Abstract
Market rules, changes in regulations for users and producers, technological innovation and economic development are important factors shaping energy transitions. Therefore, explaining energy transitions requires a multidisciplinary insight to investigate these factors. The study of energy transitions faces an analytical and methodological challenge, particularly in communicating trends shaping the energy systems in developing economies. The existing literature is not consistent in identifying these disciplines nor proposing how they can be combined. In this sense, this paper proposes a new and simple methodological path to assess variables and theories. It conceptualizes energy transitions as a co-evolution of two types of systems: system innovation with its roots in evolutionary, institutional economics, science and technology studies (STS); and energy systems with its roots in neoclassical and evolutionary economics. From how to conduct a systematic literature review, to how best integrate theories and the analytical framework in which key questions can be answered, the paper elevates the role of political science, as policies play a prominent role in shaping energy transitions. This paper responds to those who have pointed out that the political economy of energy transitions is a vastly understudied area.
1 Introduction
Existing approaches to energy transitions agree that a single explanatory theory is not feasible due to its complexity. Instead, academics suggest that energy transitions should be studied together with several theories from political science, economics, history, technology, innovation, among other disciplines. The several types of disciplines required for explaining energy transitions represent a complicated task when combined, resulting in overlapping concepts among disciplines. Thus, for defining energy transitions, several concepts and dimensions are brought by scholars, such as: sustainable transitions, low carbon transitions, or gender just energy transitions. Clearly, energy transitions are not necessarily explained by the same theory. Researchers must consider the new macro phenomena, long-run scenarios while bearing in mind the locally based issues that constantly emerge. Transformations must include an increase in the share of renewable and clean energy sources, the substitution of fossil fuels, and take both the production and demand sides into consideration. These propositions lead to three main outcomes; first, there are multiple methodological paths and possible theories to study energy transitions; second, completed transitions are more exact to study due to their nature but are weak in terms of being able to inform current events; and finally, changes towards decarbonized energy create new challenges jeopardizing traditional research models. Overall, this paper understands energy transition as a complex shoft of the energy sector to a low-carbon model. The main focus of this paper is to advance the understanding on energy transitions by proposing a new and simple methodological path to assess and understand variables and theories behind energy transitions.
The paper considers a set of boundaries, inclusion and exclusion criteria on energy transitions limited to social science, i.e. energy transitions influenced by people, the economy, population growth, etc. These are external factors shaping the energy transition and not at a central driving force. Additionally, through an initial trawl of the literature, the working definition follows Grübler et al.'s (2016) understanding of energy transitions as the agglomeration of social changes and trends that encompass techno-economic and environmental features related to the change in the structure of an energy system, as opposed to a change in individual energy technology or fuel source, and in contrast to other gradual and small changes which consider drivers by policies or technological improvements towards environmental energy transitions.
2 Literature review
Gerald Leach (1992) conducted a complete analysis of the concept and process of the energy transition, focusing on the substitution of traditional fuels in developing countries. More recent studies have discussed policy implications for energy transitions suggesting that it involves a complex interaction of several factors such as industry, the electricity sector and industry associations (Markad 2018). However, they fail to specify all the areas in which the intersection of the concept is found. Because of its complexity, a thorough synthesis of information from three social scientific domains were identified. To do so, a systematic literature review (SLR) was conducted in three stages.1 In the first stage a search of the literature was carried out through SCOPUS between November and December 2018. SCOPUS is an abstract and citation database launched in 2004. It covers the fields of science, technology, medicine, social sciences, arts and humanities. One of the reasons that SCOPUS was chosen rather than other databases for this paper is because it has various formats of quality and high ranked literature such as books, book series, peer reviewed journals, trade journals, conference papers and other formats. Also, it has a far reach and a multidisciplinary index database that is integrated into ScienceDirect, Engineering Village and other Elsevier sources. In searching for relevant literature, the entry query to conceptualise energy transitions was “energy system(s)” combined with search terms such as “innovation(s)”, “sustainability” and “transition(s)”. The majority of publications use existing theories for exploring case studies, fewer propose new theories. The search was focused on peer-reviewed academic journals, the following set of inclusion and exclusion criteria was applied: (1) the outputs should be limited to social science; (2) the studies should be from high ranking peer reviewed journals; (3) they should be in English; (4) publications should be between 2008 and 2018. Papers based on geographical coverage were not excluded. Additionally, at this time an active alert was set monthly for new literature to come, covering the full research time frame. Once key literature started emerging, the “snowball” search method was a useful way of finding literature by taking key documents as a starting point.
As a result, the following three main topic areas emerged as relevant for the new approach to the concept of energy transitions: system innovation, sustainability transitions and energy systems (Table 1). The findings include a comprehensive account of the three main characteristics of energy transitions. Technical innovation and approaches of energy decarbonization where policies related to global factors, political actions, energy technologies in sociotechnical systems and energy flows and markets are at the center of the concept. Key peer-reviewed English publications hosting academic debates on energy transitions were identified: Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Energy Policy, Research Policy, Global Environmental Change, Energy & Social Science and Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. The theoretical literature was studied to identify the main authors by study area, the field of theory, and examples of models and applications (see Table 2).
Systematic literature review – articles per year
| System innovation | Sustainability transitions | Energy system* | |
| 2008 | 20 | 5 | 228 |
| 2009 | 29 | 6 | 247 |
| 2010 | 38 | 8 | 275 |
| 2011 | 46 | 30 | 455 |
| 2012 | 52 | 36 | 493 |
| 2013 | 85 | 74 | 518 |
| 2014 | 77 | 86 | 732 |
| 2015 | 114 | 122 | 835 |
| 2016 | 123 | 182 | 1,159 |
| 2017 | 160 | 266 | 1,499 |
| 2018 | 628 | 442 | 2,056 |
| 2019 | 300 | 501 | 2,600 |
| 2020 | 342 | 742 | 3,033 |
| Total | 2014 | 2,500 | 14,130 |
* Energy System limited to social sciences.
Source: author.
Structure of literature review
| Area | Topic | Purpose or applications | System focus | Field of theory | Key publications |
| Sustainability Transitions | Theories or frameworks on national energy transitions | Deeper understanding of dynamics and perspectives on national energy transition | Energy policies related to global factors, technological innovation and political actions. | Political science, international relations, evolutionary economics | Cherp et al. (2018) |
| Approaches for understanding national transitions. | Transition literature encompass; Transition Management (TM)2, Multilevel Perspective approach (MLP)3 and Technological Innovation. | Smith and Stirling (2010), Loorbach (2010), Geels (2002), Jacobsson and Johnson (2000) | |||
| System Innovation | Innovation Studies and theories Science and Technology Studies (STS) | Two innovation modes: STI and DUI. Conceptualisation of social innovations that have been implemented to support evolution of systems | Energy technologies embedded in sociotechnical systems | Evolutionary and institutional economics | Hess and Sovacool (2020), Sovacool and Hess (2020) |
| Sociotechnical systems | Theories on sociotechnical transition studies and system innovation | Geels (2002), Sovacool et al. (2018), Sorrell (2018), Schot (2007) | |||
| Energy System | Markets and prices | Planetary economics that encompasses (energy subsidies, gasoline taxes, etc.) | Energy flows and markets | Neoclassical and evolutionary economics | Grubb (2014) |
Source: author.
Transition studies have been historically motivated by the promise to anticipate potential transitions. The first models of future energy transitions used projection models based heavily on econometric analysis and data such as population size, growth, and resource availability.
According to Geels (2002), a transition happens when internal momentum is maintained from the lower levels which is represented by several interests aligned and fine-tuned with each other. At the same time, multiple developments are needed. Technological innovations are not enough to direct change within a system; there are other elements such as costs and market shares (Geels 2011).
3 Existing approaches to transition studies
The majority of publications on energy transitions use existing theories for analyzing empirical cases of transition. However, a few studies have proposed new theories of transitions (see for example: Cherp et al., 2018; Geels 2012; Bashmakov 2007). To identify the most relevant literature, an initial set of articles was selected with the aim of finding a similar conceptualization of energy transitions as used by this research. As a consequence, the term “sociotechnical transition” was identified as it aligns and does not overlap with the concept of a transition for two reasons: firstly, the systems are conceptualized as “sociotechnical” since they involve multiple, interlinked social and technical elements such as technologies, market, industries, infrastructures, policies, users, practices and societal discourses (Geels et al. 2017). “Sociotechnical Systems” change over time and evolve into new systems. This process has come to be referred to as a “sociotechnical transition”. Similar to the understanding of transitions underlying the findings of this article, it is seen as crucial to engage with multiple social groups and activities in the context of rules and institutions. Secondly, the literature on sociotechnical transitions differs in its conceptualization of “innovation” which more conventional models tend to view as a linear process and disregard social factors.4 According to these models, technological developments are assumed to follow their own internal logic, largely detached from society, leading to potential social changes once they are introduced into society (Geels et al. 2017). Innovation is basically defined as the first-time application of newly acquired ideas, technological products or methods to the products and processes, providing the basis for future developments concerning technology, consumers or firms (Greenhalgh et al. 2010: 4). Due to its importance, the term is used in business, scientific bodies and most recently, within social and environmental practices. On the one hand, innovations in technologies are producing environmental benefits which have resulted in pressures to reduce the use of products that harm the environment. On the other hand, few innovations have large-scale social impact (Dawson – Daniel 2010), and fewer still result in long-term breakthroughs that lead to the adoption of new solutions that satisfy both environmental pressures and social needs.
A well-defined understanding of the innovation model is crucial in moving towards a more environmental and social approach. For instance, the change from neo-classical innovation model towards an evolutionary model was fundamental to an understanding of the role of innovation in adapting to changes and comforting new challenges (Rennings 1998). From a theoretical perspective, innovation towards sustainability has proven so far to be stimulating a long-term shift from neoclassical methods to evolutionary innovation models. These are however limited in terms of analyzing environmental changes, because neither consider the societal context (Tables 3 and 4).
Innovation models
| Neoclassical Innovation Model | Evolutionary Innovation Model | Social Innovation Model |
| Technological newness as a driving force for innovation (Feldman 1994). | Innovations are seen as the continuous generation of new products, processes and forms (Saviotti 1996). | Innovations are aimed at solving social needs (Phills et al. 2008) |
| Technological change (Feldman 1994). | The introduction of new products as adaptation to the environment (Saviotti 1996). | Changes in social relations (e.g., governance, the involvement of deprived groups) (Grometta et al. 2005). Empowerment (Grometta et al., 2005: 2007). |
| Innovation is “market-driven” and places demands on the technology of potential consumers (Feldman 1994). | Fitness and adaption: “Darwin's survival of the fittest” represents the propensity to be successful in a new environment (Saviotti 1996). | Social innovation can take place in any sector (Nicholls and Simon, 2015) |
Source: author, based on Feldman (1994), Saviotti (1996), Nicholls and Simon (2015), Grometta et al. (2005), Phills et al. (2008).
Stages of technological development
| Stage of Innovation | Mechanism | Learning rate by policy makers |
| Invention | Idea and knowledge generation, breakthroughs; basic research | Hard to measure |
| Innovation | Applied research, development, and demonstration R&D projects. | Hard to measure, high in learning |
| Market commercialization | Identification of special niche application, close relationship between suppliers and users, learning by doing. | 20–40% |
| Diffusion | Standardization and mass production; economies of scale. | 10–30% |
| Saturation | Exhaustion of improvement potentials and scale economies; arrival of more efficient competitors into markets. | Severe competition |
Source: adapted from Grübler et al. (1999: 249).
The sociotechnical approach again takes this further by focusing on innovation processes as creating new sociotechnical systems through the co-construction of multiple elements (MacKenzie – Wajcman 1999; Oudshoorn 2003). Besides technological changes, sociotechnical transitions also involve changes in infrastructure, regulations markets, user practices and so on. We can take the example of the electric car-sharing concept and its successful implementation in some European countries. The current system is centered on an individual artefact – the car, which is linked and dependent upon a multi-layered social, economic, and technical entity. These layers may include the global car industry, the global oil industry and the associated infrastructure of oil networks, refineries, pipeline, fuel stations, etc.; the road infrastructure together with its rules and regulations, and associated industries; concrete and asphalt production and demand etc.; and the multiple institutions, regulations and policies associated with the production and use of the car, among many others. Once these different entities have been identified, they will have to act together and shape the mode and pattern of personal mobility. The evolution from gasoline cars to electric, and from individual ownership to a sharing mode, will become the aim. Once the goal is set, efficient electric cars have to be developed, followed by an established online presence and physical infrastructure for car rental such as charging stations, easy payment facilities, positive political support, strong political ties, wide promotion to ensure social acceptance among users, etc. Also, at an early stage of the transition process, it can gain momentum from economies of scale to reduce the production and distribution costs. According to Sorrell (2018), inferior technologies can become dominant when they obtain an early advantage that allows them to benefit from mechanisms such as economies of scales to reduce costs, thereby lowering the production costs and encouraging demand. Overall, success with transitioning from internal combustion engine to electric motor vehicles relies on multiple entities and practices engaging simultaneously for the system to be constructed. This example helps us to see the complexity of studying the transition of an entire system.
4 Perspectives on innovation and transition studies
The socio-technical system approach can be useful when studying transitions or changes in the energy sector. It takes into account the interactions between various actors at different levels in the development and diffusion of innovations (Geels et al. 2017). As illustrated in Fig. 1, the multi-level perspective (MLP) proposes three complex levels: niche (micro-level), regime (meso-level) and landscape (macro-level) for exploring sociotechnical transitions, with the aim of understanding the conditions and processes under transitions. To do so, MLP integrates ideas from three fields of theory: evolutionary economics, social constructivism and sociology. Radical change within MLP is understood as the result of interactions between concepts of social expectations and social practices, technology studies, path dependence and lock-ins with the three levels; niche, regime and landscape. In other words, the system structure can encounter internal difficulties and what MLP does is to make the interactions between actors, rules and norms visible for a system to be in synchrony. Radical innovation is developed in niches while the dominant institutions, technologies, industries or organisations which are influenced by rules, social norms, etc., are referred to as regimes. Finally, the landscape imposes pressures upon both niche and regime. These are briefly elaborated below.
Three complex levels in sociotechnical systems
Source: adapted from Geels (2002).
Citation: Society and Economy 46, 3; 10.1556/204.2023.00027
A niche is a space formed by policymakers and protected from direct mainstream market pressures with the goal of developing novel technologies. These may include local organisations or incumbent actors that are well resourced (Markard – Truffer 2006). Overall, it is a space in which radical solutions are developed; despite this, niche innovations frequently fail, but, in some circumstances, within the right context, they can gain enough momentum to improve performance, reduce costs, achieve a larger diffusion and trigger change into another system element (Geels 2002; Sorrell 2018; Schot et al. 2016). It is argued that under certain conditions, the niche has the potential to “break through” and challenge the existing regime. The shift of a technology from one niche to another is challenging and involves experimentation, adjustments, reconfigurations and learnings (Geels 2002). Compared with regimes, niche actors are fewer, their interrelations dispersed, the focal technology immature and the guiding rules in constant flux.
The regime is a shared, stable and aligned set of rules, routines and social norms that guide the behaviour of actors on how to produce and regulate a system. It refers to dominant technology, infrastructure, industries, supply chains and organisations associated with delivering a particular societal function (Schot et al. 2016; Sorrel 2018). These intangible elements located at the regime level are collectively termed the sociotechnical regime (Geels 2002). In terms of a sociotechnical system, the rules mentioned force the evolution along a specific trajectory of incremental innovation. For instance, one can take the centralised system of energy production as an example of these various embedded rules. The dominant fossil fuels and energy intensive practices are guided by rules that favour large-scale production at the lowest possible costs, regulations through central government and individual use of abundant available energy (Schot et al. 2016).
Finally, the landscape is a relatively static set of factors, in other words, an external context that actors cannot easily influence. The landscape may influence the system through either gradual change such as demographics, macro-political developments and cultural preferences or short-term shocks such as economic recession (Sorrell 2018). In this regard, Van Driel and Schot (2005) elaborate the concept as being constituted by three factors: rapid external shocks, such as wars or fluctuations in the price of oil; factors that do not change or that change only slowly such as climate; long-term changes, such as industrialisation in the late 19th century. We can understand it as “exogenous macro-events and trends such as wars, migration, urbanization and the totality of infrastructure that shape the dynamics between niches and regimes but are not affected by the latter in the short or mid-term” (Schot et al. 2016: 2).
For a transition to happen, learning elements have to be obtained from using the mode focused on scientific and technology-based innovation (STI) versus the mode based on learning-by-doing, by using and by interacting (DUI) (Jensen et al. 2007).
STI (Science, Technology and Innovation) – This is the dominant mode of innovation where big actors, namely, research institutes, firms and universities play a main role in the market. This mode represents a conservative approach to innovation, relying mainly on research and development (R&D).
DUI (Doing, Using and Interacting) – This mode of innovation, as its name suggests, relies on learning and interacting with concrete systems on the ground. Technological innovations are not necessarily high-tech; however, they involve a large number of stakeholders such as consumers, big firms, policy makers, etc.
STI develops a relevant output based on high R&D expenditure, including investments in highly skilled scientific human resources, infrastructure and advanced technologies. By contrast, the DUI innovation mode stresses the importance of practice and interaction-based innovation that relies on learning by doing, by using and by interacting. These practices typically generate a type of synthetic knowledge based in a large number of engineering-based industries, such as machine tools, automotive and energy among others (Parrilli et al. 2016: 748). The STI innovation mode creates high hopes relying on the big players. These innovations, if achieved, will depend on the interests of the players behind the outcomes or as Geels (2004) argue, it can take longer time for these innovations to come out of a laboratory and in some cases, they will arrive too late.
According to Jensen et al. (2007), the DUI innovation mode is crucial to successful innovation. This kind of knowledge is acquired for the most part by the individual facing on-going changes that confront them with new problems. Learning by doing and learning by interacting result in “local” knowledge interacting as part of the DUI mode. DUI may also be seen as a mechanism to turn local knowledge into global knowledge (Christensen – Lundvall 2004). The continuation of previous innovations aligned with experiences, learnings and new knowledge, will continue to progress over time. For the economy as a whole, a specific sector may become the one that through interactive learning with a diverse set of users generalizes local knowledge and diffuses it widely in the economy (Jensen et al. 2007). In this way, we can conclude that the focus should not only be on direct gain but rather, on the learning process and the knowledge gathered to build up to the next step. The two types of innovation are illustrated in Fig. 2.
Two Modes of Innovation
Source: adapted from Jensen et al. (2007).
Citation: Society and Economy 46, 3; 10.1556/204.2023.00027
5 Case study and the systematic approach
Case studies have been categorised into different types by various researchers, the three main types being: collective, involving a group of cases; instrumental, used to understand something beyond the case study itself; and intrinsic, where the researcher has an interest in the specific case. Within the instrumental case approach, a case can be part of a wider phenomenon. In this way, the case study approach utilized for energy transition research is “collective” and “instrumental”. It explores in a collective manner strategic actors, stakeholders and components of the energy system, with the aim of studying the wider phenomena of the transition from a sociotechnical regime to one based on renewables, in terms of interactions and embeddedness with government, society and technology. Two approaches can be used to analyse case studies: a hypothesis led inquiry to collect data or question generation to guide data collection. When studying energy transitions, in many cases the unit of analysis is a country and the collective cases are subsystem components. Thus, the choice is to focus on national energy transitions rather than sectoral. A range of methods have been used to examine sociotechnical transitions. Sociotechnical transition research tends to be framed from a systems perspective (Markad et al. 2012). The systemic approach focuses on the whole sociotechnical electricity system due to its ability to offer explanatory data in terms of generation, transmission, distribution and consumption, through a case study approach in combination with semi-structured interviews.
A combination of the case study approach and the interview method are commonly utilized when examining sociotechnical transition (Fudge et al. 2016). A case study is the unit of analysis and it is most commonly considered to be a location, community or organisation. Often, a single country case study is used in empirical research on sociotechnical transitions with the application of the multi-level perspective (MLP). There are a number of advantages of the case study approach over other research designs. The case study method allows for a holistic, in-depth investigation of the nature and complexity of a particular phenomenon (Stake 1995). Cases can represent manufacturers, can be located geographically in different parts of the country case study and can be at a different stages of development from fully operational to recently completed after major changes such as energy reforms, etc.
Historical case studies are favoured in sociotechnical transitions, as they are generally completed events that have the advantage of being able to be examined in their entirety. Research on past energy transitions is useful because they have been found to follow similar patterns with different features, depending on the context, actors and technologies involved. Cases may cover both controversial and relatively non-controversial developments, in order to generate a broader understanding of where and how the learning is moving in terms of development.
6 Summary
The study of energy transitions represents both a methodological and theoretical challenge for social science. This literature identifies three similar fields of knowledge including multidisciplinary insights from domains in evolutionary economics, institutional economics, science and technology studies (STS). By using multiple cases within a country, there is an increase in the explanatory power and thus in the generalisability of the collected data. The reason to focus on the electricity system rather than other forms of energy is because it targets policies and international commitments, and the interaction with society. Case studies examine the influence and main characteristics of innovation on the environment and its effects on society; in other words, this methodology proposes to integrate innovation in its societal context. One of the challenges of transition studies is that a transition tends to occur over a large time frame such as 25 years or more (Markad et al. 2012). For current energy systems, many lessons can be learnt from history. For example, the evolution from a traditional pre-industrial system relying on biomass to the use of coal (steam power) in an industrialised system. Based on historical research, completed transitions are more exact due to their nature but are weak in terms of being able to inform current events. Historical energy transitions are completed over many decades; clearly, this does not apply to the present energy transition, given that it is ongoing and taking place within different technological and social conditions.
Addressing the potential limitations of scope, case studies and interviews must be judiciously chosen based on the research design to represent innovation types in all their multi-layered complexity. In this sense, the new methodology provided in this paper makes a valuable contribution to the literature on energy transitions.
References
Bashmakov, I. (2007): Three Laws of Energy Transitions. Energy Policy 35(7): 3583–3594.
Cherp, A. – Vichenko, V. – Jewell, J. – Brutschin, E. – Sovacool, B. (2018): Integrating Techno-Economic, Socio-Technical and Political Perspectives on National Energy Transitions: A Meta-Theoretical Framework. Energy Reserch & Social Science 37: 175–190.
Christensen, J. L. – Lundvall, B.-A. (2004): Product Innovation, Interactive Learning and Economic Performance. Research on Technological Innovation, Management and Policy 8: 1–372.
Dawson, P. – Daniel, L. (2010): Understanding Social Innovation: A Provisional Framework. International Journal of Technology Management 51: 9–21.
Feldman, M. P. – Richard, F. (1994): The Geographic Sources of Innovation: Technological Infrastructure and Product Innovation in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 84(2): 210–229.
Fudge, S. – Peters, M. – Woodman, B. (2016): Local Authorities as Niche Actors: The Case of Energy Governance in the UK. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 18: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.06.004.
Geels, F. W. (2002): Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Process: a Multi-Level Perspective and a Case-Study. Research Policy 31(8–9): 1257–1274.
Geels, F. W. (2004): From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-technical Systems: Insights about Dynamics and Change from Sociology and Institutional Theory. Research Policy 33(6–7): 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.
Geels, F. W. (2011): The Multi-Level Perspective on Sustainability Transitions: Respond to Seven Criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions 1(1): 24–40.
Geels, F. W. (2012): A Socio-Technical Analysis of Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing the Multi-Level Perspective into Transport Studies. Journal of Transport Geography 24: 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.01.021.
Geels, F. W. (2019): Socio-technical Transitions to Sustainability: a Review of Criticisms and Elaborations of the Multi-Level Perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 39: 187–201.
Geels, F. W. – Sovacool, B. K. – Schwanen T. – Sorrell S. (2017): The Socio-Technical Dynamics of Low Carbon Transitions. JOULE 1(3): 463–479.
Gerometta, J. – Haussermann, H. – Longo, G. (2005): Social Innovation and Civil Society in Urban Governance: Strategies for an Inclusive City. Urban Studies 42(11): 2007–2021.
Greenhalgh, C. – Rogers, M. (2010): Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic Growth. New York: Princeton University Press.
Grubb, M. (2014): Planetary Economics: Energy, Climate Change and the Three Domains of Sustainable Development. London: Routledge.
Grübler, A. – Nakicenovic, N. – David, G. (1999): Dynamics of Energy Technologies and Global Change. Energy Policy 27(5): 247–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(98)00067-6.
Grübler, A. – Wilson, C. – Nemet, G. (2016): Apples, Oranges, and Consistent Comparisons of the Temporal Dynamics of Energy Transitions. Energy Research & Social Science 22: 18–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.08.015.
Hess, D. – Sovacool, B. (2020): Sociotechnical Matters: Reviewing and Integrating Science and Technology Studies with Energy Social Science. Energy Research – Social Science 65: 1–17.
Jacobsson, S. – Johnson, A. (2000): The Duffusion of Renewable Energy Technology: an Analytical Framework and Key Issues for Research. Energy Policy 28(9): 625–640.
Jensen, M. B. – Johnson, B. – Lorenz, E. – Lundvall, B. Å. (2007): Forms of Knowledge and Modes of Innovation. Research Policy 36(5): 680–693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006.
Leach, G. (1992): The Energy Transitions. Energy Policy 20(2): 116–123.
Loorbach, D. (2010): Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Perspective, Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance 23(1): 161–183.
MacKenzie, D. – Wajcman, J., eds. (1999): The Social Shaping of Technology. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Markad, J. (2018): The Next Phase of the Energy Transition and its Implications for Research Policy. Nature Energy 8: 628–633.
Markad, J. – Raven, R. – Truffer, B. (2012): Sustainability Transitions: An Emerging Field of Research and Its Prospects. Research Policy 41(6): 955–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013.
Markard, J. – Truffer, B. (2006): Innovation Processes in Large Technical Systems: Market Liberalization as a Driver for Radical Change? Research Policy 35(5): 609–625.
Nicholls, A. – Simon, J. (2015): Introduction: Dimensions of Social Innovation. New Frontiers in Social Innovation Research 1–26.
Oudshoorn, N. – Pinch, T. (2003): The Co-construction of Users and Technologies. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Parrilli, M. – Heras, A. (2016): STI and DUI Innovation Modes: Scientific-Technological and Context-specific Nuances. Research Policy 45(4): 747–756.
Phills, J. A. – Deiglmeier, K. – Miller, D. T. (2008): Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation 6: 34–43.
Rennings, K. (1998): Towards a Theory and Policy of Eco-Innovation – Neoclassical and (Co)evolutionary Perspectives. ZEW Discussion Paper 98-24.
Rotmans, J. – Kemp, R. – Van Asselt, M. (2001): More Evolution than Revolution: Transition Management in Public Policy. The Journal of Futures Studies, Strategic Thinking and Policy 03(01): 15–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(98)00067-6.
Saviotti, P. (1996): Technological Evolution, Variety and the Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Schot, J. – Geels, W. (2007): Niches in Evolutionary Theories of Technical Change: A Critical Survey of the Literature. Journal of Evolutionary Economics. 17(5): 605–622.
Schot, J. – Kanger, L. – Verbong, G. (2016): The Roles of Users in Shaping Transitions to New Energy Systems. Nature Energy 1(5): 1–7.
Smith, A. – Stirling, A. (2010): The Politics of Social-Ecological Resilience and Sustainable Socio-Technical Transitions. Ecology and Society 15(1): 11.
Sorrell, S. (2018): Explaining Sociotechnical Transitions: a Critical Realist Perspective. Research Policy 47: 1267–1282.
Sovacool, B. K. – Axsen, J. – Sorrell, S. (2018): Promoting Novelty, Rigor, and Style in Energy Social Science: Towards Codes of Practice for Appropriate Methods and Research Design. Energy Research & Social Science 45: 12–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.07.007.
Soovacool, K. – Hess, J. (2020): Sociotechnical Matters: Reviewing and Integrating Science and Technology Studies with Energy Social Science. Energy Research & Social Science 65(1): 101462.
Stake, R. E. (1995): The Art of Case Study Research. SAGE Publications, Inc. 1–192.
Van Driel, H. – Schot, J. (2005): Radical Innovation as a Multilevel Process: Introducing Floating Grain Elevators in the Port of Rotterdam. Technology and Culture 46(1): 51–76.
This form of literature review consists of an overview of existing evidence pertinent to a clearly formulated research question. It is increasingly used in the social sciences.
Transition Management examines how transitions can be managed through strategic public decision makers and private actors with a more process-oriented approach (Rotmans et al. 2001).
This research utilizes the multilevel perspective (MLP) which is one of the main approaches to understand sociotechnical transitions.
Neoclassical economics also provides a rationale for supporting new, energy efficient technologies. According to Geels (2019) it offers limited insights into the process of innovation or the most efficient means of policy support.
