Abstract
This chapter provides an overview of proven analytical tools, among others, the multilevel perspective, strategic action fields, and modes of institutional change, for a better understanding of the dynamics that lead to change or stability of socio-technical regimes. From a theoretical point of view, a critical issue is the role of actors in such transitions. In the face of institutions – formal and informal rules that sometimes may define future trajectories completely, like a railway – it is not easy for large companies, governments, or any other large organization to facilitate or even implement fundamental change. In other cases, the path is more like a motorway, which can be exited easily after a few miles. With this ambiguous character of socio-technical transitions in mind, the chapter will present crucial reasons that explain stability or change. Moreover, the analytical tools mentioned above will be applied to either historical or contemporary energy regime transitions. However, the discussion section will show that these tools – which promise consistent and reliable explanations of the empirical world – sometimes fail in practice. The categories are often conceptualized too broadly to make fruitful statements. In other cases, they just do not fit certain real-world contexts. Therefore, the chapter argues for a sensible use of the different approaches.
References
Andrews-Speed, P. (2016). Applying institutional theory to the low-carbon energy transition. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.011.
Araújo, K. (2014). The emerging field of energy transitions: Progress, challenges, and opportunities. Energy Research & Social Science, 1, 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.03.002.
Bakke, G. (2016). The grid: The fraying wires between Americans and our energy future. New York/London/Oxford/New Delhi/Sydney: Bloomsbury.
Berlo, K., & Wagner, O. (2015). Strukturkonservierende Regime-Elemente der Stromwirtschaft als Hemmnis einer kommunal getragenen Energiewende. Eine Akteursanalyse aus der Multi-Level-Perspektive der Transitionsforschung. Momentum quarterly. Zeitschrift für Sozialen Fortschritt., 4(4), 233–253.
Beyer, J. (2005). Pfadabhängigkeit ist nicht gleich Pfadabhängigkeit! Wider den impliziten Konservatismus eines gängigen Konzepts. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 34(1), 5–21.
Byzio, A., Heine, H., Mautz, R., & Rosenbaum, W. (2002). Zwischen Solidarhandeln und Marktorientierung. Ökologische Innovationen in selbstorganisierten Projekten – autofreies Wohnen, Car-Sharing und Windenergienutzung. Göttingen: Soziologisches Forschungsinstitut.
David, M. (2017). Moving beyond the heuristic of creative destruction: Targeting exnovation with policy mixes for energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 33, 138–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.09.023.
Dolata, U. (2013). The transformative capacity of new technologies. A theory of sociotechnical change. London/New York: Routledge.
DONG. (2017). DONG energy to stop all coal use by 2023. Press release, 07-02-2017. https://stateofgreen.com/en/partners/Ørsted/news/dong-energy-to-stop-all-use-of-coal-by-2023/. Accessed: July 26, 2018.
Edenhofer, O., Steckel, J. C., Jakob, M., & Bertram, C. (2018). Reports of coal’s terminal decline may be exaggerated. Environmental Research Letters, 13, 024019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa3a2.
Engels, A. (2016). Anthropogenic climate change: How to understand the weak links between scientific evidence, public perception, and low-carbon practices. Energy and Emission Control Technologies, 4, 17–26. https://doi.org/10.2147/EECT.S63005.
Fligstein, N., & McAdam, D. (2011). Towards a general theory of strategic action fields. Sociological Theory, 3, 1–26.
Fouquet, R. (2016). Historical energy transitions: Speed, prices and system transformation. Energy Research & Social Science, 22, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.014.
Fuchs, G. (2012). Zur Governance von technologischen Innovationen im Energiesektor. In S. Bröchler, G. Aichholzer, & P. Scehaper-Rinkel (Eds.), Theorie und Praxis von technology governance (ITA-12-02_Sondernummer, pp. 65–78).
Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2001). Path creation as a process of mindful deviation. In R. Garud & P. Karnøe (Eds.), Path dependence and creation (pp. 1–38). Mahwah: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39, 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022.
Geels, F. W., & Kemp, R. (2012). The multi-level perspective as a new perspective for studying socio-technical transitions. In F. W. Geels, R. Kemp, G. Dudley, & G. Lyons (Eds.), Automobility in transition? A socio-technical analysis of sustainable transport (pp. 49–79). New York (et al.): Routledge.
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36, 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.
Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Fuchs, G., Hinderer, N., Kungl, G., Mylan, J., Neukirch, M., & Wassermann, S. (2016). The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: A reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Research Policy, 45(4), 896–913. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.015.
Grubler, A. (2012). Grand designs: Historical patterns and future scenarios of energy technological change. Historical case studies of energy technology innovation. In A. Grubler, F. Aguayo, K. S. Gallagher, M. Hekkert, K. Jiang, L. Mytelka, L. Neij, G. Nemet, & C. Wilson (Eds.), The Global Energy Assessment (chapter 24). Cambridge: University Press.
Haas, T., & Sander, H. (2016). Shortcomings and perspectives of the German Energiewende. Socialism and Democracy, 30(2), 121–143.
Hadjilambrinos, C. (2000). Understanding technology choice in electricity industries: A comparative study of France and Denmark. Energy Policy, 28, 1111–1126.
Hellige, H. D. (2012). Transformationen und Transformationsblockaden im deutschen Energiesystem. Eine strukturgenetische Betrachtung der aktuellen Energiewende. artec-paper 185.
Hennicke, P., & Müller, M. (2005). Weltmacht Energie. Herausforderung für Demokratie und Wohlstand. Stuttgart: Hirzel.
Hennicke, P., Johnson, J. P., & Kohler, S. (1985). Die Energiewende ist möglich. Frankfurt/Main: S. Fischer.
Hermwille, L. (2016). The role of narratives in socio-technical transitions—Fukushima and the energy regimes of Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Energy Research & Social Science, 11, 237–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.11.001.
Hughes, T. P. (1983). Networks of power: electrification in western society, 1880–1930. Baltimore (et al.): John Hopkins University Press.
International Energy Agency. (2008). Combined heat and power. Evaluating the benefits of greater global investment. https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/chp_report.pdf. Accessed July 26, 2018.
Kern, F., Verhees, B., Raven, R., & Smith, A. (2016). Empowering sustainable niches: Comparing UK and Dutch offshore. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 100, 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.08.004.
Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2015). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45, 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008.
Kuzemko, C., Lockwood, M., Mitchell, C., & Hoggett, R. (2015). Governing for sustainable energy system change: Politics, contexts and contingency. Energy Research & Social Science, 12, 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.022.
Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). A gradual theory of institutional change. In J. Mahoney & K. Thelen (Eds.), Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mautz, R., Byzio, A., & Rosenbaum, W. (2008). Auf dem Weg zur Energiewende: Die Entwicklung der Stromproduktion aus erneuerbaren Energien in Deutschland. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.
Meadowcroft, J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences, 42, 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9097-z.
Müller-Jung, J. (2016). Brasilien holzt den Regenwald massiv ab. Faz.net, 30 November 2016. http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wissen/erde-klima/brasilien-holzt-seinen-amazonas-regenwald-massiv-ab-14553093.html.Accessed July 18, 2018.
Neukirch, M. (2010). Die internationale Pionierphase der Windenergienutzung. Dissertation. Göttingen: University of Göttingen.
Neukirch, M. (2018). Die Energiewende in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1974–2017) – Reform, Revolution, oder Restauration? Makroperspektive auf einen Dauerkonflikt. sozialpolitik.ch., 1/2018, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.18753/2297-8224-102.
Oelker, J. (2005). Windgesichter: Aufbruch der Windenergie in Deutschland. Dresden: Sonnenbuch Verlag.
Parag, Y., & Janda, K. B. (2014). More than filler: Middle actors and socio-technical change in the energy system from the “middle-out”. Energy Research & Social Science, 3, 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.07.011.
Pbl. (2017). Trends in global CO2 and total greenhouse gas emissions: Summary of the 2017 report, 28-09-2017. http://www.pbl.nl/node/64128. Accessed July 16, 2018.
Reichardt, K., Rogge, K. S., & Negro, S. (2015). Unpacking the policy processes for addressing systemic problems: The case of the technological innovation system of offshore wind in Germany. Working Paper Sustainability and Innovation, S2/2015, Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe.
Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choice and climate change (Vol. 2, pp. 327–399). Columbus: Battelle Press.
Rohracher, H. (2007). Die Wechselwirkung technischen und institutionellen Wandels in der Transformation von Energiesystemen. In U. Dolata & R. Werle (Eds.), Gesellschaft und die Macht der Technik. Sozioökonomischer Wandel durch Technisierung. Frankfurt/Main: Campus Verlag GmbH.
Smil, V. (2010). Energy myths and realities: Bringing science to the energy policy debate. Washington, DC: Rowman and Littlefield.
Smith, A., Voss, J. P., & Grin, J. (2010). Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Research Policy, 41(6), 955–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023.
Smith, A., Kern, F., Raven, R., & Verhees, B. (2014). Spaces for sustainable innovation: Solar photovoltaic electricity in the UK. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 81, 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.02.001.
Sovacool, B. K. (2016). How long will it take? Conceptualizing the temporal dynamics of energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 13, 202–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.020.
State of Green. (2017). Denmark to be coal free by 2030. Press declaration, 16 November 2017. https://stateofgreen.com/en/partners/state-of-green/news/denmark-to-be-coal-free-by-2030/. Accessed July 26, 2018.
Statista. (2018). Produktion von Fleisch weltweit in den Jahren 1961 bis 2018 (in Millionen Tonnen Schlachtgewicht). https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/28782/umfrage/die-globale-fleischerzeugung-seit-1990/. Accessed July 18, 2018.
Stegmaier, P., Kuhlmann, S., & Visser, V. R. (2014). The discontinuation of socio-technical systems as a governance problem. In S. Borras & J. Edler (Eds.), The governance of socio-technical systems (Eu-SPRI forum on science, technology and innovation policy series) (pp. 111–128). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784710194.
Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Introduction: Institutional change in advanced political economies. In W. Streeck & K. Thelen (Eds.), Beyond continuity. Intitutional change in advanced political economies (pp. 1–39). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Strunz, S. (2014). The German energy transition as a regime shift. Ecological Economics, 100(April 2014), 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.01.019.
Unruh, G. C. (2000). Understanding carbon lock-in. Energy Policy, 28, 817–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00070-7.
Van der Vleuten, E. (1999). Constructing centralized electricity supply in Denmark and the Netherlands: An actor group perspective. Centaurus, 41, 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0498.1999.tb00273.x.
Van der Vleuten, E., & Raven, R. (2006). Lock-in and change: Distributed generation in Denmark in a long-term perspective. Energy Policy, 34(18), 3739–3748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.08.016.
Weiland, S. (2007). Politik der Ideen. Nachhaltige Entwicklung in Deutschland, Großbritannien und den USA. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Wille, J. (2016). Warnung vor Investitions-Blase. Ende des Kohle-Booms in Sicht. Neue Energie, 6 April 2016. https://www.neueenergie.net/wirtschaft/markt/ende-des-kohle-booms-ist-in-sicht. Accessed July 17, 2018.
Wind Europe. (2018). Wind in power 2017. Annual combined onshore and offshore wind energy statistics. https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/about-wind/statistics/WindEurope-Annual-Statistics-2017.pdf. Accessed: November 14, 2018.
Acknowledgment
The author thanks the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research for financial support. This text was written within the frame of the ENavi project, which pursues a comprehensive inter- and transdisciplinary analysis of the German energy transition. The author is very grateful for many helpful and constructive comments by Angela Pohlmann (University of Hamburg) and coeditor Jörg Kemmerzell (TU Darmstadt). Moreover, he thanks Eduardo X. Fargas, who did the language check.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry
Neukirch, M. (2019). Transition of Energy Systems: Patterns of Stability and Change. In: Knodt, M., Kemmerzell, J. (eds) Handbook of Energy Governance in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73526-9_40-1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-73526-9_40-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-73526-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-73526-9
eBook Packages: Springer Reference Political Science and International StudiesReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences