Directionality and diversity 235
transitions (European Commission, 2011, 2012; Geels, 2002; Kemp, Schot, &
Hoogma, 1998; Kuhlmann & Rip, 2014; Schot & Steinmueller, 2016). Such
societal challenges and system transformations are seen as open- ended and
constantly redefined and renegotiated across several sectors and stakeholders
(Kuhlmann & Rip, 2014). In the search for possible solutions to these highly
integrated and complex societal challenges, it has been pointed out that there
is a need for an “opening up” of decision- making processes, in order to
include participation from a broader array of societal stakeholders. One concrete example of such an open approach is the use of public hearings to
develop policy strategies, alongside consensus conferences and foresight exercises, as well as other approaches, in order to make decision- making processes
more open and inclusive (Martin, 2015; Stirling, 2008).
Such integrative approaches to policy making can be demanding. They
require the coordination and processing of complex and often conflicting
inputs from a broad array of actors. Weber and Rohracher (2012) have
developed a framework for legitimising policies addressing grand challenges,
and operating with four required roles for governance in societal transformations: directionality, demand, coordination, and reflexivity. Directionality
failure refers to a deficit in the pointing of innovation efforts and collective
priorities in a certain direction to meet societal challenges. Demand articulation failure refers to a deficit in anticipating and learning about user needs,
resulting in inappropriate and misleading specifications guiding development
through, e.g. procurement or policy programmes. Policy coordination failure
refers to a deficit in managing and synchronising the inputs from different
policy areas to meet societal challenges. Such coordination might include
coherence between policies at international, national, regional, and municipal
levels (vertical coordination failure), or across different sectors (horizontal
coordination failure). Reflexivity failure refers to a deficit in the learning
feedback loops and in the ability to continuously monitor the progress of
ongoing innovation processes and to adjust the course of action. Alongside
the existing categories of market and system failures, such forms of transformational system failures constitute a more comprehensive framework and
legitimacy for policy intervention and formulation. In general, the role for
governance in addressing socio- technical transitions is seen as more proactive
and entrepreneurial than as has traditionally been regarded the norm for state
intervention, in terms of fixing market failures or system failures (Klein
Woolthuis, Lankhuizen, & Gilsing, 2005; Schot & Steinmueller, 2016).
Still, although the state is expected to take a leading role in these processes
of societal transformation, there is reason to question whether and how these
four roles (i.e. setting the direction, formulating demand, coordinating various
stakeholders, and ensuring continuous learning and reflexivity) only constitute
an extension of the former technocratic policy framework associated with
systems of innovation in terms of fixing system failures. Rather, one may argue
that societal shifts like the transition into a sustainable bioeconomy represent
conflicting rationalities and perspectives that transcend the coordination of
transitions (European Commission, 2011, 2012; Geels, 2002; Kemp, Schot, &
Hoogma, 1998; Kuhlmann & Rip, 2014; Schot & Steinmueller, 2016). Such
societal challenges and system transformations are seen as open- ended and
constantly redefined and renegotiated across several sectors and stakeholders
(Kuhlmann & Rip, 2014). In the search for possible solutions to these highly
integrated and complex societal challenges, it has been pointed out that there
is a need for an “opening up” of decision- making processes, in order to
include participation from a broader array of societal stakeholders. One concrete example of such an open approach is the use of public hearings to
develop policy strategies, alongside consensus conferences and foresight exercises, as well as other approaches, in order to make decision- making processes
more open and inclusive (Martin, 2015; Stirling, 2008).
Such integrative approaches to policy making can be demanding. They
require the coordination and processing of complex and often conflicting
inputs from a broad array of actors. Weber and Rohracher (2012) have
developed a framework for legitimising policies addressing grand challenges,
and operating with four required roles for governance in societal transformations: directionality, demand, coordination, and reflexivity. Directionality
failure refers to a deficit in the pointing of innovation efforts and collective
priorities in a certain direction to meet societal challenges. Demand articulation failure refers to a deficit in anticipating and learning about user needs,
resulting in inappropriate and misleading specifications guiding development
through, e.g. procurement or policy programmes. Policy coordination failure
refers to a deficit in managing and synchronising the inputs from different
policy areas to meet societal challenges. Such coordination might include
coherence between policies at international, national, regional, and municipal
levels (vertical coordination failure), or across different sectors (horizontal
coordination failure). Reflexivity failure refers to a deficit in the learning
feedback loops and in the ability to continuously monitor the progress of
ongoing innovation processes and to adjust the course of action. Alongside
the existing categories of market and system failures, such forms of transformational system failures constitute a more comprehensive framework and
legitimacy for policy intervention and formulation. In general, the role for
governance in addressing socio- technical transitions is seen as more proactive
and entrepreneurial than as has traditionally been regarded the norm for state
intervention, in terms of fixing market failures or system failures (Klein
Woolthuis, Lankhuizen, & Gilsing, 2005; Schot & Steinmueller, 2016).
Still, although the state is expected to take a leading role in these processes
of societal transformation, there is reason to question whether and how these
four roles (i.e. setting the direction, formulating demand, coordinating various
stakeholders, and ensuring continuous learning and reflexivity) only constitute
an extension of the former technocratic policy framework associated with
systems of innovation in terms of fixing system failures. Rather, one may argue
that societal shifts like the transition into a sustainable bioeconomy represent
conflicting rationalities and perspectives that transcend the coordination of