The three camps are certainly not the only possible systematization of the field;
they are simply one way of approaching issues discussed within the community
itself. Transition scholars should not be upset to come across categories that they
reject but are instead invited to read what follows in the spirit of cultivating
awareness about framing effects that emerge when we (including myself) choose
the lenses and terms with which we decipher the world.
The first camp of transition research tends to contain social scientists with an
evolutionary economics or innovation management background. They are primarily
interested in understanding how technological advances change the way communities and societies organize themselves and which potentials for sustainable
development emerge from that. Their main unit of observation is the STS. The
second camp is deeply rooted in natural and earth systems sciences and argues that
new knowledge of Planetary Boundaries and ecosystem services needs to be the
reference frame for the identification of solutions to sustainable development. Their
main unit of observation is the SES. Political economists who engage with the
systems frameworks highlight the need to understand unsustainable structural drivers embedded in current economic processes and the effects of increasing marketization and commodification on systemic governance proposals. They would
apply these to both the socio-technical and socio-ecological relations and thus I
grouped them into socio-ecological-technical systems (SETS).
In line with these different views, the descriptions of transition processes also
vary. Scholars with an evolutionary economics, innovation and management
background tend to speak of repeated learning cycles in which the results of pilot
projects and niche innovations are monitored for their effect and the most convincing ones, i.e., the most resource-efficient, become part of a transformed system.
More recently, aspects of interest and power have been taken into consideration, but
agency remains a less important variable, as the following characterization of “main
features of system innovations” shows: “(1) disrupting or complementary types of
knowledge and technical capabilities; (2) fundamental changes in consumer practices and markets; and (3) novel types of infrastructures, institutional rules and skill
sets” (OECD 2015: 6).
Scholars with a natural science background will tend to search for dynamics,
feedback loops and tipping points in the reproduction circuits of ecosystems and
develop extraction or pollution targets and principles to help societies stay within
safe operating spaces. Often less attention is paid to the question of how the governing frameworks and economic processes needed to stay within the boundaries can
be implemented. One important contribution toward this has been the concept of
‘pathways’ to show that there are multiple possible solutions to governing a safe
operating space and that each one implies different distribution and participation
patterns. Here the power relations and interests behind the emergence or maintenance of one pathway in particular receive explicit attention (Leach et al. 2010).
Finally, political economy approaches are making their way into the transformation research community. Traditionally they do not have a strong track record in
ecological literacy or the relational innovations that technology breakthroughs
might engender. The sub-camps that engage with transition research mostly consist
18
2 What Political Economy Adds to Transformation Research
they are simply one way of approaching issues discussed within the community
itself. Transition scholars should not be upset to come across categories that they
reject but are instead invited to read what follows in the spirit of cultivating
awareness about framing effects that emerge when we (including myself) choose
the lenses and terms with which we decipher the world.
The first camp of transition research tends to contain social scientists with an
evolutionary economics or innovation management background. They are primarily
interested in understanding how technological advances change the way communities and societies organize themselves and which potentials for sustainable
development emerge from that. Their main unit of observation is the STS. The
second camp is deeply rooted in natural and earth systems sciences and argues that
new knowledge of Planetary Boundaries and ecosystem services needs to be the
reference frame for the identification of solutions to sustainable development. Their
main unit of observation is the SES. Political economists who engage with the
systems frameworks highlight the need to understand unsustainable structural drivers embedded in current economic processes and the effects of increasing marketization and commodification on systemic governance proposals. They would
apply these to both the socio-technical and socio-ecological relations and thus I
grouped them into socio-ecological-technical systems (SETS).
In line with these different views, the descriptions of transition processes also
vary. Scholars with an evolutionary economics, innovation and management
background tend to speak of repeated learning cycles in which the results of pilot
projects and niche innovations are monitored for their effect and the most convincing ones, i.e., the most resource-efficient, become part of a transformed system.
More recently, aspects of interest and power have been taken into consideration, but
agency remains a less important variable, as the following characterization of “main
features of system innovations” shows: “(1) disrupting or complementary types of
knowledge and technical capabilities; (2) fundamental changes in consumer practices and markets; and (3) novel types of infrastructures, institutional rules and skill
sets” (OECD 2015: 6).
Scholars with a natural science background will tend to search for dynamics,
feedback loops and tipping points in the reproduction circuits of ecosystems and
develop extraction or pollution targets and principles to help societies stay within
safe operating spaces. Often less attention is paid to the question of how the governing frameworks and economic processes needed to stay within the boundaries can
be implemented. One important contribution toward this has been the concept of
‘pathways’ to show that there are multiple possible solutions to governing a safe
operating space and that each one implies different distribution and participation
patterns. Here the power relations and interests behind the emergence or maintenance of one pathway in particular receive explicit attention (Leach et al. 2010).
Finally, political economy approaches are making their way into the transformation research community. Traditionally they do not have a strong track record in
ecological literacy or the relational innovations that technology breakthroughs
might engender. The sub-camps that engage with transition research mostly consist
18
2 What Political Economy Adds to Transformation Research