236 L. Scordato et al.
various inputs sharing the same societal ontology and objectives. In this sense,
there are potential challenges related to navigating in a landscape consisting of
diverse stakeholders. Governance across heterogeneous interests poses challenges for policy- makers and complicates strategy- making processes. Various
stakeholders might express diverging and conflicting interests which, again,
might lead to power struggles and negotiations.
A prominent approach to understanding socio- technical transitions involving diverse stakeholders is the multi- level perspective (MLP), which sees systemic transitions as co- evolutionary processes that unfold through an interplay
between three interrelated analytical levels: regimes, niches, and landscapes
(Geels, 2002, 2004, 2005; Geels & Schot, 2007; Schot & Geels, 2008). A
socio- technical regime refers to the existing configurations of technologies,
infrastructures, production processes, practices, and consumption patterns.
Niches are seen as the locus for the development of disruptive innovation to
supplement or replace existing socio- technical regimes. Finally, landscapes
refer to the contextual and long- term societal trends that create pressures on
existing socio- technical regimes, thus opening windows of opportunity for
innovative niches.
Although the MLP perspective has advanced our understanding of sociotechnical transitions, it has also been criticised for putting too much emphasis
on the emergence of niches as the principal locus for regime change (Geels &
Schot, 2007). Much of the MLP literature has also tended to focus upon the
emergence of new regimes, and less is said about the decline of existing and
old regimes (Geels, 2014; Turnheim & Geels, 2013). Moreover, it has been
pointed out how theorising on socio- technical transitions has traditionally
downplayed the role of power relations and politics in many ways (Geels,
2014). First, there has been a lack of focus on how power relations affect the
development of policies in socio- technical transitions. Second, there has been
a tendency to focus on the development of innovative niches rather than on
the destabilisation of existing regimes. Third, the stability of existing regimes
is often understood and explained in terms of socio- technical configurations
and user practices related to notions, such as lock- in and path dependence,
rather than political priorities and deliberate decisions (Geels, 2014). In sum,
there is a need to improve our understanding of how (political) power relations and negotiations affect directionality in the processes of socio- technical
transitions.
In an effort to address these shortcomings, throughout the last decade there
has been increased interest in better understanding the power struggles and
institutional underpinnings involved in socio- technical transitions (Geels,
2014; Markard, Raven, & Truffer, 2012; Meadowcroft, 2011; Shove &
Walker, 2007; Smith & Raven, 2012; Smith, Stirling, & Berkhout, 2005).
Some of these contributions have started to pay attention to the stability of
existing socio- technical regimes, and to how the incumbent actors and stakeholders of existing regimes show resistance to niche innovations and developments that threaten the status quo (e.g. Geels, 2014). In this sense, power and
various inputs sharing the same societal ontology and objectives. In this sense,
there are potential challenges related to navigating in a landscape consisting of
diverse stakeholders. Governance across heterogeneous interests poses challenges for policy- makers and complicates strategy- making processes. Various
stakeholders might express diverging and conflicting interests which, again,
might lead to power struggles and negotiations.
A prominent approach to understanding socio- technical transitions involving diverse stakeholders is the multi- level perspective (MLP), which sees systemic transitions as co- evolutionary processes that unfold through an interplay
between three interrelated analytical levels: regimes, niches, and landscapes
(Geels, 2002, 2004, 2005; Geels & Schot, 2007; Schot & Geels, 2008). A
socio- technical regime refers to the existing configurations of technologies,
infrastructures, production processes, practices, and consumption patterns.
Niches are seen as the locus for the development of disruptive innovation to
supplement or replace existing socio- technical regimes. Finally, landscapes
refer to the contextual and long- term societal trends that create pressures on
existing socio- technical regimes, thus opening windows of opportunity for
innovative niches.
Although the MLP perspective has advanced our understanding of sociotechnical transitions, it has also been criticised for putting too much emphasis
on the emergence of niches as the principal locus for regime change (Geels &
Schot, 2007). Much of the MLP literature has also tended to focus upon the
emergence of new regimes, and less is said about the decline of existing and
old regimes (Geels, 2014; Turnheim & Geels, 2013). Moreover, it has been
pointed out how theorising on socio- technical transitions has traditionally
downplayed the role of power relations and politics in many ways (Geels,
2014). First, there has been a lack of focus on how power relations affect the
development of policies in socio- technical transitions. Second, there has been
a tendency to focus on the development of innovative niches rather than on
the destabilisation of existing regimes. Third, the stability of existing regimes
is often understood and explained in terms of socio- technical configurations
and user practices related to notions, such as lock- in and path dependence,
rather than political priorities and deliberate decisions (Geels, 2014). In sum,
there is a need to improve our understanding of how (political) power relations and negotiations affect directionality in the processes of socio- technical
transitions.
In an effort to address these shortcomings, throughout the last decade there
has been increased interest in better understanding the power struggles and
institutional underpinnings involved in socio- technical transitions (Geels,
2014; Markard, Raven, & Truffer, 2012; Meadowcroft, 2011; Shove &
Walker, 2007; Smith & Raven, 2012; Smith, Stirling, & Berkhout, 2005).
Some of these contributions have started to pay attention to the stability of
existing socio- technical regimes, and to how the incumbent actors and stakeholders of existing regimes show resistance to niche innovations and developments that threaten the status quo (e.g. Geels, 2014). In this sense, power and