Understanding barriers to transitions in the MultiLevel Perspective

Understanding barriers to transitions in the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) Prof. Frank Geels University of Manchester (MBS) Presentation for KAPSARC workshop 13 -14 May 2014

Multi-level perspective (MLP) on socio-technical transitions (Geels, 2002): Socio-technical regimes form barriers for radical niche-innovations

Four ways to ‘overcome barriers’ 1) ‘Head-on’ fights/struggles against regime ‘Overthrow’ by increasing internal niche-momentum Economic dynamics: a) Learning by doing b) Increasing returns to adoption (scale, network externalities) c) Strategic games between firms and innovation races (‘jockeying for position’) Socio-cognitive dynamics: a) Expansion of social networks and bandwagon effects b) Positive discourses and visions create cultural enthusiasm and socio-political legitimacy Power and politics: a) Increasing political support and adjustments in regulations, investment in infrastructure, subsidies b) New innovations gain political salience (jobs, exports, growth), which enable struggles against vested interests (standard-battles, political struggles)

2) Using ‘windows of opportunity’ (clever fight) Niche-innovations attack regimes where they are weak (‘cracks in regime’), e. g. persistent problems or externalities, political frictions, unsatisfied demand, negative cultural discourse. Prevent direct economic fight, but try to gain momentum on other dimensions, e. g. political, socio-cultural. Provide ‘other’ economic and strategic reasons for transitions, e. g. • build up local supply chains/jobs (UK offshore wind, Saudi solar) • reduce import dependency • geo-political arguments, e. g. energy security (US shale gas, UK offshore wind).

3) Circumvent existing regimes (rather than compete directly) a) Open up new markets (e. g. around new functionalities), and only later on compete in mainstream markets. Example: mobile phones, early cars, steamships b) Piggybacking on growing markets Common (historical) pattern; see examples below.

From sailing ships to steamships (UK): (1820 -1900)

From horses to automobiles in US (1890 -1930), as part of shift towards more mobile societies

From steam engines to electric motors in US manufacturing (1880 -1930) (combined with shift towards mass production)

4) New combinations between ‘new’ and ‘old’ * Substitution is not the only transition pathway * Gradual reconfiguration is another option

Specific example of technical add-on and hybridization Comet (1812) Great Britain (1843) Rising Star (1822) Great Eastern (1858)

Other add-on + hybridisation examples • Hybrid electric vehicles • Biofuel cars • Co-combustion of coal and biomass • CHP (cogeneration of heat and power) • Smart grids (adding ICT to grid)

Concluding comments • MLP offers a nuanced multi-dimensional framework to understand transitions • There are more transition pathways than head-on economic competition (substitution) • Need to analyse interactions between technology, markets, politics, culture, infrastructure • [price/performance is important, but not the only consideration]