Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448                                                                                         ...
436                                                                                                    A. Smith et al. / R...
A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448                                                        4372. The logic...
438                                                    A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448                ...
A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448                                             4392.4. A further broadeni...
440                                                       A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448focused in ho...
A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448                                         441formations in those same re...
442                                                 A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448tion demanded by th...
A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448                                             443• relations between the...
Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-Level Perspective and Its Challenges
Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-Level Perspective and Its Challenges
Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-Level Perspective and Its Challenges
Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-Level Perspective and Its Challenges
Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-Level Perspective and Its Challenges
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-Level Perspective and Its Challenges

1,238 views
1,136 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,238
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
46
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Innovation Studies and Sustainability Transitions: The Allure of the Multi-Level Perspective and Its Challenges

  1. 1. Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Research Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/respolReviewInnovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-levelperspective and its challengesAdrian Smith a,∗ , Jan-Peter Voß b , John Grin ca SPRU, University of Sussex, United Kingdomb Technische Universität Berlin, Germanyc University of Amsterdam, Netherlandsa r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c tArticle history: Sustainable development is prompting a re-assessment of innovation and technological change. ThisReceived 1 August 2008 review paper contributes three things towards this re-assessment activity. First, it considers how theReceived in revised form 1 December 2009 history of innovation studies for sustainable development can be explained as a process of linkingAccepted 1 January 2010 broader analytical frameworks to successively larger problem framings. Second it introduces an emerg-Available online 23 February 2010 ing framework whose allure rests in its ability to capture the bigger picture: the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions (MLP). Whilst burgeoning researcher networks and literature suggests thisKeywords: policy-relevant theory is attractive, it is not without its challenges. The third purpose of this paper is toSocio-technical transitionsSustainable innovation elaborate these challenges as areas for further research and development. We do this by drawing uponGreening innovation systems contributions to this special section and the wider literature. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 2. The logic of adopting a broader perspective in sustainable innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 2.1. An initial broadening in problem framing: from clean technology to industrial ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 2.2. Broadening the analytical perspective: from environmental economics to evolutionary perspectives on environmental innovation . . . . 437 2.3. A further broadening in analytical perspective: greener innovation systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 438 2.4. A further broadening in problem framing: system innovation for sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 2.5. Another broadening in analytical perspective: transitions in socio-technical regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439 3. The multi-level perspective for analysing sustainable transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 3.1. Socio-technical niches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 3.2. Socio-technical regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441 3.3. Socio-technical landscapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441 3.4. The allure of the MLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441 4. The papers contributing to this special section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442 5. Research challenges in this special section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442 5.1. Relations between niche, regime and landscape levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 5.2. Plural regimes and niches in interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 5.3. The geography of transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443 5.4. Empirical operationalisation—a need for reflexivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 5.5. Governing sustainability transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 444 6. Conclusions—towards a future research agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 6.1. Niche dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 6.2. Unlocking regimes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445 ∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1273 877065. E-mail address: a.g.smith@sussex.ac.uk (A. Smith).0048-7333/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023
  2. 2. 436 A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448 6.3. The spatial aspects of transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 6.4. Methodology to map transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 6.5. The politics of transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 6.6. Opening the black-box of public policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 6.7. An open agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 446 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4461. Introduction and meso-level patterns of culture, organisation, markets, regula- tion and infrastructures (Rip and Kemp, 1998; Schot, 1998; Geels, The promise of greener innovation has long featured in debates 2002).about mitigating environmental degradation under industrial The allure of the MLP for sustainability research rests indevelopment. Emphasis in innovative capabilities lay at the heart this engagement with the dynamics of large-scale socio-technicalof critical responses to the Malthusian Limits to Growth report by systems deemed to present persistent sustainability challengesthe Club of Rome in the 1970s (Meadows, 1972). Critics argued that (Rotmans et al., 2001; Berkhout, 2000; Elzen et al., 2004). How-the Club’s modelling underplayed the possibility for innovation to ever, this attractive big picture is not without its challenges. A thirdstretch and redefine ‘limits’, and thereby avoid environmental and and final purpose for our paper is to draw on contributions to thissocial collapse (Cole et al., 1973; Freeman, 1979). More recently, special section in order to discuss some of the challenges1 : concep-ideas about ecological modernisation consider how innovation can tual challenges in terms of defining the unit of analysis; analyticalredirect production towards environmental goals, and decouple challenges in addressing structural power, agency, and geography;economic growth from environmental degradation (Jänicke, 1985, and practical challenges in appraising the governability of socio-1988; Huber, 1982, 1993; Spaargaren and Mol, 1992; Vergragt and technical transitions. We conclude by suggesting what this meansJansen, 1993; Hajer, 1995). for future research agendas in this area. Innovation studies has much to offer those interested in The contributions to this special section force reflection on nor-ensuring new products, processes and services improve human mative orientations in innovation processes and the social andwellbeing without detriment to environmental life support sys- political aspects of knowledge production and technology develop-tems. Innovation studies can explain how and why such “greener” ment. This may inspire further development of innovation studies,production and consumption practices come about, or do not, and connecting innovation theory with science and technology stud-suggest how these kinds of practice might be accelerated at the ies (STS). As Frank Geels’ contribution points out, explicit concernexpense of environmentally more harmful alternatives. We note for normative directions can further open innovation studies tothat concern for sustainable development tends to demand a broad- theoretical and ontological traditions that have hitherto remainedening of perspective in innovation studies. The first purpose of this marginal. A recent review of STI called for precisely that kind ofpaper is to explain the logic for this broadening of perspective. It broader dialogue between approaches, as well as being more reflex-works on two dimensions. ive in the analysis of innovation (Morlacchi and Martin, 2009). The The first dimension is a broadening of the problem framing. This contributions in this special section are in that spirit, and suggestcomprises definition of the purpose and outcomes of innovative the MLP provides a promising heuristic for organising such a dia-activity and, linked to this, delineation of the focal object of inno- logue. Our intent is not to present the MLP as a finished product, butvation studies, i.e. the “thing” that undergoes innovation. Thus we to introduce it in a critical and reflexive way that invites others inexplain a broadening from a focus on the promotion of cleaner innovation studies to contribute to its future development. Whilsttechnologies in the 1980s and towards current interest in inno- the future research agenda we identify includes issues pertinentvating entire systems of production and consumption. The second to the MLP as an analytical framework, we also flag up issues thatdimension is a broadening of the analytical framing: the set of consid- relate to the practical challenge of governing sustainable transitionserations used to explain the emergence and success of innovation. in general.This starts from a neo-classical environmental economics under- In following the aims for this paper we cover considerablestanding of price signals inducing innovation and leads into a ground. The next section explains the broadening of problem fram-variety of innovation systems perspectives. ings and analytical approaches. Section 3 then introduces the MLP. We argue that developments in both dimensions, problem The state of the art for the MLP shows its breadth and work inframing and analytical approach, have done a lot to increase the progress quality and gives a background to its use as a flexi-significance of innovation studies for sustainable development. ble heuristic. This is reflected in the diversity of the contributingNevertheless, a further step is under way. A broad, multi-level papers. Section 4 summarises main points from these contribu-perspective on socio-technical transitions (MLP) claims to be able tions, before Section 5 discusses the challenges they raise for theto analyse the broader problem framing of innovating entire sys- MLP and sustainability transitions. Section 6 concludes with sug-tems of production and consumption. The introduction and critical gestions for a future research agenda.assessment of the MLP is the second purpose of this paper. The MLP developed out of explanations for historic transitionsto new socio-technical systems for mobility, sanitation, entertain-ment, food, lighting and so on. Successful systems are constitutedfrom networks of artefacts, actors, and institutions and gain sta- 1 Each of the contributors to this special section participated in a workshop webility and path-dependence as particular ‘socio-technical regimes’ organised in Berlin in September 2007 on The Politics and Governance of Sustain-(e.g. the regime of centralised power generation on the basis of fos- able Transitions, and which was funded by the German Ministry for Research andsil and nuclear fuels). The conceptual understanding of transitions Education under its programme for Social-Ecological Research and the Dutch KSIto new regimes draws upon theories at the interface of innovation Programme. Participants were invited to engage with the MLP and to identify and explore critical issues of particular relevance to their research. The papers in thisstudies and STS. They combine a view on the micro-level processes special section seem to us to present especially pertinent and challenging issues forof constructing new technologies, with a view on emerging macro- the MLP and policy-relevant theory for sustainability transitions generally.
  3. 3. A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448 4372. The logic of adopting a broader perspective in processes and products, reducing contamination, waste and mate-sustainable innovation rial use at source. Some argued the associated material savings translated into reduced costs, and hence greater business com- Sustainable development emphasises explicit interest in the nor- petitiveness (Ashford et al., 1985; Porter and van der Linde, 1995;mative direction of innovation. The challenge for innovation no Howes et al., 1997; Rennings, 2000). Other studies foresaw newlonger rests solely in economic potential, but also in the societal environmental industries and new markets and jobs as the econ-changes induced by innovative activity and the consequences of omy undergoes an ecological modernisation (Jänicke, 1988). Thisthis for environmental and social sustainability. Along with this remains a topic of considerable debate (York and Rosa, 2003).broader problem framing, comes a need for broader analytical per- Nevertheless, a dynamic and innovation-oriented consideration ofspectives. potential benefits for business provides a more positive outlook Innovation system analysis is an approach that has been help- and constructive ground for dialogue compared to static economy-ful in explaining the level of innovative activity: the quantitative versus-environment debates.output from economies, sectors or regions in terms of new patents, Throughout the 1990s, some trade associations and firmsproducts or technologies. Adapted to particular technologies it has began innovating environmental management systems as a way ofalso helped to understand the success and failure of certain inno- demonstrating improving environmental performance to increas-vations and related economic sectors in different economies. This ingly attentive stakeholders (Welford, 1995).3 The challenge was tobuilds on an analytical framing which includes public policies, ensure that these environmental management approaches movedinstitutional settings, inter-organisational networking, learning from being a peripheral site-management exercise to become anprocesses and knowledge infrastructures, and entrepreneurial influence upon core business strategies and innovation agendascapabilities. Innovation systems can help us understand how across sectors (i.e. from concern for emissions from production pro-the flow of greener goods and services might be accelerated, cesses to concern for the life cycle environmental performance ofbut appears not so clear in understanding how these rely upon the goods and services produced). A literature in industrial ecol-and induce broader structural changes for sustainable develop- ogy broadened the problem framing further by considering howment. either entire sectors or industrial parks might close loops and make The challenge of sustainable development demands policies to material flows more sustainable (e.g. Ayres and Simmonis, 1994).promote a change in what Hughes (1987, pp. 15–16) has called The environmental innovation problem framing was broadening,the momentum of socio-technical systems. This comprises mass in the sense that it included organisational innovations across sec-(the objects, actors and infrastructures involved), speed (the pace tors and the development of greener goods and services across theat which socio-technical developments and their alignment devel- lifecycle, and not just cleaner technology at the firm level.ops), and direction (the overall performance of the system changesas a result of innovations). The direction of momentum is probaly 2.2. Broadening the analytical perspective: from environmentalthe most challenging one, helping innovative activity move onto economics to evolutionary perspectives on environmentala path where desired outcomes can be expected, and deflecting it innovationfrom less desirable trajectories.2 Directionality is not only challenging for reasons of the uncertain Innovation studies rooted in evolutionary economics providesystemic effects of innovations. It is also challenged by ambivalence a helpful corrective to (neo-classical) environmental economicsover standard measures of ‘sustainability’. The precise mean- perspectives. The latter see the challenge of environmental innova-ings and trade-offs for society between specific environmental, tion as resting predominantly in adjusting price signals for goodssocial and economic features of innovative activities are open and services. Environmental considerations are poorly served byto interpretation and negotiation. Sociological sensitivity towards existing markets, so the environmental economists argue, becauseinter-subjective meanings of sustainable innovation, and the role costs and prices fail to internalise environmental externalities, andof political and economic power in privileging certain perspectives consequently fail to generate effective demand for cleaner inno-over others, becomes important. Sustainable development may vations (Pearce et al., 1989). Market-based environmental policythus be seen as broadening innovation studies to include reflexivity measures (e.g. eco-taxes and tradable quotas) can internalise theissues more typical in STS, but turned towards innovation studies social costs of environmental degradation (i.e. market external-concerns for the large-scale creation of novelty, industry structure ities), and thereby provide a more balanced price incentive forand evolutionary change over the longer-term. innovating goods and services.4 Reliance on this ‘demand-pull’ approach has its shortcomings.2.1. An initial broadening in problem framing: from clean It brackets out many of the reasons why responses to environmen-technology to industrial ecology tal price signals are sticky and inelastic. Taxes have to correct price signals to a politically difficult level for long periods before less A theme prevalent in research and policy in the literature in resource consuming innovations relieve the pressure. Case stud-the early 1990s was interest in promoting innovation for envi- ies and survey research identified overlapping cognitive, social,ronmentally friendly technology. A switch in focus from earlypreoccupation with end-of-pipe pollution control technologies andtowards cleaner production processes and product innovation rep-resented an initial broadening in problem framing. The new cleaner 3 Often regulatory push was found to induce greener innovation (Ashford et al.,technology paradigm was concerned with innovations integral to 1985; Howes et al., 1997). Significantly, it was the way these regulations were implemented that mattered, and the extent to which regulators were able to act as knowledge brokers between firms adapting innovative ideas, technologies and practices (Smith, 1996; Gouldson and Murphy, 1998). 2 4 The innovations systems perspective did develop out of consideration for Neo-classical environmental economists found a receptive policy audiencehow innovation explained the contrasting structures and dynamics of national amongst the New Right for their market-based ideas. The environmental regulationseconomies. This can involve normative interest in the different directions of eco- of the 1970s became ideologically tarred as too restrictive and burdensome on busi-nomic development and the distribution of standard measures of prosperity. Here ness. Environmental taxes and tradable quotas were the preferred, market-friendlywe mean directionality in a more multivalent and contested normative concern approach (rhetorically at least) to inducing cleaner innovation in firms. In prac-for sustainable development. Sustainability is not unique in rendering more visible tice, regulations can be flexible and retain advantages that ensure their continuednormative contests over innovation directions. importance within environmental policy mixes (Smith and Sorrell, 2001).
  4. 4. 438 A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448 Recognising that the capabilities of individual organisations to innovate, as well as their broader selection environments, are constituted by more complex processes opens analysis to related practitioner routines, skills and training, governing institutions, facilitating infrastructures, and effective and prospective market demand. This is an insight which is at the root of the systems perspective in innovation studies and various strands of research focusing on the structure and performance of national, sectoral, regional or technological innovation systems (Lundvall, 1992; Breschi and Malerba, 1997; Truffer, 2008). Central to this innova- tion systems perspective is how this work is distributed across the research, government and business sectors. The greener innovation systems perspective adapts innovation system analysis by adding an interest in how the functioning of the innovation system becomes subordinate to the sustainability quali-Fig. 1. Knowledge capabilities and actor networks in sustainable innovation ties of its outputs (Green et al., 1994). Recent work on technological(adapted from Clayton et al., 1999). innovation systems (TIS), for instance, developed with a concern for the success of innovations that are expected to be particularly favourable from an environmental point of view (e.g. renewableinstitutional and political barriers, in addition to narrow market energy technologies). Extensive literature review provided a frame-barriers, as critical for greener innovation (Fischer and Schot, 1993; work for explaining the success of innovative technologies whichHowes et al., 1997; Kemp, 1994a,b). A wider analytical perspective can also be used to strategically guide the development of desiredneeded to include these non-market considerations in its analysis. technological innovation systems (Jacobsson and Bergek, 2004). A As an illustration, Clayton et al. (1999) considered the differ- functions approach is deployed to identify those properties of aent knowledge capabilities and extensiveness of actor networks technology innovation system that are needed in order to intro-associated with a variety of cleaner innovation cases (Fig. 1). This duce cleaner technologies successfully. These functions include:mapping can be extended to consider the distribution of other experimentation by entrepreneurs; knowledge development andresources required for each type of environmental improvement in diffusion; providing orientation to search processes; creating mar-their scheme, such as equipment, skills, finance, supportive infras- kets; mobilising resources; and securing policy legitimacy (Hekkerttructures, and institutional support. et al., 2007). As with an earlier generation of critical studies on the under- As with earlier innovation system formulations, interest instanding of innovation dynamics in neo-classical economics (e.g. wider institutional, historical, material, cultural and geographicalDosi, 1982; Nelson and Winter, 1982; Dosi, 1988), the cleaner inno- contexts takes the form of a set of (exogenous) structural param-vation literature found price signals to be necessary, yet insufficient eters that contribute to explanations of innovative success (orto assure innovative responses on the supply-side of the market. failure) of a core innovation system (Bell, 2007). The core systemEvolutionary perspectives offered a more nuanced way of consid- is comprised of networks of firm capabilities, knowledge infras-ering the greening of production processes by bringing the factors tructures and proximate policy and market institutions. Innovationinto view that shape innovative activity on the supply-side (Green systems analysis covers this core well (Edquist, 2005). As the TIS lit-et al., 1994). This analytical broadening did not simply consider R&D erature points out, some of the difficulties in establishing greenersubsidies as a complement to eco-taxes. Other institutional factors innovation systems can be explained by the absence of certain corewere important for the innovation of cleaner production processes, functions or because the system is unable to align functions. How-including search routines, knowledge capabilities, prevailing tech- ever, it remains unclear where these absent functional capabilitiesnology paradigms and regimes (Kemp, 1994a,b). come from, or how they develop. We do not learn much in the TIS literature about difficult governance questions such as how to iden- tify ‘sustainable’ technologies and how to prioritise them. Much of2.3. A further broadening in analytical perspective: greener that explanation rests in the broader societal contexts in whichinnovation systems specific innovation systems operate, and which tend not to be con- sidered in dynamic interaction with the core (Markard and Truffer, Firm-level studies of environmentally oriented innovation pro- 2008; Bell, 2007).cesses continue to be an important activity, as well as supporting So whilst innovation systems analysis can help explain the rel-a large consultancy sector. This is where much of the hard slog ative success of specific cleaner technologies, analysis is often intowards a shift in industry structures needs to take place. It is a situation of needing to explain the difficulties of making suchan area of policy and business activity, however, that can bene- “green” innovation systems come about. Analysis needs to focusfit considerably from the analysis of broader innovation systems on the way broader contexts put pressure on innovation systemsin which firm-level activities are embedded (Freeman, 1992). This to become greener and inform their reconfiguration.refers to institutional frameworks influenced by policy-makers and The preceding remarks have a crucial implication. Reconfiguredbroader governance processes, the system of innovation, as it were. and reprioritised innovation systems may contribute to sustain-Much depends on e.g. provision of workers with the requisite able development through provision of greener goods and services.skills, the integration of cleaner technologies in network infrastruc- But the possibility to do this reconfiguring will be structured (intures, safety standards, planning procedures and other market rules both enabling and constraining ways) by wider contexts that frame,which have an effect for facilitating or hampering environmental motivate and interpret innovation system activities, and which mayinnovations. The innovation studies literature suggests environ- actually attenuate the benefits of individual cleaner innovations.mentally oriented innovation policy must take a broader systems This broader analytical perspective is recognised in the innovationperspective, recognising institutions operating beyond the firm systems literature, as is a concern to explain the directionality ofand networks of different organisations such as firms, universities, the technological trajectories that ensue (Bell, 2007; Nelson, 2008;financial service providers. Von Tunzelmann et al., 2008).
  5. 5. A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448 4392.4. A further broadening in problem framing: system innovation nological regimes including a change in consumption patterns,for sustainability user preferences, regulations, and artefacts’ This poses a challenging advance on research rooted in more It is the broadening of problem framing to a perspective on specific environmental innovation studies of the types mentioned‘systems innovation’ that poses an additional challenge to the ana- above (Tukker et al., 2008). Relative to innovations in Fig. 1, ‘systemslytical framing of innovation systems. Systems innovation refers innovation’ sits well beyond the top right of that scheme.to the renewal of a whole set of networked supply chains, pat- Studying food systems, for instance, means technicalterns of use and consumption, infrastructures, regulations, etc., elements—physical inputs, plant-breeding techniques, pesti-that constitute the socio-technical systems which provide basic cides, harvesting technologies, transport and logistics, foodservices such as energy, food, mobility or housing. This broaden- processing, cooking technology, and so on—are studied in tighting of problem framing goes beyond isolated products, processes relation to the social elements giving these artifacts meaning andor technologies. It acknowledges difficulty in evaluating the sus- purpose—such as prevailing attitudes towards farming, ideas abouttainability of isolated technologies, if not analysed as embedded soil health and nutritional food, official agricultural policy andin a system context.5 And it acknowledges strong interdependen- price-support mechanisms, organised interests, the structure ofcies between various elements of socio-technical systems which food retailing, shifting trends in food consumption, and other socialimpede radically new ways of organising socio-technical provi- considerations, including concern about long-term environmentalsion (e.g. renewable energy, organic agriculture, public transport sustainability (Smith, 2006). It is the co-evolution of these socialor ecological building). and technical elements that determines the way the food system Until recently the focus of environmentally oriented innova- is structured and how it performs (Russell and Williams, 2002).tion studies has remained largely upon innovations to individual The analytical challenge is to understand these socio-technicalgoods and services. A greener innovation system may produce more interdependencies as a dynamic system, and then identify howeco-efficient products or services, or even enable industry clusters systems innovation can induce a transition to other, potentiallyto develop more closed-loop processes. But the relative improve- more sustainable, systems.ments they deliver can be undermined by absolute increases in So, the key difference between the greener innovation systemsconsumption. A need for step-jumps in absolute performance, such literature and systems innovation (socio-technical transition) lit-as 80% reductions in carbon emissions over the next generation, or erature is the starting points and focal objectives of each. Thefactor ten improvements in resource efficiency, implies changes innovation systems problem framing is (predominantly) concernedat the level of entire socio-technical systems. These system inno- with the promotion and introduction of greener goods and servicesvations, such as transformative innovations that overhaul food into markets. The systems innovation literature frames its prob-systems or waste systems, involve purposeful changes in prevail- lem as concern for the realisation of ‘societal functions’ throughing techno-economic paradigms and system architectures (to use the configuration and alignment of heterogeneous socio-technicalthe Freeman-Perez typology of innovation). As such, systems inno- elements and processes, and how these restructure over long peri-vation takes an even broader view than earlier perspectives on ods of time. Markets are an important part of this broader picture,innovation and sustainable development; making it far more ambi- but so too are other institutions.tious and posing even greater analytical and governance challenges. As Weber and Hemmelskamp (2005, p. 1) put it, sustainablesystems innovation implies: 2.5. Another broadening in analytical perspective: transitions in socio-technical regimes major changes are required along the entire production- consumption chain, its flows, its multi-level architecture, its The challenge then, is to find an analytical perspective on inno- institutions and structures, and – not least – the behaviour of vation that is commensurate with the extended problem framing the actors involved in it, from resource extraction to the final of system innovations for sustainability: how can we understand consumption of goods and services. innovation processes leading to transformations in socio-technical The challenge of sustainable development is increasingly under- systems that help realise broad social functions more sustain-stood in terms of ‘transitions’ to more sustainable socio-technical ably? Two related strands of research help, which are: historicallysystems. The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in informed theory for wide-scale changes to technology-in-society;Johannesburg initiated cross-cutting programmes for transforming and, problem-oriented thinking for sustainable transitions.sustainable production and consumption systems (the UN Mar- The first strand provides a ‘quasi-evolutionary’ conceptuali-rakech process). The UK government announced a Low Carbon sation of historic transitions in societal functions. It combinesTransition Plan for its economy in 2009, joining the Netherlands, sociological appreciation of processes of technology shaping, as inAustria, Belgium and Finland with ‘transition’ ambitions (Geels et SCOT, with more structural notions of ‘technological regimes’ andal., 2008). Governments, businesses and civil society groups are ‘paradigms’ prevalent in evolutionary economics (Rip, 1995, seeconsidering what reformed innovation policy looks like through Geels’ paper in this special section). Research emphasises the waysthis sustainable socio-technical transitions framing. selection environments are anticipated, reinterpreted and (par- Hoogma et al. (2002, p. 5) argue: tially) transformed by (networked) innovators (Rip, 1992; van den Belt and Rip, 1987; Disco and van der Meulen, 1998). Relevant stud- ‘Ecological restructuring of production and consumption pat- ies are those interested in how new technologies become involved terns will require not so much a substitution of old technologies in wide-ranging processes of social change (e.g. the move from gas by new ones, but radical shifts in technological systems or tech- light to electric light (Schot, 1998), from sail to steam ships (Geels, 2002), the rise of the turbo-jet in aviation (Geels, 2006), improve- ments in public sanitation (Geels, 2006b). This strand of research is 5 Special section contributions illustrate an important aspect to transitions, which not interested in normative goals like sustainability.is the way the ‘societal function’ is itself altered through transitions between This historic work extends technological paradigm and regimeregimes. Expectations about mobility have, for instance, altered with developmentsin the socio-technical systems that move us around (see Shove and Walker, and concepts, and re-conceives how they shape trajectories of devel-Cohen, both in this issue); as have adequate levels of energy service with the devel- opment. Earlier work was more interested in the way regimesopment of energy systems (see Spaeth and Rohracher in this issue). operated (Dosi et al., 1988; Nelson and Winter, 1982), and less
  6. 6. 440 A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448focused in how they related to social institutions beyond markets Development Goals that include reducing by half the proportion ofand science (e.g. Dosi, 1982; see also Nelson, 2008). As an other- people without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basicwise positive review of that literature concluded, ‘how to catch sanitation. Some transitions, like the move from coal heating to gas[paradigms] as they form, and manage the formation and estab- heating in parts of north-western Europe, have proceeded rapidlylishment of new ones, remain very poorly understood and under (Correljé and Verbong, 2004). Many others arose over five or moreresearched’ (Von Tunzelmann et al., 2008, p. 482). As we shall see decades. The prospect for sustainability need not be as bleak as thein the next Section, transitions between regimes are central to the historic timescales suggest. Arguably, there has been a slow buildMLP. up of ideas, experience and green niches over the last 40 years, A socio-technical perspective reconceptualises regimes beyond going back to the alternative technology movement and publicthe core cognitive structures emphasised by Dosi and others (Geels, research programmes of the 1970s (Smith, 2005, 2007). Neverthe-2004).6 A sociological sensibility extends the regime notion to less, public sustainability aspirations imply a rapid acceleration inembrace institutions (such as regulations and markets), heteroge- these activities and any systems innovations they may induce.neous networks (including devices and people), user relations, and Sustainability transitions research is engaged in aiding politi-social expectations. Mutual reinforcement across these plural pro- cal deliberations and governance activities that can accelerate thecesses creates the structural patterns that shape innovation and take off of some of these green niches, and bring about restruc-creates trajectories of social development. The regime of automo- tured production and consumption systems. Researchers in thebility, for example, includes not only paradigmatic technological Netherlands especially have helped reshape environmental policydesigns for cars, but also the specialised road planning authori- along transitions lines (Kemp et al., 2007; Smith and Kern, 2009).ties, the institutions of the ‘driving licence’ and ‘motor insurance’, Researchers in other countries have also been commissioned bythe lobbying capacities of car manufacturers and oil companies, think tanks and policy departments to explore the potential of sys-and the cultural significance of automobility. In combination, these tems innovation approaches (Steward, 2008; Scrase et al., 2009).elements form a socio-technical regime that stabilises the way soci- The multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions (MLP)etal functions are realised, and gives shape to particular patterns of provides them with an alluring framework, both in terms of organ-producing and consuming mobility. ising analysis and ordering policy interventions. It is this framework Transitions in regime structures are consequently seen to this special section considers, and which we introduce in the nextarise through an accumulation of a broader variety of interact- section.ing processes than the knowledge base and markets alone. ‘Howtechnology is shaped by social, economic and political forces alike, 3. The multi-level perspective for analysing sustainableand how, in the same process, technologies and technology sys- transitionstems shape human relations and societies’ (Rip and Kemp, 1998,p. 328). So, for example, the transition from a ‘society with candle The multi-level perspective organises analysis into a socio-and gaslight’ to a ‘society with electrical light’, emphasises some technical system that consists of niches, regimes and landscapes.of the social, political and economic factors facilitating this transi- This is a nested hierarchy of structuring processes (Geels andtion, as well as the developmental possibilities opened up by the Schot, 2007), analogous to Giddens’ (1984) concepts of reflex-emergence of new regimes, and the meanings associated with those ive agency and structure. Socio-technical regimes constitute thedevelopments (Schot, 1998). Transition scholars are interested in mainstream, and highly institutionalised, way of currently realisingthe broader societal transformations arising from the establish- societal functions. Change within the regime tends to be incre-ment of novel technological regimes, but also how broader societal mental and path dependent. Regimes also exert a structuring forcedevelopments are effectively selecting between possible would-be upon novel alternatives, which arise in niche spaces. In a Kuh-regimes and exerting pressure on them to adapt or causing them nian vein, regimes tend to produce ‘normal’ innovation patterns,to wither. whilst ‘revolutionary’ change originates in ‘niches’. The implica- Such interests resonate with the concerns of sustainability tion is that the quality of incremental innovations subsequentlyresearchers, where interest centres upon challenges like transiting generated within a new regime will be radically different to thoseaway from fossil-fuelled energy systems and towards low carbon under the preceding regime. Finally, both niches and regimes arealternatives (Kemp, 1994a,b; Rip and Kemp, 1998; Smith et al., situated within a broader landscape of social and physical factors2005). Thus the second strand of research, involving researchers that provides a macro-level structuring context. Over time, the riseworking in the historical strand, but also in the Constructive Tech- of some regimes can prove quite influential upon broader land-nology Assessment tradition, is explicitly concerned with broader, scape developments. An example is the catalytic effect aeromobilityregime approaches to sustainable innovation (Rip and Kemp, 1998; and communications regimes have upon socio-economic globali-cf. Kemp, 1994a,b; Rip et al., 1995). Scholars in this second strand sation (and which reinforces the continued development of thesediscuss the prospective conditions under which sustainable tran- regimes) (see Cohen, this issue).sitions in transport, energy, housing and so on might develop (e.g.Elzen et al., 2004). Thinking prospectively, many sustainability goals imply tran- 3.1. Socio-technical nichessitions over much tighter time-frames than the historic examplesthat inspire systems innovation analysis (e.g. Rotmans et al., 2001; In the MLP, transitions are crucially dependent upon activitiesLoorbach, 2007; see the special issue on transition management in within niches, where selection pressures prevailing in regimes areissue 4, volume 42 of Policy Sciences in December 2009). These goals less evident. Niches provide ‘protective spaces’ for path-breaking,include ambitions to reduce anthropogenic carbon emissions by radical alternatives whose performance may not be competitive80% or more within 40 years, or the 2015 target date for Millennium against the selection environment prevailing in the regime (Rip, 1992, p. 91; Kemp et al., 1998). Niche protection can be afforded through lead markets, subsidised projects for research demonstra- 6 tion and learning, or specific cultural milieu of early adoption and Dosi adapted his technology paradigm concept from Kuhn’s ideas about sci-entific paradigms. Perhaps this explains why Dosi’s definition of technology experimentation. Niches that provided seeds for transitions his-emphasises the knowledge embodied in technological practice cf. the materiality torically had to overcome the constraining influence of regimes,of technology devices? branch out, link up with wider change processes, and drive trans-
  7. 7. A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448 441formations in those same regime structures over the longer-term. Dynamics within the regime derive from partially autonomousMany niches are not successful in expanding, or even surviving for developments within regime components, such as firm R&D,a long time. or government regulations, which generate misalignments and Sustainable niches comprise networks of real world exper- realignments and incremental responses. Dynamism may alsoiments with socially and ecologically benign socio-technical occur in response to landscape developments (see below), orpractices The actors (producers and users) undertaking these through interaction with associated regimes (Raven and Verbong,experiments are relatively more supportive of the social and envi- 2007; Konrad et al., 2008). These sources of dynamism, and theronmental qualities of the niche socio-technical practice, and more tensions they create, open windows of opportunity for niche alter-forgiving of teething troubles, owing to their different expectations natives to compete for attention and influence.of future performance compared to regime members. The norms inthe niche are different compared to the rules in the regime but 3.3. Socio-technical landscapestend also to be less established and relatively instable. Whilst ‘out-siders’ can be important instigators of niche developments, such as The macro-level socio-technical landscape provides a highlyenvironmental activists in the early development of modern wind structural context for both the regime and niches. The MLP land-energy, actors established within the regime must become involved scape includes processes that span societal functions and unfoldin those activities for wide-scale influence, such as large energy util- autonomously of particular socio-technical regimes. Landscapeities in wind. Niche success ultimately rests upon broader circles processes include environmental and demographic change, newof more powerful actors becoming involved in ways that mobilise social movements, shifts in general political ideology, broad eco-widespread social legitimacy (Schot, 1998; Späth and Rohracher, nomic restructuring, emerging scientific paradigms, and culturalthis issue). developments. Landscapes provide an influential backdrop with Niche development is predicated upon valuable lessons being ramifications across a variety of regimes and niches: providinggenerated, supportive institutional requirements becoming better gradients and affordances for how to go about establishing socio-articulated, and enrolling commitments from a growing network technical configurations that serve societal needs (Geels and Schot,of actors (including potential investors and users from more main- 2007).stream settings) (Raven, 2006). Niche actors need to perform Landscape changes are a source of pressures for change on theconsiderable cognitive, institutional, economic and political work: regime level; they prompt responses from within the regime; andthey have to be persuasive to a variety of constituencies on dif- they generate opportunities for niches. At times, landscapes canferent terms (Smith, 2007; Hendriks and Grin, 2007). In these ways work to reinforce regime trajectories. At other times, landscapeniches compete with the incumbent regimes, outperform them and developments place some regimes under considerable stress intake over. The expectations motivating the niche pioneers have ways that undermines satisfaction with their performance, andto align with expectations prevalent in the regime (Schot, 1998; prompts consideration of niche alternatives.Smith, 2007). As such, niches are a source for transformative ideas Regimes are increasingly confronted with new sustainabilityand capabilities, but not blueprints. Their potential is constrained, criteria which were never considered during their installation.enabled and interpreted through the more powerful structures of Growing environmental awareness is a socio-cultural developmentthe regime (Roep et al., 2003; Grin et al., 2004; Bos and Grin, 2008). that can be considered a landscape process, and which is ques- tioning the performance of multiple regimes, whilst generating opportunities for niches. These are the kinds of multi-level pro-3.2. Socio-technical regimes cesses that sustainability analysts seek to map and understand, and which policy-oriented advocates try to instigate and govern. Socio-technical configurations in regimes are established asthe stable and dominant way of realising a particular societal 3.4. The allure of the MLPfunction. Socio-technical regimes are structures constituted froma co-evolutionary accumulation and alignment of knowledge, As our concern for sustainable development has broadened,investments, objects, infrastructures, values and norms that span so the demands on innovation have become more profound andthe production-consumption divide.7 These heterogeneous con- pervasive. Whatever the specific feature of sustainable develop-figurations are the prevailing means for realising key societal ment under consideration (e.g. deep cuts in greenhouse gases, stepfunctions. Institutional and material interdependencies constitut- change improvements in resource efficiency, delivering the Mil-ing the regime mean realignments tend to be path dependent and lennium Development Goals)—the need to escape lock-in, deflectincremental. It is this dynamic structure which sustainable niches path dependencies and transform socio-technical regimes becomesmust overcome if they are to unsettle the regime and seed a tran- paramount. The history of innovation studies for sustainable devel-sition. opment can be explained as a process of linking broader analytical frameworks to successively larger problem framings. The MLP satisfies this logic. It argues ‘normal’ innovation pat- 7 There are ambiguities in the definition of regime in the literature. Geels (2002), terns reproduce broad socio-technical regimes. Regime shifts occurwhilst not yet shifting terminology from ‘technological regimes’ (as in evolutionaryeconomic theories) to ‘socio-technical regimes’, nevertheless takes a broader analyt- through inter-linkages and interactions between multiple devel-ical view: guiding principles, technologies and infrastructures, industrial structure, opments on three levels. These involve the rise of both stronguser relations and markets, policy and regulations, the knowledge base of the socio-technical alternatives in niches and favourable openingsregime, and culture (the symbolic meanings underpinning the material practices in regime selection environments. The latter is associated within the regime). Later, Geels (2004) considers regimes on more institutional terms, the unsettling of regimes arising from landscape developments.as the ‘rule set’ that guides the development of material socio-technical systems—adepiction that is actually closer to (evolutionary economic) innovation theory. In a Throughout, it is crucial to recognise these transition processesthoughtful review, Markard and Truffer (2008) note this tension between institu- involving purposeful actors in normative questions operatingtional understandings of the regime, and more material understandings that include through structured relations (Rip and Kemp, 1998; Smith et al.,the actors and artefacts whose practices develop the rule set (e.g. Verbong and Geels, 2005; Geels and Schot, 2007).2007). It is difficult to conceive a pattern of socio-technical practices reproducingwithout the presence of institutions, just as it is difficult to see how institutions can The allure of the MLP is that it provides a relatively straight-persist without their re-enactment through networks of actors engaged in material forward way of ordering and simplifying the analysis of complex,practices (Smith et al., 2005). large-scale structural transformations in production and consump-
  8. 8. 442 A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448tion demanded by the normative goal of sustainable development. In contrast to recommendations for nurturing sustainable niches,Its conceptual repertoire links specific innovation activities con- Cohen’s analysis poses the challenge of discouraging unsustain-figured in niches with structural transformations in regimes. Its able niches in the making, and whose relative relationship toterminology of niche, regime and landscape provides a language for the regime advantages them compared to the greener alterna-organising a diverse array of considerations into narrative accounts tives.of transitions. However, such abstract parsimony carries poten- Mobility is one of the case studies in the paper by Elizabeth Shovetial pitfalls which have to be approached with care. There is a and Gordon Walker; this time looking at the congestion chargingtension between appreciating the bigger picture whilst maintain- experience in London. They adopt practice theory as an alterna-ing a tractable parsimony in analysis. The MLP may help people tive to MLP thinking about transitions. Practice theory emphasisessimplify and intervene reflexively, but must not become counter- the constant interplay of technologies, meanings and people inproductively simplistic in its abstraction (Sayer, 1992). everyday practices. They argue it is the aggregation of these thou- The existing literature contains some cautionary criticisms and sands of practices in response to (or despite) the congestion chargesome responses. Key contributions have appeared in Research Pol- that effectively constructs the new mobility regime in London. Aicy. These are picked up in Section 5, so only some brief remarks second case study analysis into transitions in cleanliness, specif-are made here. Hommels et al. (2007) question the importance and ically showering, emphasises that transitions perspectives, havedesirability of niche protective space compared to the significance to attend to the destabilisation of entrenched consumption muchof immediate exposure of novelties to the selection environments more assiduously.prevailing in regimes. Smith et al. (2005) caution against too much London pioneered the large-scale implementation of a conges-emphasis in niche-derived agency in transitions, arguing that incre- tion charge. Many other local authorities and stakeholders in citiesmental reforms in regimes can lead to radical transformations over around the world also seek innovative, sustainable infrastructuresthe long periods under consideration. They suggest a typology of and services. Hodson and Marvin consider the ways the MLP cantransition pathways (also, Geels and Schot, 2007), and suggest ways help analysts make sense of city-based activities. They discuss thethat power and agency could be incorporated more centrally into position and role of cities as niche pioneers and as bearers of socio-MLP analysis. Shove and Walker (2007) question whether sustain- technical regimes. Analysis considers the extent to which citiesable transitions are really as tractable to policy-makers as implied in can shape socio-technical transitions and effectively carve out theirsome interpretations of the MLP (Rotmans et al., 2001). Like Smith own sustainable destinies. There are parallels here with Späth andand Stirling (2007), Shove and Walker call for a more reflexive Rohracher’s paper. Place-based considerations of agency in sus-and politically informed appreciation of the way these systems are tainability transitions emphasise questions of geography and scale,socially constructed. Markard and Truffer (2008) consider how the and how processes reproducing niches, regimes and landscapes areMLP can be positioned much more explicitly and fruitfully in rela- spatially (and temporally) distributed across policy jurisdictions attion to technological innovation systems, which reflects the flexible different scales.possibilities for the MLP. Genus and Coles (2008) are critical of this The penultimate paper to this special section considers pro-flexibility, arguing that there has been a lack of (methodological) ducer responsibility initiatives by the European Union that attemptcoherence in empirical studies using the MLP. The contributions to to induce radical changes in the production and consumption ofthis special section pick up on many of these issues, and identify electronic products. The manufacture, use and disposal of elec-others too (such as the geography of transitions). tronics are highly dispersed (often beyond the jurisdiction of the EU). Hagaleskjær Lauridsen and Jørgensen use the MLP to delineate and explain changes in electronics goods regimes, and that helps4. The papers contributing to this special section explain why this single measure actually led to innovation in the more tractable waste regime, rather than eco-designed electron- The workshop from which contributing papers were drawn was ics.prompted by the debates above, and attracting a growing network Effectively, each contribution to this special section is zoomingof researchers. In Section 5, we discuss challenges presented by the into specific aspects of the MLP. Whether formulating sustainablecontributing papers and the wider literature. Before doing so, we visions and niches (Späth and Rohracher), studying unsustain-introduce each paper here. able niche-regime developments (Cohen), emphasising everyday Philipp Späth and Harald Rohracher use the MLP in prospec- practices in regime reproduction (Shove and Walker), the role oftive mode to consider efforts for sustainable energy autonomy in cities in transitions (Hodson and Marvin), or the insights the MLPAustrian regions. They are interested in the coalitions of stake- provides for specific policy measures (Hagaleskjær Lauridsen andholders formulating visions for sustainable energy niches in their Jørgensen). In the final contribution, Frank Geels, a pioneer in MLPregion. They consider how these visions are formed in the context thinking, considers how other social theories can be brought inof increasingly less favourable attitudes towards existing energy to enrich these specific aspects. He relates the ontologies of dif-regimes. The institutionalisation of regional visions is found to exert ferent social theories to sustainable transitions. He uses this toan influence over the promotion of alternative niches and other reflect on the development of the MLP thus far, and the poten-transition processes. As such, their analysis emphasises the roles of tial for cross-overs with compatible theories. Frank concludesdiscursive and institutional processes in the constitution of regime that the MLP provides a device for organising the complemen-transformation. tary analysis of specific transition processes using different social In contrast, Maurie Cohen’s paper considers a niche develop- theories.ing in the opposite direction to sustainable energy ambitions.He uses the MLP to explain a personalised aeromobility nichein the US. It is a sobering reminder that not everyone shares 5. Research challenges in this special sectioneven a very general vision for sustainable transitions. Problemswithin the current mass aeromobility regime relating to passen- A number of research challenges associated with the MLP or sus-ger convenience and comfort, coupled with organisational and tainability transitions arise from these contributions. The purposetechnological innovation, are providing opportunities for person- in this section is to elaborate upon some of these research chal-alised aeromobility: precisely at a time when aviation emissions lenges, and contextualise them within the literature to date. Theseare amongst the fastest growing contributions to climate change. research challenges are
  9. 9. A. Smith et al. / Research Policy 39 (2010) 435–448 443• relations between the conceptual levels of niche, regime and Hagelskær Lauridsen and Jörgensen have their doubts), the waste landscape; management innovations prompted by the WEEE Directive are not• plural regimes and niches in interaction; contributing to electronics eco-designs. The difficulty was not that• the geography of transitions; policy mobilised both regimes, but that it did so in a way that ren-• empirical operationalisation of concepts; and dered sustainability logics in the electronics regime subordinate to• governing regime transitions. the business logic of the waste regime. The Directive did not address eco-design activities directly, providing little protective space for The first four of these challenges relate specifically to the MLP, niche developments in that direction.whilst the last relates to sustainability transitions more generally, Complex reality confronts the MLP picture of a homogenouswhether one uses the MLP or not. incumbent regime challenged by a self-evidently sustainable niche. In practice, more or less (un)sustainable niches contend to influ-5.1. Relations between niche, regime and landscape levels ence regimes in interaction. Cohen’s article suggests analysis of green niche dynamics consider them not just in the context of The MLP posits that the way niches, regimes and landscapes the current regime, but also in competition with unsustainableinteract determines the characteristics of a transition. Cohen shows practices in niches more closely aligned with the interests of thein detail how a variety of landscape tendencies entrench growth regime (see also Geels and Schot, 2007). Others have also arguedin aeromobility. Simultaneously, aeromobility regime dynamics that sustainability analysis must include the counter-veiling effectsexhibit features that make mass aeromobility less attractive to par- of unsustainable transitions in the making (Shove and Walker,ticular users. As a result, a variety of entrepreneurs have launched this issue). There is a contest between various niches, each posi-novel modes of personal aeromobility. Cohen argues that a cru- tioned differently in relation to regimes (Scoones et al., 2007). Thecial factor in the influence of the personal aeromobility niche challenge is whether the overall performance of different nichesis the fact that it provides a new hybrid for the aeromobility in interaction with regimes can be recognised sufficiently earlyregime, rather than challenging that regime. Cohen’s focus is sim- to pre-empt lock-in to unsustainable developments. Uncertain-ilar to a scheme proposed by Raven (2006), who explains niche ties inherent in the co-evolution of niche novelties and regimeinfluence by considering the stability of the regime relative to elements suggest an added dimension to Collingridge’s dilemmathe stability of the niche practice. However, this need not mean (Collingridge, 1980).the aeromobility regime is equally susceptible to all robust niche Considering niches and regimes under conditions of plural com-alternatives (like high-speed rail). Cohen’s niche case exploits petition re-introduces some complexity back into the MLP. Shoveregime openings successfully because the resulting hybrid rein- and Walker go even further, and argue that even a plural frameworkforces regime actor interests rather than empowering radical fails to capture the sheer complexity and contingency of sustain-transitions. able and unsustainable developments. Their practice-oriented view The specific mechanisms underpinning these interactions prove perceives countless everyday activities continually reconstitutingto be far more complex than early versions of the MLP implied. and reproducing fluid socio-technical configurations. PartitioningSuccessful niches exert influence not solely by growth and dis- these practices into different niches and regimes misses the pointplacement of the regime, but more often we see a variety of forms of that systems (of practice) are always in transition.synthesis and reaction between niche elements and regime compo- Nevertheless, Shove and Walker do recognise patterns and sta-nents (Geels and Schot, 2007). Elements of a radical niche practice bilities in daily life. The question is whether patterns of practice cancan be co-opted by a regime without unduly unsettling and trans- be usefully associated with niche and regime concepts. Some peo-forming it (Smith, 2007). Distinctive boundaries between niche and ples’ practices involve greener forms of socio-technical configuringregime become less clear empirically as the MLP implies. than forms common to the majority of practitioners. Can we aggre- Typologies of multi-level interaction and transition pathway gate greener socio-technical practices into different niches; and arehave been developed (Smith et al., 2005; Geels and Schot, 2007). some practices so routine, stable and pervasive that they constituteWhatever the merits and drawbacks of these typologies, they a regime? Moreover, practitioners are limited in their capacity toremind us that each transformation is historically contingent. It configure by the institutions and infrastructures in which they areis reasonable to anticipate environmentally sustainable transitions situated (Hand et al., 2005). So whilst practice theory forces a morefollowing diverse pathways. Frank Geels’ article argues these niche- careful analysis of the constitution of niches and regimes, we feelregime relations can be better analysed by considering how other one must not disregard the regimes that make available the mate-social theories deepen the focus on specific causal mechanisms. rial elements of a practice, and their institutions that structure theA structuralist ontology could, for instance, shed light on why repertoire of possible practices.organic food has been co-opted by the food regime rather thantransformed it; though reactions to capture have spawned localised 5.3. The geography of transitionsorganic configurations that continue to challenge regime practices(cf. Smith, 2005). The MLP serves to keep these deeper investiga- The MLP is interested in the socio-technical transformation oftions and theorisations in context and helps relate them to one ‘societal functions’. The role of places and spatial scales in theseanother. transition processes has not been an explicit issue of concern. The tendency has been to presume regimes operating at a national5.2. Plural regimes and niches in interaction scale, perhaps for reasons to do with nation-state policy audiences. Yet in practice, we see many places, such as villages, cities and The contribution by Erik Hagelskær Lauridsen and Ulrik Jör- regions, wondering how they can transform their mobility, energy,gensen underscores the need to consider interacting regimes waste, housing and other systems into more sustainable forms.in transitions analysis (see also Raven and Verbong, 2007). The They confront processes that operate beyond their jurisdiction, e.g.response of consumer electronics businesses to EU producer the ownership of local infrastructures by multi-national utilities,responsibility policy has been to work with waste firms to innovate investments from globally mobile capital, niche alternatives pro-materials handling procedures (i.e. alter the waste regime), rather moted by global civil society, a neo-liberal ideological landscape,than redesign socio-technical configurations in consumer electron- or the standards for connecting regime components set by interna-ics. Whilst probably better than earlier disposal practices (though tional committees. Clearly, this geography matters for sustainable

×