concert with the aim to create something new Rede-fi ning a transition in terms of power then means a shift in power regime from structural power to niche power Transition management is aimed at empowering niches to allow the formation of niche-regimes that can fi ll up the power vacuum that arises at some point during the pre-development phase of a transition These preliminary ideas of the role of power in transi-tion processes need to be elaborated theoretically and empirically grounded in the coming years
In an interesting commentary Shove and Walker (2007) postulate some provocative but thoughtful cautions with regard to the notion of
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Self-Evaluation and Prospects of Transition Management 215
transition management We address these comments largely by clarifying some misconceptions about transition management Some suspect tran-sition management to be some kind of social engineering presupposing that individuals and organizations can steer complex systems towards pre-defi ned normative goals Social engineering methods were rooted in classi-cal systems theory largely avoiding uncertainty and complexity Transition management however is a model for exploring new paths in a refl exive manner It is in fact the observation that the world is not perfectly refl exive that led us to develop a model of transition management as a framework for policy in the fi rst place so as to make policy more refl exive and deal with issues of uncertainty and complexity The word ldquomanagementrdquo in transition management is easily misunderstood as a tool for transition managers (whoever they may be) instead of as a frame for societal delib-erations which it really is
Next to this social engineering misinterpretation there are some other misconceptions that frequently emerge and which also appear in Shove and Walkerrsquos commentary First transition management so far has been applied to social transitions not focusing on technological innovation but on transformations of societal sectors (such as the energy water or health-care sectors) Since the multilevel concept of transitions has been developed in the context of socio-technical transitions often the pre-sumption is that transition management originated in this context How-ever transition management is as much developed based on governance studies and complex systems theory as on insights from socio-technical and innovation studies This is of vital importance because it leads to a different conceptualization of transitions than merely in a socio-techni-cal sense but it also leads to different case studies and different manage-ment strategies
This is refl ected fi rst of all in the difference in analytical focus between socio-technical and transition management case studies Socio-technical literature focuses on the emergence of new technologies and infrastruc-tures (Geels 2002 Elzen 2005 Berkhout et al 2004) This however is not so much about transition management at the very most it is about strategic niche management (Kemp et al 1998 Hoogma et al 2002) The case studies underlying transition management are of a different nature Representative examples of these case studies are presented in this volume and in Loorbach (2007) These examples have a focus on a soci-etal system and its dominant culture structure and practices along with the role of individuals and organizations The water transition example for instance analyzed by Van der Brugge et al (2005) (see also Van der Brugge 2009) mainly focuses on a change in cultural perspective as has occurred in the Netherlands during the past decades ldquofrom stemming water to accommodating waterrdquo Also the energy transition has a broad social focus from a transition management angle We have warned against
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
216 Transitions to Sustainable Development
a too-small and technical focus for the energy transition (Rotmans et al 2001b) taking account of institutional cultural demographic economic ecological and technological determinants that co-evolve with no a priori ranking of importance
Another misconception is that there is such a thing as a transition man-ager While in fact through implementation a group of individuals is typi-cally involved (the transition team) the individuals actually infl uencing the societal process are the ones included in the transition arenas and net-works A transition cannot be managed in the classical command-and-control top-down sense but there are certain activities that can be done by different actors to create space for front-runners and fi rst movers Creating space involves diverse activities a long-term ambitious vision creates time for new challenging ideas within the incumbent regime a joint agenda creates thrust among parties involved fi nancial incentives create possi-bilities for niche-players to develop innovative ideas innovative small-scale experiments create diversity at the niche-level niche-players can be empowered by providing them with knowledge and removing barriers and scaling up experiments enhances the emergence of a breakthrough This palette of activities falls within the scope of transition management (Rotmans 2006)
In day-to-day practice these activities co-evolve in no particular order not based on a grand design These activities are undertaken by a variety of players without a clear hierarchy and without a clear demarcation who is inside and outside the system These players are not so much transition managers but each of them plays a particular role in the transition game Some are playing at the strategic level building up authority and legiti-macy among high-level politicians and policymakers within the regime Some are forming new coalitions involving new parties whereas others are linking up existing experiments Some transitionize ordinary innovation experiments others are developing new arrangements to remove exist-ing barriers Some are involved in bureaucratic activities whereas others develop practical guidelines for practitioners So the everyday politics of transition management forms a tangled ball with no clear management structure (Loorbach 2007)
II74 GENERIC LESSONS AND INSIGHT FROM TM-CASES
We end this chapter with some generic lessons and insights that we drew from the case studies that we described above as well as from ongoing case studies in the Netherlands
Context-specifi citybull Every transition project is unique in terms of context and partici-pants and therefore requires a specifi c contextual and participatory
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Self-Evaluation and Prospects of Transition Management 217
approach At the sector level mainly professionals will be involved but in a regional transition arena participants are often more emo-tionally connected to the subject for example This means that there is no such thing as a standard recipe for how to manage transition projects That also means that one will also be surprised by the de-velopments within a transition trajectory in particular within an arena Arena processes are quite intense and emotional full of ten-sions within participants and tensions between the environment and the arena The informal aspects of such a transition trajectory are at least as important as the formal aspects Preferably these transition processes should be guided by a team of experienced people with a variety of complementary skills and backgrounds
Selection of front-runnersbull The selection of front-runners (pioneers niche players) for a transi-tion process is of crucial importance In the beginning we did this in-tuitively looking for people with original ideas who could think ldquoout of the boxrdquo Gradually we learned that other competencies are also important and that functioning of individuals in a group process is decisive for the success We therefore developed a format for in-depth interviews of front-runners that we use for screening potential candi-dates and a list of substance and process criteria for the selection of candidates for a transition arena And we developed a psychological test for testing the psychological features of potential front-runners based on a validated psychological procedure We now use these three elements (in-depth interviews substance and process criteria and a psychological test) to select individual front-runners and compose a balanced group
Composition of a transition arenabull A transition arena is an informal network of front-runners in which a group process unfolds often in an unplanned and unforeseen way This puts high demands on the group composition In terms of group dynamics a group is much more than the sum of the individuals In general it takes a few iterations before a stable diverse and repre-sentative constellation has been formed for a transition arena Some front-runners leave and new ones enter which gives some dynamics that might be fruitful for the group process In this sense an arena process is an evolutionary process with continuous mutations We also learned how important a balance is between niche players and change-inclined innovative regime players In fact the latter are also niche players but with invested power operating within the regime In a transition process we need both pioneers operating outside and inside the incumbent power structures with the off-regime niche players in the majority
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
218 Transitions to Sustainable Development
Space for front-runnersbull Front-runners are key to transition processers Front-runners in par-ticular real go-getters with an abundance of energy and enthusiasm to combat the many hurdles within the regime need support and espe-cially space for their innovation activities Innovation space for front-runners turns out to be of crucial importance in transition processes Not so much fi nancial space only which obviously plays a role but in particular mental space organizational space and juridical space For instance the concept of a minimally regulated space as experimental zone in which front-runners can maneuver more or less freely seems important A transition arena itself actually is a created relatively safe and free protected environment without any power hierarchy which is aimed to stimulate the development of creative innovative ideas and which can be used to generate more time and space to develop ideas and to create distance from the existing regime without losing touch This free space should be guarded continuously and should never be taken for granted
The regime strikes backbull The autonomous character of a transition arena often makes the re-gime nervous which forms the source of tensions between regular policy and the transition shadow trajectory As a response to these emerging tensions the regime has the almost unstoppable tendency to turn (back) into a command-and-control mode The manifesta-tion of such a command-and-control mode is the attempt to build up new institutional constituencies such as task forces advisory boards sounding boards etc This arises mainly out of fear to give away the steering and control of the transition processes it is a mere refl ex to remain a handle on a complicated process the regime wants to be in charge of These institutional constituencies reduce the free space created for front-runners even if they are established to support the transition arena and the front-runners From the transition viewpoint the only adequate response is to build up a close relationship with (parts of) the regime and maintain the autonomy of the transition process by tuning the free space agenda and responsibilities of the transition process (and the arena within that) compared to the regular policy process
Be prepared for the unexpectedbull A transition project road is full of obstacles barriers and surprises None of the transition trajectories that we have been involved in went smoothly Most transition cases we were part of passed off rather chaotically which sometimes fi lled the client with despair This tem-porary kind of confusion is part of the divergence inherent to the transition process and might stimulate creativity of the participants
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Self-Evaluation and Prospects of Transition Management 219
However this should be guided in a fl exible but determined way al-ways retaining the guiding principles of transition management The expected unexpected also indicates however that ample room should be reserved for unforeseen events activities and products and that enough time and energy should be invested in managing the chaos and the turmoil Transition arenas if organized effectively are the start of an evolving and expanding process which needs to be ac-knowledged beforehand so that additional means and personnel can be reserved for later in the process
Impact and results of a transition processbull It is hardly possible to specify the concrete results or impact of a tran-sition process NB by a transition process we mean a transition tra-jectory that follows the starting points of transition management and is guided by those principles The more modest shorter-term goal is to build up innovation networks of front-runners with an ambi-tious agenda of reform starting with concrete breakthrough projects that illuminate the longer-term sustainability vision We started with developing these networks at the strategic level but as shown in the health-care transition it seems as promising to start from innovation networks at the operational level What we can specify in the short term are indirect or intangible effects which are as important as the direct effects Examples of indirect effects that we have signaled are a new discourse a new eacutelan a joint language renewed trust and a shared perspective among participants In particular a common lan-guage developed by participants in a transition arena is a critical suc-cess factor The analytical framework of transition management can help to develop such a common language
Empowering front-runners is key to a transition processbull Key to transition management is the empowerment of front-runners By empowerment we here mean providing them with multiple re-sources in order to be better equipped to play the power games with the regime In the health-care transition and in the roof transition cases through development of new regulation and changes in fund-ing schemes conditions were created that opened up space for more innovation But by ldquoresourcesrdquo we do not refer only to fi nancial re-sources such as subsidies but also to mental resources such as allow a deeper insight into the complexity and persistency of the problem in question by reframing that problem (including the impossibility of a single actor solving the problem) and by transforming it into a sustainability challenge (including the possibilities to relate the rather abstract vision to concrete projects that partly shape that visionary future) After all the arena itself is to be considered as an empower-ment environment for the front-runners selected If the process goes
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
220 Transitions to Sustainable Development
well the arena provides the front-runners with an action perspec-tive so that they better realize what their contribution could be to the bigger picture (sustainability vision) The process is meant to be self-organizing stimulating front-runners to create their own space by gathering together their own front-runners forming their own in-novation network etc
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Part III
Understanding Transitions from a Governance PerspectiveJohn Grin
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
III1 Introduction
III11 WHAT DO WE SEE WHEN WE ADOPT A GOVERNANCE PERSPECTIVE
What may adopting a governance perspective add to our understanding of transitions To be sure such perspective involves certainly more and other things than the stipulations of some who embrace a reductionist view of the concept of governance This view holds that the quintessence of a gover-nance perspective is the recognition that the process of steering society and the market can no longer be located exclusively in political-administrative institutions taking the shape of central control (government) In this view governance implies the attribution of a much more prominent role to the interactions between state market and society However the idea of a shift from central steering to interaction is historically fl awed as our example below will demonstrate In line with this empirical reality moreover the conceptual insights sometimes attributed to the governance notion can hardly count as new Over the past two-thirds of a century rooted in accu-rate empirical analysis the policy sciences have developed models for policy making which take into account that
rationality is bounded (Dewey 1938 Simon 1944)bull the policy process is essentially embedded in socio-economic power bull structures (Dahl 1956)the traditional state-central stage model of the policy process over-bull emphasizes ldquothe most visible part of the policy processrdquo public offi cials in the form of politicians governors and civil servants (Lind-blom 1968 [1993])policy implementation is not simply determined by policy documents bull defi ned in an earlier stage but also by unintended effects and exog-enous development and the ways in which actors involved in soci-etal practices implementation interpret and respond to policies as one infl uence among several (Derthick 1972 Pressman and Wildavsky 1973 Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989 Yanow 1996)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015
224 Transitions to Sustainable Development
that therefore policy making should avoid a ldquoquest for controlrdquo (Van bull Gunsteren 1976) and take into account a contingent understanding of the sociological and economic nature of the processes they seek to infl uence (Elmore 1985)
If these insights are important and should certainly be included in under-standing and doing transitions they are not the most crucial or innova-tive contribution to notions like transition management or strategic niche management even though they often get much attention from those who propose or enthusiastically endorse these notions Even stronger over-emphasizing the recognition of these notions as a contribution of transition thinking to realizing sustainable development implies a risk that its more essential and unique contributions are underplayed
So again what will adopting a governance perspective add to our under-standing of transitions1 Essentially such perspective allows us to consider transition management strategic niche management and interrelated pro-cesses in the real world More specifi cally such perspective is important for three reasons First it contributes to the historical contextualizing of the transition towards a sustainable society in late modernity Thus it may yield some additional depth to the multi-phase metaphor from complexity studies
Second a governance perspective emphasizes not only the nature of transitions as profound changes in both established patterns of action and the structure2 in which they are embedded but also how these changes in practices and structure in a particular domain are infl uenced by long-term societal trends exogenous to that domain ldquoNovel practicesrdquo ldquostructurerdquo and ldquoexogenous tendenciesrdquo of course refer to what the multilevel perspec-tive (MLP) calls experiments regime and landscape developments in this part we will sometimes use the fi rst terminology especially when we wish to emphasize the structuration perspective (12) or to connect to social sci-ence more generally As we will see in the next chapter several landscape tendencies infl uence the polity innovation systems and markets in ways that may or may not promote sustainable development
Transforming established patterns of action and their structural context is bound to run into resistance and inertia Moreover realizing a trans-formation with a particular normative orientationmdashsustainable develop-mentmdashamidst a heterogeneous set of long-term trends implies additional struggle This suggests a third positive feature of a governance perspective it pays attention to dealing with the politics intrinsic to transitions and system innovation By shedding light on the politics of changing power relations trust and legitimacy it may show how they are partly intrinsic to processes of profound change In this way it may help to identify alterna-tive ways of dealing with such politics Accordingly such perspective does not merely acknowledge the points made by more or less sympathetic crit-ics3 who argue that notions like transition management and strategic niche
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
938
196
9]
at 0
301
12
Mar
ch 2
015