Policy Sciences

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 275–302 | Cite as

Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management

Article
First Online:

Abstract

Long-term policy is enjoying something of a come-back in connection with sustainable development. The current revival tries to avoid the pitfalls of an earlier generation of positivistic long-range planning and control approaches. Instead, this new generation of policy design emphasises reflexive governance concepts. These aim at inducing and navigating complex processes of socio-technical change by means of deliberation, probing and learning. A practical expression of this move that is attracting growing international attention amongst researchers and practitioners is the policy of ‘Transition Management’ (TM) in the Netherlands. This article takes stock of TM implementation experience to date and discusses the critical issues it raises for long-term policy design. The article provides a framework and synthesis for this Special Issue, which comprises articles that address a range of those issues in more depth. We highlight three critical issues: the politics of societal learning, contextual embedding of policy design and dynamics of the design process itself. This leads us to propose a view on policy design as a contested process of social innovation. Our conclusion considers implications for continued work on designing transition management in practice as well as the reflexive capacities of democratic politics.

Keywords

Policy design Sustainable development Reflexive governance Transition management Socio-technical change Long-term planning Deliberation Politics of learning Innovation in governance 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Carolyn Hendriks, Toddi Steelman and the two anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

References

  1. Arts, B., & van Tatenhove, J. (2005). Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the “old” and “new” policy idioms. Policy Sciences, 37(3–4), 339–356.Google Scholar
  2. Avelino, F. (2009). Empowerment and the challenge of applying transition management to ongoing projects. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 369–390.Google Scholar
  3. Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In U. Beck, A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization (pp. 1–55). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Berkhout, F., Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2004). Socio-technical regimes and transition contexts. In B. Elzen, F. W. Geels, & K. Green (Eds.), System innovation the transition to sustainability. Theory, evidence, and policy (pp. 48–75). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  6. Bobrow, D., & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy analysis by design. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  7. Derthick, M. (1972). New towns in-town. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  9. Dienel, P., & Renn, O. (1995). Planning cells: A gate to ‘fractal’ mediation. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation (pp. 117–140). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Dietz, F., Brouwer, H., & Weterings, R. (2008). Energy transition experiments in the Netherlands. In J. C. J. M. van den Bergh & F. Bruinsma (Eds. in association with R. Vreeker & A. Idenburg), Managing the transition to renewable energy: Theory and macro-regional practice (pp. 217–244). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22, 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elmore, R. F. (1985). Forward and backward mapping. In K. Hanf & D. Toonen (Eds.), Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems (pp. 33–70). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  13. Fischer, F. (1980). Politics, values and public policy. The problem of methodology. Boulder, Col.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  14. Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Forester, J. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review, 44(1), 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Geels, F. W. (2001). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspective and a case-study. Presented at the conference “The Future of Innovation Studies”, organised by ECIS (Eindhoven Centre of innovation Studies) Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  23. Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. W. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Giddens, A. (1991). Consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  25. Giddens, A. (2009). The politics of climate change. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  26. Grin, J. (2000). Vision assessment to support shaping 21st century society technology assessment as a tool for political judgement. In J. Grin & A. Grunwald (Eds.), Vision assessment: Shaping technology in 21st century society. Towards a repertoire for technology assessment. New York: Heidelberg; Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  27. Grin, J. (2006). Reflexive modernisation as a governance issue, or: Designing and shaping re-structuration. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 57–81). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  28. Grin, J. (2008). The multi-level perspective and the design of system innovations (Chap. 3, pp. 47–80). In J. C. J. M. van den Bergh & F. Bruinsma (Eds. in association with R. Vreeker & A. Idenburg), Managing the transition to renewable energy: Theory and macro-regional practice. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Grin, J., & Loeber, A. (2007). Theories of policy learning: Agency, structure, and change. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis (pp. 201–219). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  30. Grin, J., & van de Graaf, H. (1996). Implementation as communicative action. An interpretive understanding of interactions between policy actors and target groups. Policy Sciences, 29(4), 291–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Grin, J., & van Staveren, A. (2007). Werken aan systeeminnovaties. Lessen uit de ervaringen van InnovatieNetwerk en andere praktijkorganisaties. Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
  32. Grunwald, A. (2000). Technology policy between long-term planning requirements and short-ranged acceptance problems. New challenges for technology assessment. In J. Grin & A. Grunwald (Eds.), Vision assessment: Shaping technology in the 21st century society. towards a repertoire for technology assessment (pp. 99–148). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  33. Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington: Island Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Houndsmil & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Heclo, H. (1974). Social policy in Britain and Sweden. New Have, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Heiskanen, E., et al. (2009). Designed to travel? Transition Management encounters environmental and innovation policy histories in Finland. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 409–427.Google Scholar
  37. Hendriks, C. (2009). Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 341–368.Google Scholar
  38. Hendriks, C. M. (2008). On inclusion and network governance: The democratic disconnect of Dutch energy transitions. Public Administration, 38(3), 1009–1031.Google Scholar
  39. Hendriks, C., & Grin, J. (2007). Contextualising reflexive governance: The politics of Dutch transitions to sustainability. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3/4), 333–350.Google Scholar
  40. Hiller, J., & Healey, P. (2008). Contemporary movements in planning theory. Critical essays in planning theory (Vol. 3). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  41. Hofferbert, R. I. (1986). The rise and decline of the U.S. policy evaluation industry: Lessons for export? Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  42. Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience vs. ecological resilience. In P. Schulze (Ed.), Engineering within ecological constraints. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  43. Holling, C. S., Gunderson, L., & Light, S. (Eds.). (1995). Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystems and institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Hoppe, R., van de Graaf, H., & van Dijk, A. (1987). Implementation research and policy design: Problem tractability, policy theory, and feasibility testing. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 53, 581–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1988/1969). Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente. Frankfurt: Fischer.Google Scholar
  46. Hovi, J., Sprinz, D., & Underdal, A. (2007). Climate change as a long-term policy challenge: Three commitment problems. Presented at the conference “48th Annual Convention”, organised by International Studies Association Chicago. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p179727_index.html.
  47. Jänicke, M., & Jörgens, H. (2005). Strategic environmental planning and uncertainty: A cross-national comparison of green plans in industrialized countries. Policy Studies Journal, 28(3), 612–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson, F. A., Williams, B. K., Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. El., Kendall, W. L., Smith, G. W. et al. (1993). Developing an adaptive management strategy for harvesting waterfowl in North America. Trans N Am Wildl Nat Resour Conf (58), 565–583.Google Scholar
  49. Joss, S., & Durant, J. (Eds.). (1995). Public participation in science. London: The Science Museum.Google Scholar
  50. Kemp, R. (1994). Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability. The problem of technological regime shifts. Futures, 26, 1023–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D. (2006). Transition management: A reflexive governance approach. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 103–130). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  52. Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007a). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14(1), 78–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Kemp, R., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Transitioning policy: Co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 303–322.Google Scholar
  54. Kemp, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2007b). Assessing the Dutch energy transition policy: How does it deal with dilemmas of managing transitions? In J. Newig, J.-P. Voß, J. Monstadt (Eds.), Governance for sustainable development. Steering in contexts of ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power, Volume Special issue of the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3/4) (pp. forthcoming). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Kenny, M., & Meadowcroft, J. (Eds.). (1999). Planning sustainability. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Kern, F. (2006). Transition Management in der holländischen Energiepolitik—Ein Erfolgsmodell für Deutschland? Presented at the conference “Staat und Gesellschaft—fähig zur Reform?”, organised by DVPW Münster.Google Scholar
  57. Kern, F., & Howlett, F. (2009). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: A case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 391–408.Google Scholar
  58. Kern, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 36, 4093–4103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kingdon, J. W. (2003/1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  60. Knill, C. (1998). European policies: The impact of national administrative traditions. Journal of Public Policy, 18, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kroes, P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts. Design Studies, 23, 287–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Latour, B. (2005). Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy. Cambrdige, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  64. Lee, K. N. (1994). Compass and gyroscope. Integrating science and politics for the environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  65. Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The intelligence of democracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  66. Lindblom, C. E. (1969/1959). The science of “Muddling Through”. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), Readings on modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall (first published 1959).Google Scholar
  67. Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(November/December), 517–526.Google Scholar
  68. Lindblom, C. E. (1990). Inquiry and change. The troubled attempt to understand and shape society. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Lipsky, B. (1980). Street-level Bureaucrats. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  70. Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management. New mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht: International Books.Google Scholar
  71. Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4), 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Majone, G., & Wildavsky, A. (1978). Implementation as evolution. In H. Freeman (Ed.), Policy studies annual review (Vol. 2, pp. 103–117). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  73. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Marres, N. (2005). No issue, no public: Democratic deficits after the displacement of politics. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  75. Mayntz, R. (1977). Die Implementation politischer Programme: THeoretische Überlegungen zu einem neuen Forschungsgebiet. Die Verwaltung (1), 51–66.Google Scholar
  76. Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1989/1983). Implementation and public policy. Boston & London: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  77. Meadowcroft, J. (1999). Planning for sustainable development: what can we learn from the critics? In M. Kenny & J. Meadowcroft (Eds.), Planning sustainability (pp. 12–38). Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  78. Meadowcroft, J. (2005). Environmental political economy, technological transitions and the state. New Political Economy, 10(4), 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Meadowcroft, J. (2007). National sustainable development strategies: Features, challenges, and reflexivity. European Environment, 17(3), 152–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Meadowcroft, J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 323–340.Google Scholar
  81. Mill, J. S. (1862). Considerations on representative government. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
  82. Mulder, P., Reschke, C. H., & Kemp, R. (1999). Evolutionary theorising on technological change and sustainable development. Presented at the conference “European Meeting on Applied Evolutionary Economics”, organised by Institut for Energy Politics and Economics and INRA-Unit of Sociology and Economics of Research and Developement 7.6 1999. Grenoble.Google Scholar
  83. Murphy, J. (1971). Title I of ESEA. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 35–63.Google Scholar
  84. Norgaard, R. B. (1994). Development betrayed. The end of progress and a coevolutionary revisioning of the future. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  85. Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause. Policy feedback and political change. World Politics, 45(July), 595–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 17–50). MIT Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  87. Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  88. Quist, J. (2007). Backcasting for a sustainable future. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
  89. Renn, O. (2002). Foresight and multi-level governance. Presented at the conference “Role of Foresight in the Selection of Research Policy Priorities”, organised by ipts Seville.Google Scholar
  90. Rip, A. (2006). A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance—and its ironies. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 82–101). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  91. Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice climate change (pp. 327–399). Columbus, Ohio: Batelle Press.Google Scholar
  92. Rotmans, J. (2005). Societal innovation: Between dream and reality stands complexity. Rotterdam: Inaugural Lecture, Erasmus University.Google Scholar
  93. Rotmans, J., & van Vries, H. J. M. (1997). Perspectives on global change: The TARGETS approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Asselt, Mv. (2001). More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 03(01), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(2), 510–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
  98. Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (Eds.). (2005). Deserving and entitled: Social constructions and public policy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  99. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  100. Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection. Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  101. Scrase, I., & Smith, A. (2009). The (non-) politics of low carbon socio-technical transitions. Environmental Politics, 18(5), 707–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Sendzimir, J., Magnuszewski, P., Balogh, P., & Vári, A. (2006). Adaptive management to restore ecological and economic resilience in the Tisza river basin. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 131–161). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  103. Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). CAUTION! Transitions ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A, 39, 763–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Smith, A. (2000). Fitting in with Brussels: Implementing the urban waste water treatment directive in England and Wales. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2(2), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Smith, A., & Kern, F. (2009). The transitions storyline in Dutch environmental policy. Envitonmental Politics, 18(1), 78–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2007). Moving outside or inside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governance of socio-technical systems. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3/4), 351–373.Google Scholar
  107. Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34, 1491–1510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Sorensen, E., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  109. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology. ‘Translation’, and boundary objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeleys Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Steurer, R. (2004). Strategic public management as a holistic approach to policy integration. Presented at the conference “Greening of Policies—Interlinkages and Policy Integration”, organised by Free University Berlin. http://web.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2004/download/steurer_f.pdf.
  111. Stirling, A. (2003). Risk, uncertainty and precaution: Some instrumental implications from the social sciences. In F. Berkhout, M. Leach, & I. Scoones (Eds.), Negotiating change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  112. Stirling, A. (2006). Precaution, foresight and sustainability. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. forthcoming). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  113. Stone, D. A. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  114. Van de Graaf, H., & Grin, J. (1999). Policy Instruments, pratiques réflichés et apprentisage. Implications pour la gouvernabilité à long terme et la démocratie. Espaces et Sociétés, 97–98, 63–90.Google Scholar
  115. Vickers, G. (1965). The art of judgement. A study of policy-making. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  116. Voß, J.-P. (2007a). Innovation processes in governance: The development of ‘emissions trading’ as a new policy instrument. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Voß, J.-P. (2007b). Designs on governance. Development of policy instruments and dynamics in governance. PhD Thesis., Enschede: Twente University, School of Management and Governance.Google Scholar
  118. Voß, J.-P., & Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive governance: Introduction. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 3–28). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  119. Voß, J.-P., Truffer, B., & Konrad, K. (2006a). Sustainability foresight: Reflexive governance in the transformation of utility systems. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 162–188). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  120. Voß, J.-P., Kemp, R., & Bauknecht, D. (2006b). Reflexive governance: A view on an emerging path. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable developement (pp. 162–188). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  121. Voß, J.-P., Newig, J., Kastens, B., Monstadt, J., & Nölting, B. (2007). Steering for sustainable development. A typology of problems and strategies with respect to ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3/4), 193–212.Google Scholar
  122. von Hayek, F. A. (1960). The constitution of liberty. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  123. Walker, G., & Shove, E. (2007). Ambivalence, sustainability and the governance of socio-technical transitions. In J. Newig, J.-P. Voß, & J. Monstadt (Eds.), Governance for sustainable development. Steering in contexts of ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power, Volume Special issue of the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3/4). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  124. Wals, A., & van der Ley, T. (Eds.). (2007). Social learning towards a sustainable world. Wageningen: Wageningen UP.Google Scholar
  125. Warren, M. E. (2001). Democracy and associations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.Google Scholar
  126. Weber, M. (2006). Foresight and adaptive planning as complementary elements in anticipatory policymaking: A conceptual and methodological approach. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 189–221). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.Google Scholar
  127. Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  128. Wildavsky, A. (1988). The new politics of the budgetary process. Glenview Ill: Scott Foresman & Co.Google Scholar
  129. Yanow, D. (1993). The communication of policy meanings: Implementation as interpretation of text. Policy Sciences, 26, 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Innovation in Governance Research Group, Institute of Sociology/Center for Technology and SocietyTechnische Universität Berlin (Secretariat ER 2-2)BerlinGermany
  2. 2.SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), Freeman Centre, FalmerUniversity of SussexBrightonUK
  3. 3.Faculty of Social and Behavioural SciencesUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations