Transitions to sustainable development

This book series addresses the issue on how to understand the dynamics and governance of transition dynamics towards sustainable development.... GEELS AND JOHAN SCHOTI.1 Introduction: Ex

Transitions to

Sustainable Development

Sustainability Transitions

SERIES EDITORS: JOHN GRIN, JAN ROTMANSAND JOHAN SCHOT

1 Transitions to Sustainable Development

New Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative ChangeJohn Grin, Jan Rotmans and Johan Schot

In 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.

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

by Routledge

270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016Simultaneously published in the UKby Routledge

2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2010 Taylor & 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 cm.—(Routledge studies in sustainability transitions) Includes bibliographical references and index.

1 Sustainable development 2 Change I Rotmans, Jan, 1961– II Schot, J W

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2010.

To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s

collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.

ISBN 0-203-85659-7 Master e-book ISBN

The Dynamics of Transitions: A Socio-Technical Perspective

FRANK W GEELS AND JOHAN SCHOT

I.1 Introduction: Exploration of the Research Topic 11I.2 A Multi-Level Perspective on Transitions 18I.3 Theoretical Backgrounds: Science and Technology Studies,

Evolutionary Economics and Sociology 29I.4 A Typology of Transition Pathways 54I.5 Managing Sustainable Innovation Journeys 80I.6 Refl ections: Process Theory, Causality and Narrative

Explanation 93

PART II:

Towards a Better Understanding of Transitions and Their Governance: A Systemic and Refl exive Approach

JAN ROTMANS AND DERK LOORBACH

II.1 Introduction 105II.2 A Complex Integrated Systems Perspective 114II.3 Conceptual Framework for Analyzing Transitions 126II.4 Research into the Governance of Transitions: A Framework

for Transition Management 140II.5 Case Study I: Parkstad Limburg: Regional Transition

Management 161II.6 Case Study II: The Dutch Energy Transition 180II.7 Self-Evaluation of the Development and Prospects of III.2 Contemporary Processes of Institutional Change 237III.3 Modernization Processes in Dutch Agriculture, 1886 to the

Present 249III.4 The Governance of Transitions: An Agency Perspective 265III.5 Modernization as Multilevel Dynamics: Lessons from Dutch

Agriculture 285III.6 Governance of Transitions: An Analytical Perspective 315

Conclusion: How to Understand Transitions? How to

Infl uence Them? Synthesis and Lessons for Further Research 320

JOHN GRIN, JAN ROTMANS AND JOHAN SCHOT

I.1.1 Different historical time-developments 15 I.2.1 Multiple levels as a nested hierarchy 19 I.2.2 Co-evolution between multiple trajectories in a

I.2.3 Topography of development trajectories 23 I.2.4 Multi-level perspective on transitions 25 I.3.1 Social system and social structures 45 I.3.2 Two conceptualisations of micro-macro interactions 48 I.3.3 A recursive, diachronic model of structural change and

I.4.3 Insiders and outsiders in the waste-disposal regime

I.4.4 De-alignment and re-alignment pathway 64 I.4.5 Technological substitution pathway 69 I.4.6 Tonnage of steamships and sailing ships in Britain 69

I.4.7 Reconfi guration pathway 72 I.4.8 Socio-technical system in factory production 73 I.4.9 Percentage of sources of mechanical drive in US

I.5.1 From niche dynamics to regime shift 81 I.5.2 Local projects and global niche-level 86 I.5.3 Emerging technical trajectory carried by local projects 87 I.6.1 Two approaches to explaining processes 94 II.1.1 Transition as a shift in structure, culture and practices 110

II.3.1 The different phases of a transition 130 II.3.2 Alternatives for S-shaped curve 131 II.3.3 Complex systems’ model based on the MLP 134 II.4.1 Activity clusters in transition management 156 II.5.1 SCENE-model Parkstad Limburg as presented on

II.5.2 First (ten-step) version of the transition management

cycle 166

II.6.2 Process design energy transition 187 III.2.1 The institutional rectangle of state, market, science

and civil society and their mutual alignment; and its

co-evolution with societal development patterns 238 III.4.1 Different kinds of governance activities, to be

discussed in the sections indicated in the boxes 266 III.4.2 Internal and external structures surrounding practices

III.5.1 An intermediary project in heterogeneous landscape 305

I.3.1 Relative Importance of Different Structures in

I.4.1 Attributes of Change and Resulting Typology 55 I.4.2 Annual Car Sales in the United States 66 I.5.1 Policy Dilemmas for Niche Development 90

II.4.1 Linking Complexity Characteristics, Theoretical Principles of Transition Management and Systemic

Instruments for Transition Management 147 II.4.2 Linking Complexity Characteristics, Theoretical

Principles of Transition Management and New

II.5.1 Summary from “Synthesis Analysis Parkstad

Limburg” 165 II.5.2 Initial Arena Selection Criteria 167 II.5.3 Key Elements of the Parkstad Limburg Vision “Op

II.6.1 Examples of Possible Transition Experiments 188

Foreword

Carlota Perez

To understand transitions and know how to infl uence them is imperative in today’s 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 “new wars.” 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

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 other’s 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-ies—from history and from the present—and 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 Perez July 2009

Universities of Cambridge, Sussex, U.K., and Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Author of Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital:

The Dynamics of Bubbles and Golden Ages

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, e.g 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 (www.ksinetwork.nl), 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

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 Späth (Austria), Valéerie Thomas, Philip Vergragt and Paul Raskin (USA), John Robinson and James Meadowcroft (Canada), Carolyn Hendriks (Austra-lia) and Raaimo Lovio and Erja Väyrynen (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 2007–2008 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 2006–2008 which led to

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, René 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 Schot April 2009

Introduction

From 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 conventransi-tional 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 (e.g., Perez in her introduction to this book; see also Perez 2009a,b), 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

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: 91–95).

(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 (e.g., Giddens, 2009: 62–63; 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, e.g., 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 “promoting 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 processes” (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

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 orientation—in this case, sustainable development—is 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: peranaly-sistent 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,

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 levels—degrees of structuration—and 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 (e.g., Gid-dens, 1984; Bourdieu, 1977) and history (e.g., 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

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 stabilizaaccelera-tion 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 Karnøe, 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 and—especially—prac-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 pracprac-tical 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 (e.g., 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, i.e sus-tainable 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 trantran-sition 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.

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 (e.g., 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 perspecobjec-tives 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 innovaglobaliza-tion studies Transiglobaliza-tions may be seen as a re-orientation of this process of co-evolution towards sustainable

development More specifi cally, the concept of re-structuration—based on a combination of structuration theory with the theory of refl exive

modern-ization (Beck, 1997; Beck et al., 1997)—will 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 Meadowcroft’s planning through structural adapta-tion; Healey’s collaborative planning for creative agency; and Schön and Rein’s triadic policy design.

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 manman-agement 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

I.1 Introduction

Exploration 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 (e.g 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 “radical” 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 –50 years); while

break-throughs may be relatively fast (e.g 10 years), the preceding innova-tion journeys through which new socio-technical systems gradually emerge usually take much longer (20–30 years).

5 Transitions are macroscopic The level of analysis is that of “organi-zational fi elds”:

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 (e.g 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 (e.g 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 “heterogeneous engineering” (Latour, 1987; Law, 1987) This involves not only the development of knowledge and prototypes, but also the mobiliza-tion of resources, the creamobiliza-tion of social networks (e.g 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 “seamless web,” indicating that technological change requires actors to combine physical artifacts, organizations (e.g manufacturing fi rms, investment banks, and research and development laboratories), nat-ural resources, scientifi c elements (e.g books and articles), and legislative artifacts (e.g laws) In a similar vein, Rip and Kemp (1998) have defi ned technology as “confi guration that works.” While the term “confi guration” refers to the alignment between a heterogeneous set of elements, the addi-tion “that works” suggests the confi guraaddi-tion should stabilize in “fulfi lling a function.” These defi nitions of technology emphasize not only the inherent

connections between technical and social aspects, but also the intrinsic ori-entation towards use and functional application domains Technologies are always “technologies-in-context” (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 “economics,” “social policy” 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:

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 “monocausal expla-nation.” 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 “causes” 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 “important” 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 I.1.1).

We believe any theory of transition should incorporate Braudel’s 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 hishis-torical 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 I.6, test-ing requires the tractest-ing 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 I.4 where multiple cases are used to replicate

Figure I.1.1 Different historical time-developments (Bertels, 1973: 123).

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 I.2 introduces the so-called multilevel perspective (MLP) on transition Subsequently, in Chapter I.3 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 I.5 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 I.6 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

the system’s 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 Louçã, 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 “a degree of mismatch between the techno-economic subsystem and the old socio-institutional framework” (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.

I.2 A Multi-Level Perspective on Transitions

I.2.1 TRANSITION AS A MULTIPLE-LEVEL PROCESS

In order to address our general research concern—how can we understand long-term and complex socio-technical transitions?—this 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 Braudel’s notion of different levels of his-torical time (Chapter I.1), 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 2.1).

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-•

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 •

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;

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 •

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 II.3), and as such it is geared to answering particular ques-tions on the dynamics of transiques-tions 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.

I.2.2 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 I.2.1 Multiple levels as a nested hierarchy (Geels, 2002: 1261).