Innovation and institutional change: the transition to a sustainable ...

Stability and transformation in the electricity system 125
Nevertheless, the rather close fine-tuning of the knowledge infrastructure to
the institutional logics of the pre-crisis period has left its imprint on the
development paths of renewable energy. R&D efforts have been dominated
by the tendencies of centralisation and closure. Whereas the oil crisis
initiated the development of a R&D energy infrastructure in the Netherlands,
energy R&D policy networks of Novem, ECN, and EZ were aligned with
SEP and were mainly focussed on developing a course of further large scale
development of generation units, as is shown in the cases of nuclear energy,
coal gasification, and wind energy. R&D activities by the electricity sector
have always been defined from the basic principles of the system, and with
the conviction that only the sector knows how to handle electricity
production in the electricity system, with other actors not being able to live
up to their standards. This has led to a relatively closed arena of R&D in the
electricity sectors, with SEP and KEMA as main actors, few other actors
significantly involved and virtual non-existence of interaction with societal
groups.
The dominant institutional logics also showed in R&D strategies by the
government that long breathed the belief that the course of technological
development and diffusion was malleable, as the (early) experiences with
nuclear energy and wind energy. What stands out is that the path of
technological development is not very well embedded in society, because of
a lack of institutions that play a role in adapting the technological
configuration to society and in use of electricity. It is foremost a technical
top-down effort, isolated from societal influences. It is technical in the sense
that the emphasis on the artefacts is dominant (technical design, technical
standards, etc.) with engineers and technicians dominant, but it is also
technical in the sense of the decision making process surrounding processes
of choice for R&D and implementation of projects. The organisation of
R&D is very much centralised in the Netherlands, both in terms of structures
for funding and in terms of research institutes. This has led to a path of
technological development of alternatives where technology is often
developed without participation of users and related groups. For example in
the case of the development of wind energy, the initial technological
development has been virtually independent of important actors such as
municipalities, local users and environmental groups. Often cited success
factors for the introduction of wind technology in Denmark for example,
have been the bottom-up development strategy because of strong
involvement of grass-root energy movement and the development of local
networks involved in the actual development of the wind technology
configuration (Jorgensen and Karnoe, 1995).
In overview, a main conclusion is that the dynamics of each path is rather
specific, related to the characteristics of the technology, and dependent on