The document outlines the structure and theoretical background of a research project examining the role of informal institutions in enabling the co-evolution of new technologies and formal institutions. It presents three hypotheses: 1) Institutions need to co-evolve to enable new technologies to enter markets, 2) Informal institutions influence how well institutions co-evolve, and 3) New technologies initially rely on protected spaces created by institutional frameworks to develop. Preliminary findings suggest differences between Germany and the UK in civil society values/norms around energy, the economic focus of each country, and how these impacted wind industry development.

1. The Role of Informal Institutions for
Institutional Co-evolution
The Case of the Wind Energy Industry in Germany and Britain
Camilla M. Chlebna MSc
#12112222, Department of Planning
Supervisors:
Prof. James Simmie
Dr. Dave VallerSellafield Nuclear Power Station, Cumbria, NW-England, UK

2. • Introduction
• Theoretical proposition
• Key elements
• Hypotheses
• Research Design and Method
• Analysis
• Framework
• Early Findings
PRESENTATION STRUCTURE

3. Eclectic approach, influenced by economic geography as well as
evolutionary, political and institutional economics
 Development from invention/innovation to industry is non-linear
(Nelson & Winter, 1977; Kline & Rosenberg, 1986; Llundvall et al, 2002)
 Three kinds of institutions (formal and informal, organisational)
(Polanyi, 1957; North, 1991; North, 1996; Rafiqui, 2009)
 Co-evolution of institutions and technology
(Perez, 1983; Nelson, 1998; Strambach, 2010)
 Multi-layered approach
(Geels, 2002)
THEORY BACKGROUND

4. HYPOTHESES
Institutions need to co-evolve to
enable new technologies to enter
and develop
As new technologies emerge they are
not usually immediately able to
compete but are relying on protected
spaces, created through institutional
frameworks, in which they can
develop.
Informal institutions influence how
well institutions co-evolve
The prevalence of certain informal
institutions has an important impact on
how well the institutions are able to co-
evolve with new technologies (how “up
to date” institutions are).
Fieldwork Research Questions
Who tried to shape formal institutions over the years?
What motivated them?
Were they successful?
Why? Why not?
What are the interactions with and between institutions?

5. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD
Explanatory Design
Quantitative element
Quantitative, secondary data will be drawn in for descriptive
purposes
Qualitative element
36 semi-structured expert interviews in 2015
• 4 pilot interviews with academics
• 32 interviews in main fieldwork
• 18 German, 18 British
• 26 face to face, 10 phone

6. ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK
employers
Formalinstitutions
•Legalframework
Organisationalformsofinstitutions
•Governmentson
local/regional/national/superordinatelevel
Informalinstitutions
•Behaviouralnorms,ideas,values,
technologicalparadigms
Policy
makers
Civil society
agents
employers
Policy
makers
Civil society
agents
impact
impact
impactIndirect
power
Indirect
power
Power to
change
Ongoing dynamic of re(production)
Rent seeking
pressure
Rent seeking
pressure
???
???
???
???
Context?

7. EARLY FINDINGS
How do informal institutions impact on institutional co-evolution and
technological development?
What this means for theory
Civil society:
Attitudes and values -> engagement
and investment, motivation to act
Institutions:
Prevalence of attitudes -> setting of
political priorities; inter-dependency of
institutions
Economic landscape:
Technological paradigms -> ability to
innovate and adapt,
consumers/investors -> business
practice
What the data shows
Civil society:
German inventors ideologically motivated,
David against Goliath, Chernobyl and
Fukushima - Anti nuclear sentiment not
equally strong in Britain
Institutions:
Energy trilemma: energy security (GER),
affordability (UK) and climate change
(GER)
Political pressure to consider climate and
anti-nuclear attitude in GER, overhaul of
support mechanisms only in response to
EU directive in the UK
Economic landscape:
large scale focus for energy generation
everywhere; consumers’ power, divestment
movement

8. EARLY FINDINGS
What is the ‘context’ for informal institutions to form and persist?
What the data shows
Variety of Capitalism
British market ideology in the way of
supporting new industries; German
cross party consensus on direction,
then creation of environment for
innovation
History
Nuclear power very much top-down
decision for Germany (1950s), Britain
first nation to use nuclear power for civil
purpose
Culture
‘Made in Germany’, but also excessive
protection for large industry from
energy levy
British focus on service industry and
lowest cost delivery
What this means for theory
Variety of Capitalism
VoC -> state expected either to
implement and encourage ‘systems
of innovation’ or to stay out in order
to ‘keep markets free’ (industrial
strategy, political priorities)
History
Historical experiences -> values and
norms
Culture
= behavioural norms and common
practice, ideas of what deals may be
ok or not

9. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING
Camilla M. Chlebna MSc
12112222@brookes.ac.uk
Please do not hesitate to contact me
with any suggestions or feedback
that you can offer.
International Student Initiative for Pluralism in
Economics: http://www.isipe.net/
World Interdisciplinary Network for Institutional
Research: http://winir.org/
Fieldwork supported by

10. Slide 1
Atomkraft Nein Danke!: Schoolmann S. http://www.nordland-virus.de/wordpress/?p=94. Hamburg, Germany.
Accessed on 23rd February 2016.
Nuclear Power Station, Sellafield, Cumbria, UK:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/business/industries/utilities/article3247657.ece The Times Online, London, UK.
Accessed on 19th May 2016.
Slide 3
Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level
perspective and a case-study. Research Policy. 31, 1257–1274.
Kline SJ and Rosenberg N (1986) An overview of innovation. In: R. Landau & N. Rosenberg eds. The Positive
Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. Washington D.C., USA: National Academy
Press. 275–305.
Lundvall B-Å, Johnson B, Andersen ES and Dalum B (2002) National systems of production, innovation and
competence building. Research Policy. 31, 213–231.
Nelson RR (1998) The Co-evolution of Technology, Industrial Structure, and Supporting Institutions. In: G.
Dosi, D. Teece, & J. Chytry eds. Technology, Organisation and Competitiveness - Perspectives on Industrial
and Corporate Change. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 319–335.
Nelson RR and Winter SG (1977) In Search of Useful Theory of Innovation. Research Policy. 6, 36–76.
North DC (1991) Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 5 (1), 97–112.
North DC (1996) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press
BIBLIOGRAPHY & SOURCES I

11. Perez C (1983) Structural Change and Assimilation of New Technologies in the Economic and Social
Systems. Futures. 15 (5), 357–375.
Polanyi K, Arensberg CM and Pearson HW eds. (1957) Trade and Market in the Early Empires - Economies in
History and Theory. Glencoe, IL, USA: The Free Press & The Falcon’s Wing Press
Rafiqui PS (2009) Evolving economic landscapes: why new institutional economics matters for economic
geography. Journal of Economic Geography. 9, 329–353.
Strambach S (2010) Path dependence and path plasticity: the co-evolution of institutions and innovation - the
German customized business software industry. In: R. Boschma & R. Martin eds. The Handbook of
Evolutionary Economic Geography. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 406–429.
Slide 5
Eurostat (2015). Employed 15 – 64 year olds in 2014. Brussels, Belgium.
OECD, REGPAT database, July 2013.
O’Sullivan M, Lehr U, Edler D (2015). Bruttobeschäftigung durch Erneuerbare Energien in Deutschland und
verringerte fossile Brennstoffimporte durch Erneuerbare Energien und Energieeffizienz. – Zulieferung für den
Monitoringbericht September 2015. BMWE. Berlin, Germany.
RenewableUK (2015a). Wind Energy in the UK. State of the Industry Report Summary October 2015. London,
UK.
RenewableUK (2015b). Onshore Wind: Economic Impacts in 2014. Executive Summary April 2015., London,
UK.
TheWindPower.net (2016). Wind Turbine Manufacturers. Database, April 2016. Tournefouille, France.
Slide 10
Rethinking Economics Conference 2015. Greenwich University. London, UK. Own picture.
BIBLIOGRAPHY & SOURCES II

12. 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008
Wind power related applications as share of
total applications [1978 - 2012]
GER Germany
GB Great Britain
Wind energy relatively recently developed
industry (with pioneers still around)
Germany world leader in turbine manufacturing
until recently, Britain initially had companies but
did not pursue or were sold
(TheWindPower.net, 2016)
Construction / manufacturing is the most
employment intensive part of wind energy
development, but UK lacks companies in this part
of the supply chain
(RenewableUK, 2015b)
Similar rates of invention but in UK tendency to
sell IP to companies abroad
What motivates inventors? Profit vs idealism?
(OECD, 2013)
CHOICE OF CASES
Employment in wind energy:
UK 15.500 [2014/15 – 0.05% of about 29.5m
employed total]
GER 149.200 [2014 – 0.4% of about 38.9m
employed total]
(RenewableUK, 2015a; O’Sullivan et al., 2015; Eurostat, 2015)