Multi-­‐level  perspective

The MLP on socio-technical transitions consists of three layers:

• Niches form the micro-level where radical innovations can develop while protected from market pressures. This means that “small networks of dedicated actors, often outsiders or fringe actors” (Geels and Schot, 2007: 400) come together to develop technological novelties that have the potential to run from bottom to top.

• The socio-technical regime, the heart of the MLP, is “a coherent, highly interrelated and stable structure at the meso-level characterized by established products and technologies, stocks of knowledge, user practices, expectations, norms, regulations, etc” (Markard and Truffer, 2008: 603). This regime changes in a successful transition and gives direction and logic to the process. Importantly, it often times does not explicitly involve actor interaction.

• On the macro-level, socio-technical landscapes are given exogenous factors such as infrastructure, cultural change, global developments, which are more robust than regimes and are beyond the reach of actors for immediate change (Geels, 2005).

The interplay of the three layers explains transitions of socio-technical regimes: “(a) niche-innovations build up internal momentum, through learning processes, price/performance improvements, and support from powerful groups, (b) changes at the landscape level create pressure on the regime and (c) destabilisation of the regime creates windows of opportunity for niche-innovations. The alignment of these processes enables the breakthrough of novelties in mainstream markets where they compete with the existing regime” (Geels and Schot, 2007:

400). However, a variety of transition pathways exist that can explain how change takes places. While Smith et al. (2005) argue that either the external selection pressures can become greener or the regime itself can become aware of environmental issues and trigger change from within, Geels and Schot (2007: 414) argue that the pathway are only established over time and agency is reflected in the MLP but “does not always come through strongly in stylised case-studies“. Hence, they do not give a complete overview of all key stakeholders and are weak in explaining the transition governance.

Governing the Transition to a Green Economy 49

Figure 3: Transitions in the ‘multi-level perspective’ framework

Source: Geels (2011: 28).

The MLP framework has been influential in at least three ways: First, it fosters the understanding that institutional adjustments follow technological change; second, it shows the relevance of the interplay of the three layers; third, various historic examples have been researched using this approach (Berkhout et al., 2004). Furthermore, the framework is capable to integrate exogenous shocks through the landscape (Markard and Truffer, 2008). Hence, it has been labelled a “useful analytical framework to understand transitions” (Whitmarsh, 2012). However, the literature also offers various critical remarks. First, socio-technical regimes are not coherently defined. In particular the scope of what is included in the regime varies and sometimes resembles the system understanding laid out below (Markard and

28 F.W. Geels / Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1 (2011) 24–40

Landscape developments put pressure on existing regime, which opens up,

creating windows

of opportunity for novelties

Socio-technical regime is ‘dynamically stable’.

On different dimensions there are ongoing processes New configuration breaks through, taking advantage of ‘windows of opportunity’.

Adjustments occur in socio-technical regime.

Elements become aligned, and stabilise in a dominant design.

Internal momentum increases.

Small networks of actors support novelties on the basis of expectations and visions.

Learning processes take place on multiple dimensions (co-construction).

Efforts to link different elements in a seamless web.

New regime influences landscape

Niche-innovations

Socio-technical landscape (exogenous context)

Socio-technical regime

Technology Markets, user preferences

Culture Policy

Science Industry

External influences on niches (via expectations and networks)

Increasing structuration of activities in local practices

Time

Fig. 2. Multi-level perspective on transitions.

Adapted fromGeels (2002:1263).

• The articulation (and adjustment) ofexpectationsorvisions, which provide guidance to the innovation activities, and aim to attract attention and funding from external actors.

• The building of social networksand the enrolment of more actors, which expand the resource base of niche-innovations.

• Learning and articulation processeson various dimensions, e.g. technical design, market demand and user preferences, infrastructure requirements, organisational issues and business models, policy instruments, symbolic meanings.

Niches gain momentum if expectations become more precise and more broadly accepted, if the alignment of various learning processes results in a stable configuration (‘dominant design’), and if networks become larger (especially the participation of powerful actors may convey legitimacy and resources to niche-innovations).

2.3. Socio-technical landscape

The sociotechnical landscape is the wider context, which influences niche and regime dynamics (Rip and Kemp, 1998). The landscape level, which has similarities to the concept oflongue duréeproposed by the historian Braudel, highlights not only the technical and material backdrop that sustains society, but also includes demographical trends, political ideologies, societal values, and macro-economic patterns.

This varied set of factors can be combined within a single ‘landscape’ category, because they form an external context that actors at niche and regime levels cannot influence in the short run. The landscape level usually changes slowly (but see the discussion in Section “Flat ontologies versus hierarchical levels”).

Fig. 2 provides an ideal-typical representation of how the three levels interact dynamically in the unfolding of socio-technical transitions. Although each transition is unique, the general dynamic

Truffer, 2008). Second, “the landscape remains something of a ‘black box’ in which anything that does not readily fit at lower levels is placed” (Whitmarsh, 2012). This creates analytical confusion. Third, the role of actors is not clearly defined which leaves out relevant power struggles (Markard and Truffer, 2008, Shove and Walker, 2010). For example, people and their everyday life are often not taken into account. This is in particular problematic for sustainable transitions because they involve constant power struggles and a reconfiguration of societal preferences as has been laid out above. While proponents of the MLP assert that

“agency influences whether, how and how fast a particular transition will develop” (Grin et al., 2011: 79), it remains largely unclear from their work how they conceptualise this variable.

Fourth, Foxon (2011) criticizes the multi-level perspective for putting too little emphasis on price incentives and investments. He proposes a “coevolutionary approach”, that, “seeks to identify causal interactions between evolving systems“ (Foxon, 2011: 2262). Relevant coevolving systems are “ecosystems, technologies, institutions, business strategies and user practices” (Foxon, 2011: 2261) including key explanatory variables. Each of the systems is assumed to have an internal logic and dynamic but key are the feedback loops that interact between the separate systems. This dynamic can establish common structures on the macro-level but they remain fragile and are endangered by external shocks.

Figure 4: Co-evolutionary framework

Governing the Transition to a Green Economy 51

Source: Foxon (2011: 2262).

Largely ignored in the literature on the MLP is the lacking normative guidance. While it does explain how technologies can emerge from protected niches, the MLP does not elaborate convincingly how it can ensure that they help to decarbonise the economy. Solely focusing on the transition process itself ignores the possibility that unsustainable solutions prevail. Hence, a key ingredient of green transitions is missing as they clearly articulate the goal to improve the ecological situation. This desire stems from the problem description of climate change being caused by excessive GHG emissions. Hence, it is irritating that the sustainable transition network gives little explicit impetus to the sustainability outcome.