Urban governance 93
5.2 Conceptual framework
Before embarking on an analysis of the waste treatment system in the municipality of Oslo, the next sub- sections frame the case study within a missionoriented innovation perspective. Following this, the analytical buildings
blocks, consisting of the waste pyramid and notions of valorisation, will also
be outlined.
5.2.1 Mission- oriented innovation
In the literature on mission- oriented innovation policies it is highlighted that
long- term commitment to engaging public, private and third sector actors is
key to successful implementation (Kattel & Mazzucato, 2018; Mazzucato,
2017, 2018). It has been pointed out how social movements are often central
to the advocacy and development of innovative and sustainable regimes and
solutions (Fagerberg, 2017), and how there is a need to include these actor
groups in the selection environment when developing future strategies
(Smith, Voß & Grin, 2010).
At the same time, the literature points to directionality as something vital
to sustainability transitions and mission- oriented innovation (Fagerberg, 2017;
Mazzucato, 2017; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; Weber & Rohracher, 2012).
The notion of directionality involves selection and priority setting, and has
thus introduced and emphasised a stronger element of politics in our understanding of systems of innovation and socio- technical change (Shove &
Walker, 2007; Smith, Stirling & Berkhout, 2005). This form of top- down
directionality on the one hand and broad anchoring among diverse stakeholders on the other constitutes a range of actors that as of yet has scarcely
been investigated. Consequently, it is acknowledged that it is important to
gain a better understanding of the relationship and balance between directive
and bottom- up interactions in mission- oriented innovation (Mazzucato,
2017).
As opposed to the innovation needed to solve grand societal challenges,
mission- oriented innovation has traditionally been perceived as being primarily preoccupied with technological dimensions, whereas the organisational
and social aspects of innovation have received less attention (Martin, 2015;
Nelson, 2011). Nelson (2011) pointed out the puzzle of how a country that
has managed to send a man to the moon is facing great difficulties when it
comes to providing basic education and health services to overcome poverty.
This is due to the intersectoral, social and complex nature of grand challenges,
where there is seldom one solution that is widely agreed upon. More
recently, contributions to the literature have actualised a debate on how to
define and differentiate between so- called mission- oriented innovation and
sustainable socio- technical transitions (Fagerberg, 2017; Kattel & Mazzucato,
2018; Mazzucato, 2017, 2018; Mowery, Nelson & Martin, 2010; Nelson,
2011). Here it is emphasised how traditional technology- oriented research
5.2 Conceptual framework
Before embarking on an analysis of the waste treatment system in the municipality of Oslo, the next sub- sections frame the case study within a missionoriented innovation perspective. Following this, the analytical buildings
blocks, consisting of the waste pyramid and notions of valorisation, will also
be outlined.
5.2.1 Mission- oriented innovation
In the literature on mission- oriented innovation policies it is highlighted that
long- term commitment to engaging public, private and third sector actors is
key to successful implementation (Kattel & Mazzucato, 2018; Mazzucato,
2017, 2018). It has been pointed out how social movements are often central
to the advocacy and development of innovative and sustainable regimes and
solutions (Fagerberg, 2017), and how there is a need to include these actor
groups in the selection environment when developing future strategies
(Smith, Voß & Grin, 2010).
At the same time, the literature points to directionality as something vital
to sustainability transitions and mission- oriented innovation (Fagerberg, 2017;
Mazzucato, 2017; Schot & Steinmueller, 2018; Weber & Rohracher, 2012).
The notion of directionality involves selection and priority setting, and has
thus introduced and emphasised a stronger element of politics in our understanding of systems of innovation and socio- technical change (Shove &
Walker, 2007; Smith, Stirling & Berkhout, 2005). This form of top- down
directionality on the one hand and broad anchoring among diverse stakeholders on the other constitutes a range of actors that as of yet has scarcely
been investigated. Consequently, it is acknowledged that it is important to
gain a better understanding of the relationship and balance between directive
and bottom- up interactions in mission- oriented innovation (Mazzucato,
2017).
As opposed to the innovation needed to solve grand societal challenges,
mission- oriented innovation has traditionally been perceived as being primarily preoccupied with technological dimensions, whereas the organisational
and social aspects of innovation have received less attention (Martin, 2015;
Nelson, 2011). Nelson (2011) pointed out the puzzle of how a country that
has managed to send a man to the moon is facing great difficulties when it
comes to providing basic education and health services to overcome poverty.
This is due to the intersectoral, social and complex nature of grand challenges,
where there is seldom one solution that is widely agreed upon. More
recently, contributions to the literature have actualised a debate on how to
define and differentiate between so- called mission- oriented innovation and
sustainable socio- technical transitions (Fagerberg, 2017; Kattel & Mazzucato,
2018; Mazzucato, 2017, 2018; Mowery, Nelson & Martin, 2010; Nelson,
2011). Here it is emphasised how traditional technology- oriented research