3.1 Insights on directionality

To provide directionality for system innovations, transition studies primarily proposes the following interventions: transition platforms, transition roadmaps, policy strategies, demand-pull instruments, and standards.

First, transition platforms are consultation arenas in which actors are brought together to develop common visions for transformations, with one of the intended outcomes being their acceleration. Such platforms are typically organized around specific topics. For instance, in the Dutch energy and mobility transitions, platforms were set up on topics such as interoperability, safety, and electromobility. Experts were invited to offer their insights on specific topical areas. For example, IT companies supplied expertise on interoperability whereas insurance companies provided insights on liability [SPP4, EIST37]. However, such platforms run the risk of excluding relevant stakeholders [TFSC6] and being coopted by vested interests [PS1], which raises issues around accountability [SPP3].

Second, transition roadmaps are generally the outcomes of transition platforms. Roadmaps are tools that couple expected changes for system innovation with certain technologies, milestones, and timeframes. For instance, roadmapping the electrification of the mobility system calls for selecting technologies, standards, and goals, such as a percentage of sales of electric vehicles by a given date [TFSC1]. Such roadmaps outline the expertise, visions, needs and industrial capacities of invited stakeholders of a given innovation system [EIST10, EIST19]. For example, Dutch roadmaps have placed major attention to IT developments because the IT sector is a strong domestic industry in the Netherlands [SPP4]. While developing roadmaps, policy actors face the risk of choosing underperforming technologies or those based on vested interests, and thus defining inadequate pathways and devoting resources to less urgent problems [EIST6].

Third, the design and pursuit of such socio-technical transition roadmaps should be aligned with and supported by overarching as well as context-specific policy strategies that provide direction. They can be seen as blueprints or ’master plans’ for a transformation’s expected goals and pathways. For instance, the UK’s ‘Zero Carbon Homes’ strategy provided guidance for the UK’s housing transformation [EIST39], and the Transition Management Project provided direction for the Dutch energy transition [PS1]. Such strategies are generally accompanied by task forces that facilitate increased operational capacities [SPP4, EIST39]. On their own, however, such strategies are insufficient to substantially accelerate transformative change, as they require the design and adoption of suitable instruments to achieve agreed upon targets. That is, they can fail due to a range of feedback effects arising from policy implementation difficulties and contestations, as well as unexpected exogenous conditions, such as financial crises [EIST39].

Fourth, a key type of instrument which can support the achievement of policy objectives and targets laid out in policy strategies demand-pull instruments can tilt the direction of a system innovation towards desired outcomes. This has occurred, for instance, when public authorities require electric vehicles in tenders for public transport [SPP1, SPP4, TFSC11] and in vehicle automation [SPP4, TFSC2]. Tilting demand generates incentives for actors to align their business models in certain directions. Actors may not be capable of achieving such alignment (for example due to technical reasons or knowledge), which could negatively affect industrial capabilities [EIST1].

Finally, standardization can also provide direction. Standards accelerate market developments by defining a common set of rules and procedures. Standards can be voluntarily agreed between market parties, but they can also be the result of public action. The adoption of electric vehicles has been stimulated by standardized charging points [TFSC3, TFSC4]. Furthermore, European standards have been developed around autonomous vehicles to favor their fast diffusion. The history of technology has shown the central role of technological standards in fields such as electricity markets, digitalization, and mobile communications [RP3].

In light of this evidence, providing directionality to transitions seems to demand strong state-led support. This can be a demanding task for policymakers. Directions must be clearly defined yet also be open to discussion and debate. Also, given inherent uncertainties of transitions, they must remain amendable to change. Studies call for a facilitating role of public actors to define visions and roadmaps necessary for achieving transformations [SPP3, SPP4]. Finally, major shocks, such as nuclear accidents, can facilitate transitions [RP1].

In providing directionality, policy actors need to deal with constant tensions between normative transformation goals and traditional policy goals such as economic growth. Thus, a transition may be ‘de-routed’ in favor of market-based solutions incompatible with societal needs. Additionally, selecting directions may lead to early lock-in and path-dependence [TFSC4]. This may have negative effects in the long term, e.g. when selected innovations outperform non-selected ones in the long run. Important questions of relevance for policy studies include how and by whom visions underlying transformations are crafted, influenced, and contested. Here we see a potential connection with policy studies frameworks, such as on procedural instruments, policy formulation, and coalition politics. Theories from policy studies can also enrich our understanding of how and by what means political actors attempt to define directions. For instance, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF, Sabatier and Weible, 2019) has been used to explore how networks of actors’ shape policy developments in areas such as energy [EIST33], and the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF, Zahariadis, 2019) has been utilized to explore how institutional entrepreneurs shape policy directions [TFSC9].

3.2 Insights on novelty creation

To support novelty creation we identify transition experiments, financial support, and transition intermediaries as particularly well studied transformational policy interventions.

First, transition experiments are initiatives to explore new ways in which societal functions can be fulfilled. Examples of these experiments include energy communities [ERSS2] or low carbon mobility projects [RP9]. While experiments have generally local scales (such as neighborhoods), they are carried out with the expectation, if successful, to be replicated and/or diffused at a larger scale. Experiments are generally carried out in portfolios rather than in isolation [RP4]. This occurs because the outcomes of innovation processes, by definition, are uncertain. Successful experiments can be used as footprints for replication, adopted by incumbent players, or converted into spin-offs [EIST29]. In contrast, failures offer opportunities for learning. Institutional barriers and social contexts are major barriers for replicating experiments [EIST8]. Actors commonly opt for experiments with short-term returns, although results may take a long time [PS1, SPP5]. This is disadvantageous as societal challenges require both short-term as well as long-term improvements [SPP5].
Second, financial support offering economic incentives are major drivers of novelty creation but are not always present. Financial support allows public authorities to incentivize novelty creation through rewards. Transition studies literature distinguishes between entrepreneurial actors who generally require financial support to kick-start their own ideas, and those joining at later stages, seeking tangible economic benefits [EIST3, EIST18]. Financial incentives are important because returns on investment may occur only in the long-term [RP7], such as in carbon-capture technologies [EIST29]. For public authorities, two main challenges associated with financial incentives include budget constraints and limited experience on how to assess experiments’ performance [EIST3].

Finally, novelty creation is fostered by transition intermediaries, and thus policy support for such intermediaries is another policy intervention. Intermediaries’ activities include connecting actors (e.g. producers, users, entrepreneurs, and funding bodies), mobilizing skills, knowledge, and resources, and supporting specific technologies or goals (Kivimaa et al, 2020). In addition, intermediaries’ activities are also intended to have policy and political effects beyond novelty creation (see Kivimaa et al., 2019b). Empirical research suggests that intermediaries’ activities enable knowledge exchange [RP5]. This occurs, for example, through the aggregation of learnings from different initiatives [EIST32]. They are relevant for novelty creation because actors may otherwise be unaware of initiatives with similar goals and because the actor network from whom support and knowledge could be drawn is not necessarily visible [EIST16]. The role of such intermediary actors is not to create initiatives but rather to facilitate cooperation amongst existing stakeholders [EIST8]. Cooperation can be facilitated if intermediaries focus their support for projects on knowledge diffusion activities, such as networking [SPP6]. A main difficulty for these organizations, however, is the lack of long-term financial support and shifting policy priorities [EIST8]. Lack of user involvement tends to have a significant negative impact on their effectiveness [EIST28]. Transition intermediaries also generate important visibility and awareness for a transformation [EIST3], which can motivate new actors to join promising developments [EIST16, EIST6].

Policy interventions for novelty creation also face several difficulties. They have limited effects if beneficiaries lack skills or (human) capital to benefit from them [EIST15]. Experiments can be difficult to replicate in the presence of policy failures, particularly if they come with high political costs to policymakers [EIST22]. Another difficulty is that new policy interventions may be hindered by existing arrangements, as actors sometimes have limited ‘room for action’ due to regulations [EIST2, EIST3]. Furthermore, simplicity is a key factor of success. If requirements for policy interventions are too complicated, actors may opt to drop out or never engage [EIST25]. Actors may also refuse to participate in projects if they demand too radical changes in their organizations [EIST9], if benefits are unclear [EIST3], or if returns are limited [EIST4]. The absence of formal evaluations and assessments seems to limit the capacity for learning and diffusion [EIST8].

A key question raised within transition studies concerns the role of incumbent actors in novelty creation. For instance, in the case of low-carbon mobility, what should be the role of the automotive industry? While there is no clear-cut answer to this question, research has shown mixed effects, in which incumbents may both accelerate or undermine the speed and direction of transitions [EIST19, SPP4].

3.3 Insights on destabilizing the status quo

For facilitating the destabilization of the status quo, the transitions literature suggests a variety of transformational policy interventions (Kivimaa and Kern, 2016). More specifically, regulation, financial instruments, transition intermediaries, changing framework conditions, and generation of complementarities play important roles.

First, regulation can accelerate transitions by destabilizing the status quo. Regulations – or their amendment – create new or changed ‘rules of the game’ to which actors need to adapt (Unruh 2000). Such regulations can put pressure on the system, for example, with legal mandates, such as requiring the housing sector to adopt new technologies in the construction process [EIST7]. Such provisions can be negotiated with incumbent players to improve their buy-in, although this also increases the risk of less stringent regulations. As demonstrated by the German nuclear phase-out, regulations providing a phase-out trajectory for societally undesirable technologies can increase the credibility of policy mixes and thereby be highly influential for creating a market space for innovations and their diffusion, such as renewables [ERSS1].

Regulations alone, however, tend to be insufficient for destabilizing existing systems. Transition studies therefore also calls for changes in the incentives faced by investors, including incumbent actors, through financial instruments. For example, policy actors can accelerate the phasing out of an existing technology or practice by cutting back preferential loans or tax credits given to producers or consumers [EIST1, RP5, EIST27]. Such instruments induce market parties to shift their existing practices, product portfolios, and business models [EP1].

Third, transition intermediaries do not only facilitate novelty creation, but also help destabilizing the status quo [EIST37], and as such are considered as potential policy intervention. Intermediaries activities facilitate interaction between incumbent and emergent actors to support innovative processes [EIST14]. They are also used to create advocacy coalitions for change [RP5]. They can work better when radical views are incorporated into decision-making mechanisms, such as innovation councils [EP2]. Such policy intermediaries address both new entrants to generate radical innovations with transformative potential, and incumbents [EIST14], as without gaining incumbent support these innovations are more likely to fail due to system incompatibility [EIST13]. An example for this is the integration of new mobility solutions into well-established systems, such as public transportation.
Fourth, destabilizing the status quo can also be achieved through changing framework conditions defining how socio-technical systems operate. In recent years, strong attention has been given to environmental concerns, thereby replacing previous approaches that prioritized modernization and industrialization. Such shifts affect how systems operate and change. For instance, the promotion of a European green agenda has forced emission reductions in industry. Such changes have effects on transitions that are similar to external shocks, like the 1970s oil crisis. Changing conditions can also be achieved by new institutional arrangements, such as the responsibility of ministries area modified. For instance, this occurred when the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Agriculture took on new functions of environment and food policy [RP2] or when the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure took over environmental functions [SPP4].

Finally, systems can be gradually changed through the generation of complementarities between existing systems and novelty. This can be seen in ‘last mile’ mobility options, such as public bicycle schemes near public transport. They do not represent a direct confrontation with existing mobility systems, but rather allow coexistence of old and new features. Such complementarities can be in terms of infrastructure [EIST6], capital [EIST20], or user practices [EIST18]. Complementarities can be seen as ‘windows of opportunities’ for existing industries. For instance, many Dutch high-tech companies supported mobility changes because they observed a window of opportunity for new markets [SPP4]. The transition speed seems to be associated with such perceived benefits [EIST36]. Incumbents’ acceptance increases when tangible benefits are present [EIST30, SPP5], whereas transformations are less likely to occur if changes are too radical for users, producers, and consumers [EIST6, EIST28].

Policy interventions aimed at destabilizing regimes face several challenges. For example, political tensions arise when societal and economic goals are incompatible [EIST15]. This may result in contradictory objectives and thus inconsistent policy mixes aimed at, for example, ensuring competitiveness of existing fossil-fuel based industries while expanding the share of renewables. Intentional regime destabilization can come to a halt due to sudden political changes [EIST12], unsuccessful experiments [EIST22], and lack of positive feedbacks for system change [RP8].

To date, there are several pressing questions to be answered by transition studies scholars that would benefit from a collaboration with policy studies–. First, how, when, and why are destabilization policies politically feasible in democratic political systems, especially when elected officials must fear backlash against too radical policy change? Second, how can regime destabilization policies complement approaches that favor the emergence of a new socio-technical regime? Public acceptance of a regime change likely depends on the widespread expectation that new regimes are beneficial to society (Lennon et al, 2019).

3.4 Insights on coordination

Transition studies suggest both formal mechanisms and informal networks are relevant for accelerating sustainability transitions.
First, formal mechanisms include innovation platforms. They can support transitions, particularly by enabling networks of actors, activities, and portfolios of projects. Most such organizations are (to various degrees) public. For instance, in the Dutch energy and mobility transitions, organizations were set up by public actors to bring private actors and their expertise together and arrange coherent interventions. Within such organizations, actors are expected to participate in their own capacity and not represent their organization’s interests [PS1, SPP4]. They are used for negotiating and finding common interests among actors [EIST11]. Such organizations can, however, be coopted by incumbent players, as shown in the Dutch [PS1, SPP4] and Norwegian cases [EIST15].

Second, coordination can also occur through informal networks, like interdepartmental communication among public actors. Informal mechanisms are widely present in historic transition case studies, particularly because innovations at early stages tend to have no formal institutional arrangements (Kemp et al, 1998). At early stages of a transition, actors have limited capacities for institutionalized channels of coordination, which explains why informal exchanges are more likely to occur. Coordination is particularly beneficial for innovation processes when it facilitates communication and knowledge sharing [SPP3, SPP5]. Yet, unless such informal collaboration becomes institutionalized, like through the establishment of an organization [EIST28, EIST31], it only has a marginal effect on a transition’s speed.

Both formal and informal coordination mechanisms facilitate dialogues between actors from different sectors or governance levels. They allow collaboration at interfaces that otherwise would not be connected, such as between users and producers, science and policy, or different economic sectors. They are also relevant for transitions that span multiple sectors. For instance, facilitating transitions towards carbon-free mobility calls for changes in infrastructure, which generally falls under the regulatory responsibility of various jurisdictions. This can be seen in vehicle electrification: regulating energy and transport under two different departments is the norm rather than the exception, thus demanding cross-ministerial dialogue.

Like all other policy interventions, policies directed at coordination face multiple difficulties. Here we focus on difficulties encountered by platform organizations (both informing and organizing transitions). Such organizations often rely on limited and temporary funding and tend to be bound to governmental terms [EIST28]. They are thus likely to eventually dissolve. Platform organizations are also likely to fail when they cannot generate shared expectations around a transition [TFSC38]. Additionally, multi-level governance settings (as those present in the EU) generate challenges in coordination. Incentives between different levels of government may be misaligned, as the experience of renewables at a national level in Europe shows [RP2]. Overall, since transitions increasingly span multiple domains, policy interventions supporting the coordination of multi-system transitions will become more important. Policy studies scholars can contribute to this area by offering approaches such as ‘policy regimes’ (Jochim and May 2010).

4. Conclusion

In this chapter, we introduced four theory areas of relevance for interventions for sustainability transitions – directionality, novelty creation, destabilization, and coordination – and synthesized empirical evidence from transition studies. The empirics allowed us to take stock of how and under what conditions interventions work. In addition, by linking the theoretical and empirical transitions literature with insights from the policy studies literature, we demonstrated ample complementarity that supports earlier calls for a stronger interdisciplinary exchange between the two fields (Kern and Rogge 2018, Kern et al. 2019).

We posit that there are several ways in which transition studies can leverage policy studies. Particularly, transition studies has not yet sufficiently engaged in discussions concerning the policy processes occurring as part of transitions. For this, policy studies offers an established canon of scholarship on how to open the black box of policymaking (Kern and Rogge 2018). This includes concepts on how to define, operationalize, and measure policy change, as well as frameworks and theories on how to explain this change over time. Since policy change is key for accelerating transitions, transition scholars are advised to better leverage these concepts, frameworks, and theories from policy studies. In addition, policy studies can help transition scholars more thoroughly analyze the politics of transitions. While there has been a political turn in transition studies, many transition frameworks continue to either downplay or overlook the role of politics. Policy studies can help address this omission by bringing upfront the contested and messy nature of political decision-making.

We recognize that there will be challenges in bridging both fields. Confusion and tension might arise, for instance, from different conceptualizations around how to capture and explain change. While policy studies has tended to employ variable-based approaches, whereby change is assessed vis-à-vis the effects of explanatory factors on dependent variables, transition studies often emphasizes complex causality, co-evolutionary processes, and the endogeneity of dependent and independent variables. Moreover, we predict that the normativity of transition studies could strike policy studies scholars as problematic. Many transition studies scholars tend to take a normative stand on how societal transformations ought to occur, which could be a point of controversy for policy scholars. We posit that if these and related challenges can be addressed constructively, the potential for interdisciplinary fertilization is significant.
In closing, we reiterate the urgent need to make policies and policy mixes more transformational, and to this end argue for stronger interdisciplinary dialogue between transition and policy studies. Ultimately, we hope this chapter will spark an increased interest in future research that bridges both fields and thereby provides sharper insights into how to deliberately accelerate sustainability transitions.