Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Conceptual Grounds of Socio-Technical Transitions and Governance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Dynamic Governance of Energy Technology Change

Part of the book series: Sustainability and Innovation ((SUSTAINABILITY))

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of theorizing on technology change and socio-technical transition. The first contribution of the chapter is to clarify how distinct theoretical framework should be understood in the context of other related theorizing. The second contribution is to clarify the sources of theoretical tensions, and to resolve ambiguities in terms. This is important because tensions and ambiguities hinder the accumulation of an inter-subjective theoretical ground. We observe that sustainability transition research increasingly relies on process theorizing. It stresses the role of feedback mechanisms and systemic barriers as a new rationale for concerted strategy and policymaking. On the other hand, it does not answer the questions of which and how causal structures influence system behavior, e.g., in terms of reaching emission reduction targets in time and/or dynamical competitiveness. We have identified two reasons for this tension. First, sustainability transition research traditionally employs descriptive theorizing. Behavioral consequences remain obscure due to lacking causal propositions. Second, there exists a variety of categorization schemes that use ambiguous technical terms for describing linkages, processes, and performance characteristics. Consequently, we propose a standardization of system technical terms based on system dynamics methodology. This is important to facilitate a shared understanding on the factors and processes of (un-)desired transition trends. Further, we propose to apply system dynamics mapping tools to conceptualize socio-technical systems as a causal feedback system. This mapping approach provides the structural elements of critical behavior phenomena, like inertia, lock-in, and path creation, in socio-technical systems. We assume that this is particularly supportive for governance-based steering, because causal beliefs about effective governance structures are a necessary condition for the acceptance of concerted action programs in heterogeneous actor groups.

As for the future, your task is not to foresee, but to enable it.

Antoine de Saint Exupery

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Path dependence refers to self-reinforcing processes that accelerate the development direction within a system. Lock-in refers to a historically evolved system state that can only be changed with great effort.

References

  • Abernathy WJ, Clark KB (1985) Innovation – mapping the winds of creative destruction. Res Policy 14(1):3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Abernathy WJ, Utterback JM (1978) Patterns of innovation in industry. Technol Rev 80(7):40–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff RL (1979) The future of operational research is past. J Oper Res Soc 30:93–104

    Google Scholar 

  • Adner R (2002) When are technologies disruptive? A demand-based view of the emergence of competition. Strateg Manage J 23(8):667–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adner R (2006) Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem. Harv Bus Rev 84(4):98–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ (1962) Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In: Nelson R (ed) The rate and direction of inventive activity. Princeton, Princeton University Press, pp 609–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow KJ (2000) Increasing returns: historiographic issues and path dependence. Eur J Hist Econ Th 7(2):171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur WB (1989) Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ J 99:116–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur WB (1994) Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur WB (1999) Complexity and the economy. Science 284(5411):107–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergek A, Jacobsson S, Carlsson B, Lindmark S, Rickne A (2008) Analyzing the functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis. Res Policy 37(3):407–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns TR, Flam H (1987) The shaping of social organization: social rule system theory with applications. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cainelli G, Mazzanti M, Zoboli R (2011) Environmental innovations, complementarity and local/global cooperation: evidence from North-east Italian industry. Int J Technol Policy Manage 11(3–4):328–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen CM (2002) The rules of innovation. Technol Rev 105(5):33–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen CM (2003) The Innovator’s Solution. Harvard Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen CM (2006) The ongoing process of building a theory of disruption. J Prod Innov Manage 23:39–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen CM, Rosenbloom RS (1995) Explaining the attacker’s advantage: technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Res Policy 24(2):233–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coenen L, Díaz López FJ (2010) Comparing systems approaches to innovation and technological change for sustainable and competitive economies: an explorative study into conceptual commonalities, differences and complementarities. J Cleaner Prod 18(12):1149–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen W, Levinthal D (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learningn and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35:128–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diehl E, Sterman JD (1995) Effects of feedback complexity on dynamic decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 62(2):198–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolata U (2009) Technological innovations and sectoral change: transformative capacity, adaptability, patterns of change: an analytical framework. Res Policy 38(6):1066–1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi G (1982) Technological paradigms and technological trajectories: a suggested interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Res Policy 11:147–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duit A, Galaz V, Eckerberg K, Ebbesson J (2010) Governance, complexity, and resilience. Glob Environ Chang 20(3):363–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edquist C (2004) Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges. In: Fagerberg J, Mowery D, Nelson R (eds) The Oxford handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 181–208

    Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L (2000) The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res Policy 29(2):109–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faber A, Frenken K (2009) Models in evolutionary economics and environmental policy: towards an evolutionary environmental economics. Technol Forecast Soc Change 76(4):462–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florini A, Sovacool BK (2009) Who governs energy? The challenges facing global energy governance. Energy Policy 37(12):5239–5248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foxon TJ (2011) A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy. Ecol Econ 70(12):2258–2267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foxon T, Pearson P (2008) Overcoming barriers to innovation and diffusion of cleaner technologies: some features of a sustainable innovation policy regime. J Cleaner Prod 16(1, Supplement 1):S148–S161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C (1987) Technology policy and economic performance: lessons from Japan. Pinter, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C (1988) Japan: a new national system of innovation? In: Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson R, Silverberg G, Soete L (eds) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter, London, pp 330–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C (1995) The “National System of Innovation” in historical perspective. Cambridge J Econ 19:5–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C (1996) The greening of technology and models of innovation. Technol Forecast Soc Change 53(1):27–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman C, Perez C (1988) Structural crises of adjustment, business cycles and investment behavior. In: Dosi G, Freeman C, Nelson R, Silverberg G, Soete L (eds) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter, London/New York, pp 38–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Furman JL, Porter ME, Stern S (2002) The determinants of national innovative capacity. Res Policy 31(6):899–933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia R, Calantone R (2002) A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. J Prod Innov Manage 19(2):110–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res Policy 31:1257–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res Policy 33:897–920

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW (2005) The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi-level analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles (1860–1930). Technol Anal Strateg Manage 17(4):445–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW (2006) Multi-level perspective on system innovation: Relevance for industrial transformation. In: Olshoorn X, Wieczorek AJ (eds) Understanding industrial transformation: views from different disciplines. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 163–186

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW (2010) Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res Policy 39:495–510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels FW, Schot J (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res Policy 36(3):399–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. University of California Press, Berkley

    Google Scholar 

  • Groesser S, Ulli-Beer S (2008) Innovation diffusion in the building construction industry: empirically-based theory generation. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference of the system dynamics society, Athens, July 20–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Grübler A (1998) Technology and global change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Grübler A, Nakicenovic N, Victor DG (1999a) Dynamics of energy technologies and global change. Energy Policy 27(5):247–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grübler A, Nakicenovic N, Victor DG (1999b) Modeling technological change: implications for the global environment. Ann Rev Energy Environ 24:545–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grübler A, Nakicenovic N, Nordhaus WD (eds) (2002) Technological change and the environment. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson R, Autio E (2011) A failure trichotomy in knowledge exploration and exploitation. Res Policy 40(6):819–831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hekkert MP, Suurs RAA, Negro SO, Kuhlmann S, Smits REHM (2007) Functions of innovation systems: a new approach for analysing technological change. Technol Forecast Soc Change 74(4):413–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson RM, Clark KB (1990) Architectural Innovation: the reconfiguration of existing systems and the failure of established firms. Adm Sci Q 35:9–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks CM, Grin J (2007) Contextualizing reflexive governance: the politics of Dutch transitions to sustainability. J Environ Policy Plann 9(3–4):333–350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horbach J, Rammer C, Rennings K (2012) Determinants of eco-innovations by type of environmental impact – the role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and market pull. Ecol Econ 78:112–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsson S, Bergek A (2004) Transforming the energy sector: the evolution of technological systems in renewable energy technology. Ind Corp Change 13(5):815–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN (2005) A tale of two market failures: technology and environmental policy. Ecol Econ 54(2–3):164–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan A (2008) The governance of sustainable development: taking stock and looking forwards. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 26:17–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman S (1995) At home in the universe: the search for the laws of self-organization and complexity. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp R, Schot J, Hoogman R (1998) Regime shifts to sustainability through processes of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Technol Anal Strateg Manage 10(2):175–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp R, Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2007) Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution. Int J Sust Dev World Ecol 14(1):78–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesidou E, Demirel P (2012) On the drivers of eco-innovations: empirical evidence from the UK. Res Policy 41(5):862–870

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim Y, Kim W, Yang T (2012) The effect of the triple helix system and habitat on regional entrepreneurship: empirical evidence from the U.S. Res Policy 41(1):154–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman J (2000) Societal governance: levels, modes and orders of social-political interactions. In: Pierre J (ed) Debating governance: authority, steering, and democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Markard J, Truffer B (2008) Technological innovation systems and the multi-level perspective: towards an integrated framework. Res Policy 37(4):596–615

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B (2012) Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research and its prospects. Res Policy 41:955–967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadowcroft J (2007) Who is in charge here? Governance for sustainable development in a complex world*. J Environ Policy Plann 9(3–4):299–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moxnes E (2004) Misperceptions of basic dynamics: the case of renewable resource management. Syst Dyn Rev 20(2):139–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller M, Grösser S, Ulli-Beer S (2012) How do we know who to include in collaborative research? Toward a method for the identification of experts. Eur J Oper Res 216(2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR, Winter SG (1977) In search of useful theory of innovation. Res Policy 6(1):36–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RR, Winter SG (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Belknap, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigou A (1932) The economics of welfare. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole MS, Van de Ven AH (1989) Using paradox to build management and organization theory. Acad Manage Rev 16(4):562–578

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME, Van der Linde C (1995) Toward a new conception of the environment-competitiveness relationship. J Econ Perspect 9(4):97–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson GP (1991) Feedback thought in social science and systems theory. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson GP (1995) Loop polarity, loop dominance, and the concept of dominant polarity. Syst Dyn Rev 11(1):67–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rip A, Kemp R (1998) Technological change. In: Rayner S, Malone EL (eds) Human choice and climate change, vol 2. Battelle, Columbus, pp 327–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbloom RS (1981) Technological innovation in firms and industries: an assessment of the state of the art. In: Kelly P, Kranzberg M (eds) Technological innovation a critical review of current knowledge. San Francisco Press, San Francisco, pp 215–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans J, Kemp R, Van Asselt M (2001) More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight 3(1):15–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudolph JJ, Morrison JB, Carroll SJ (2009) The dynamics of action-oriented problem solving: linking interpretation and choice. Acad Manage Rev 34(4):733–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruttan VW (2001) An induced innovation perspective. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA (1998) The advocacy coalition framework: revisions and relevance for Europe. J Eur Public Policy 5(1):98–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safarzynska K, Van den Bergh JCJM (2010) Evolutionary models in economics: a survey of methods and building blocks. Evol Econ 20:329–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safarzynska K, Frenken K, van den Bergh JCJM (2012) Evolutionary theorizing and modeling of sustainability transitions. Res Policy 41:1011–1024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schot J, Geels FW (2008) Strategic niche management and sustainable innovation journeys: theory, findings, research agenda, and policy. Technol Anal Strateg Manage 20(5):537–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith A, Raven R (2012) What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Res Policy 41(6):1025–1036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith A, Voss J-P, Grin J (2010) Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: the allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res Policy 39(4):435–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (1989) Misperception of feedback in dynamic decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 43(3):301–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (1994) Learning in and about complex systems. Sys Dyn Rev 10(2–3):291–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics. Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2011) Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world. Clim Change 108:811–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Todt O (2011) The limits of policy: public acceptance and the reform of science and technology governance. Technol Forecast Soc Change 78(6):902–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tushman ML, Anderson P (1986) Technological discontinuities and organizational environments. Adm Sci Q 31:439–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh GC (2000) Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 28(12):817–830

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh GC (2002) Escaping carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 30(4):317–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Unruh GC, Carrillo-Hermosilla J (2006) Globalizing carbon lock-in. Energy Policy 34(10):1185–1197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback JM (1971) The process of technological innovation within the firm. Acad Manage J 24(March):75–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Utterback JM (1994/1996) Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Boston, Harvard University Business School Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback JM (1996) Mastering the dynamics of innovation. Harvard University Business School Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Utterback JM, Suárez FF (1993) Innovation, competition and industry structure. Res Policy 22(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven AH (2007) Engaged scholarship: a guide for organizational and social research. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Hoed R (2007) Sources of radical technological innovation: the emergence of fuel cell technology in the automotive industry. J Cleaner Prod 15(11–12):1014–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss J-P, Smith A, Grin J (2009) Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management. Policy Sci 42:275–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker G, Shove E (2007) Ambivalence, sustainability and the governance of socio-technical transitions. J Environ Policy Plann 9(3–4):213–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss C, Bonvillian BW (2009) Structuring an energy technology revolution. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Energy Dynamics of Innovative Systems, Paul Scherrer Institut, PSI Ost, 5232, Villigen, Switzerland

    Silvia Ulli-Beer

Authors
  1. Silvia Ulli-Beer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvia Ulli-Beer .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. General Energy Dynamics of Innovative Systems, Paul Scherrer Institut, Villigen PSI, Switzerland

    Silvia Ulli-Beer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ulli-Beer, S. (2013). Conceptual Grounds of Socio-Technical Transitions and Governance. In: Ulli-Beer, S. (eds) Dynamic Governance of Energy Technology Change. Sustainability and Innovation. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39753-0_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39753-0_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-39752-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-39753-0

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation