Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, 42:303 | Cite as

Transitioning policy: co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands

  • René KempEmail author
  • Jan Rotmans
Forum Contribution

Abstract

This article describes policy–science interactions in a transition process in which we were involved as scientists. We describe the interactions that occurred in a project for the fourth National Environmental Policy Plan in the Netherlands. The project was successful in that it produced a new concept and set of principles for policy to deal with persistent problems such as global climate change, which were used in the national policy plan. The new concept was that of transition and the principles were: policy integration, long-term thinking for short-term action, keeping multiple options open and learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning. Retrospectively, we ask ourselves: what factors facilitated the acceptance of the first ideas about transition management? Reconstructing the events and drawing on interviews with key individuals involved, we have tried to find the key factors for the adoption of the ideas developed in the project. Finally, we reflect upon our role as scientists-advisors and the role of others in the development of a new story line and set of principles for policy. Our own assessment, 8 years later, is that we were engaged in boundary work.

Keywords

Science–policy coproduction Boundary work Transition management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Jan-Peter Voß, Adrian Smith, John Grin, Rob Hoppe and two anonymus reviewers for extensive comments and many helpful suggestions. Their comments helped us to better interpret our experiences in theoretical terms and guided us into a deeper analysis. We also thank Peter Aubert, Frans Vollenbroek and Wim Turkenburg for providing us with detailed representations both in word and writing of what happened.

References

  1. Caplan, N. (1979). The two communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 459–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eriksson, J., & Sundelius, B. (2005). Molding minds that form policy: How to make research useful. International Studies Perspectives, 6(1), 51–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Geels, F., & Kemp, R. (2000). Transities vanuit sociotechnisch perspectief, achtergrondrapport voor de studie “Transities en Transitiemanagement” van ICIS en MERIT ten behoeve van NMP-4. UT, Enschede en MERIT, Maastricht.Google Scholar
  4. Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from nonscience: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.Google Scholar
  5. Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In S. Jasanoff, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393–443). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  6. Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernisation and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  7. Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state. Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hoppe, R. (1983). Economische Zaken schrijft een nota - Een onderzoek naar beleidsontwikkeling en besluitvorming bij nonincrementeel beleid, VU Uitgeverij, Proefschrift VU, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  9. Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science, and politics: from speaking truth to power to making sense together. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 201–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hoppe, R. (2002). Van flipperkast naar grensverkeer. Veranderende visies op de relatie tussen wetenschap en beleid. AWT-Achtergrondstudie 25, Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  11. Hoppe, R. (2005). Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science, 3(3), 199–215.Google Scholar
  12. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science-advisors as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 1–12). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D. (2005). Dutch policies to manage the transition to sustainable energy, Jahrbuch Ökologische Ökonomik 4 Innovationen und Nachhaltigkeit (pp. 123–150). Marburg: MetropolisVerlag.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Loorbach, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution. The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 14, 78–91 (special issue on (co)-evolutionary approach to sustainable development).Google Scholar
  17. Kern, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 36, 4093–4103.Google Scholar
  18. KETI. (2000). Van saneren naar innoveren. De rol van kennis en technologische innovaties bij het realiseren van de beleidsopgaven van NMP4. Werkgroep kennis en technologische innovaties (KETI). Nederland: Den Haag.Google Scholar
  19. Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management. New mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Books.Google Scholar
  20. Loorbach, D., & Kemp, R. (2008). Transition management for the Dutch energy transition: multilevel governance aspects. In J. van den Bergh & F. Bruinsma (Eds.), Managing the transition towards renewable energy sources: Theory and practice from local, regional and macro perspectives (pp. 243–264). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  21. Meadowcroft, J. (2005). Environmental political economy, technological transitions and the state. New Political Economy, 10(4), 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Metze, T. (2007) The power of discursive boundaries in deliberative practices. Paper presented at the conference on Interpretation in policy analysis: Research & practice, 31 May–2 June 2007, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  23. Ministery of Economic Affairs (EZ). (2008). Energy innovation agenda. Den Haag.Google Scholar
  24. Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) (2001) De Reis. Transitie naar een duurzame energiehuishouding (The Journey. Transition to a sustainable energy system). Den Haag.Google Scholar
  25. Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) (2003a). Plan van aanpak. Project Implementatie Energietransitie fase 2 (Action plan. Project implementation energy transition, phase 2). Den Haag.Google Scholar
  26. Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ). (2003b). Steering towards the South. Reinvigorating government policy for the energy transition (in Dutch). Advies van het PIT-deelproject Beleidsvernieuwing. Den Haag.Google Scholar
  27. Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ). (2004). Innovatie in het Energiebeleid. Energietransitie stand van zaken en vervolg, (Innovation in energy policy. State of affairs in the energy transition and follow-up action). Den Haag.Google Scholar
  28. NMP-4. (2001). Een wereld en een wil. Werken aan duurzaamheid (A world and a will. Working towards sustainability). The Hague: SDU.Google Scholar
  29. Pielke, R. (2004). When scientists politicize science: Making sense of controversy over the sceptical environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rotmans, J., & Kemp, R. (2008). Detour ahead. A response to Shove and Walker about the perilous road of transition management. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1006–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., Geels, F., Verbong, G., & Molendijk, K. (2000). Transities & Transitiemanagement. De casus van een emissiearme energievoorziening. Final report of study “Transitions and Transition management” for the 4th National Environmental Policy Plan (NMP-4) of the Netherlands, October 2000. Maastricht: ICIS & MERIT.Google Scholar
  32. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution. Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rotmans, J., Grin, J., & Schot, J. (2003). Multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary research program into transitions and system innovations. KSI-Research Program, February 2003.Google Scholar
  34. SER (2001) Advies over NMP4 (Advice on National Environmental Policy Plan 4). The Hague, the Netherlands: Social and Economic Council.Google Scholar
  35. Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). CAUTION! transitions ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A, 39, 763–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Smith, A., & Kern, F. (2007). The transitions discourse in the ecological modernisation of the Netherlands. SPRU electronic working paper series, no. 160.Google Scholar
  37. Smith, A., & Kern, F. (2009). The transitions story line in Dutch environmental policy. Environmental Politics, 18(1), 78–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Task Force Energietransitie (TFE). (2006). Transitieactieplan “Meer met Energie”.Google Scholar
  40. Te Riele, H.R.M., Duifhuizen, S.A.M., Hötte, M., Zijlstra, G., & Sengers, M.A.G. (2000). Transities: kunnen drie mensen de wereld doen omslaan? VROM-report made by Twijnstra en Gudde.Google Scholar
  41. Van der Hoeven, D. (2005). Symfonie in nieuw gas, SenterNovem, publicatie 8ET–05.03.Google Scholar
  42. Verbong, G. (2000). De Nederlandse overheid en energietransities: een historisch perspectief, achtergrondrapport voor de studie “Transities en Transitiemanagement” van ICIS en MERIT ten behoeve van NMP-4, November 2000, SHT. Eindhoven: TU Eindhoven.Google Scholar
  43. VROM (2003). Nieuwsbrief Transities (Newsletter transitions), nr 3, January 2003.Google Scholar
  44. VROM-Raad. (1998). Transitie naar een koolstofarme energiehuishouding (Transition to a carbon-low energy system). Advies 010. Den Haag.Google Scholar
  45. VROM-Raad. (2001). Waar een wil is is een weg, (Where there’s a will, there is a way) advice on NEPP4 (in Dutch). The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing.Google Scholar
  46. VROM-Raad en Algemene Energie Raad. (2004). Energietransitie. Klimaat voor nieuwe kansen (Energy transition: climate for new chances (in Dutch). Advice no. 45, The Hague, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  47. Weingart, P. (1999). Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 151–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weiss, C. (1980). Social science research and decision-making. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Weiss, C. H. (1991). Policy research: Data, ideas, or arguments? In P. E. A. Wagner (Ed.), Social sciences and modern states: national experiments and theoretical crossroads (pp. 307–332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dutch Reseach Institute for Transitions (DRIFT)RotterdamNetherlands
  2. 2.UNU-MERITMaastrichtNetherlands
  3. 3.ICISMaastrichtNetherlands

Personalised recommendations