The problem is that this has not led to international joint action and that global
carbon emissions keep rising (Latin, 2012; Helm, 2012). A participant at the Oslo
conference ‘Transformations in a changing climate’ (June 2012) put it very
succinctly: ‘Hell does not sell’.
2 This prompts the questions for the next two sections:
what do we know about how the green transformation can be brought about and
who can accelerate the process?
How?
There is no established transformation theory, but there are various lines of work
that can provide useful insights on how transformations occur. The most funda -
mental point is that there is no single line of causation: transformation results from
a concurrence of multiple changes. This is the conclusion of Osterhammel’s (2014)
history of the nineteenth century, Leggewie and Messner’s (2012b) review of theory
and history of transformations, and of Geels and Schot’s (2007) analysis of big
‘Technological Transitions’. This emphasis on the concurrence and inter action of
multiple changes immediately raises the question of how to deal with complexity.
This is where the Multi-Level Perspective (Geels, 2002, 2011) is relevant as a
way of categorizing these changes. It distinguishes three analytical levels: niches
which are the locus of radical innovations, sociotechnical regimes and landscapes
which are exogenous. Transformations are regime shifts brought about through
interactions between these levels. Radical innovations taking place in niches can
destabilize existing regimes and break through more widely if changes in the external
landscape – for example, the global financial crisis or the Fukushima disaster – create
pressures on the regime that lead to cracks and windows of opportunity. As a result,
the existing regime might be replaced, or it might be strengthened if it can adapt.
This is very useful but it is not (yet) clear what it tells us on our central question:
whether and how transformations can be managed and accelerated in a purposeful
way.
Therefore, it seems worth asking what we can learn from the work on Transition
Management (Rotmans et al., 2001). Central to Transition Management is involving
stakeholders in developing shared visions, conducting experiments to explore
concrete ways forward as well as putting the existing regime under pressure. As
stressed by Kern (2013, p21), ‘its long term sustainability orientation, its focus on
learning and innovation, its elaborate process architecture, its theoretical underpinnings in a sophisticated understanding of processes of sociotechnical change all
contributed to the appeal of the Transition Management model’. However, the
implementation experience in the Netherlands and Belgium revealed that it was
too technocratic, focused too much on the early stage of the policy cycle (design
and formulation), shied away from conflict and therefore failed to change structures
(Kern and Smith, 2008; Paredis, 2013). It lacked what this book is centrally
concerned with: an understanding of the politics of transformation.
Recognizing the enormity of the ambition of managing the transition,
innovation scholars have put energies into a more focused agenda: finding ways
Green transformation: is there a fast track? 173
carbon emissions keep rising (Latin, 2012; Helm, 2012). A participant at the Oslo
conference ‘Transformations in a changing climate’ (June 2012) put it very
succinctly: ‘Hell does not sell’.
2 This prompts the questions for the next two sections:
what do we know about how the green transformation can be brought about and
who can accelerate the process?
How?
There is no established transformation theory, but there are various lines of work
that can provide useful insights on how transformations occur. The most funda -
mental point is that there is no single line of causation: transformation results from
a concurrence of multiple changes. This is the conclusion of Osterhammel’s (2014)
history of the nineteenth century, Leggewie and Messner’s (2012b) review of theory
and history of transformations, and of Geels and Schot’s (2007) analysis of big
‘Technological Transitions’. This emphasis on the concurrence and inter action of
multiple changes immediately raises the question of how to deal with complexity.
This is where the Multi-Level Perspective (Geels, 2002, 2011) is relevant as a
way of categorizing these changes. It distinguishes three analytical levels: niches
which are the locus of radical innovations, sociotechnical regimes and landscapes
which are exogenous. Transformations are regime shifts brought about through
interactions between these levels. Radical innovations taking place in niches can
destabilize existing regimes and break through more widely if changes in the external
landscape – for example, the global financial crisis or the Fukushima disaster – create
pressures on the regime that lead to cracks and windows of opportunity. As a result,
the existing regime might be replaced, or it might be strengthened if it can adapt.
This is very useful but it is not (yet) clear what it tells us on our central question:
whether and how transformations can be managed and accelerated in a purposeful
way.
Therefore, it seems worth asking what we can learn from the work on Transition
Management (Rotmans et al., 2001). Central to Transition Management is involving
stakeholders in developing shared visions, conducting experiments to explore
concrete ways forward as well as putting the existing regime under pressure. As
stressed by Kern (2013, p21), ‘its long term sustainability orientation, its focus on
learning and innovation, its elaborate process architecture, its theoretical underpinnings in a sophisticated understanding of processes of sociotechnical change all
contributed to the appeal of the Transition Management model’. However, the
implementation experience in the Netherlands and Belgium revealed that it was
too technocratic, focused too much on the early stage of the policy cycle (design
and formulation), shied away from conflict and therefore failed to change structures
(Kern and Smith, 2008; Paredis, 2013). It lacked what this book is centrally
concerned with: an understanding of the politics of transformation.
Recognizing the enormity of the ambition of managing the transition,
innovation scholars have put energies into a more focused agenda: finding ways
Green transformation: is there a fast track? 173