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

Analytical framework 61
guided and constrained by the way the system is configured through linkages
between multiple dimensions and multiple levels. The multiple dimensions
we turn to later are located in areas of knowledge, policy, the market, and
society. The multiple levels include the level of actors, networks,
technologies, and practices, the sociotechnical system level, and society and
its structures. This conceptualisation builds upon the multi-level and regime
perspective developed by Rip and Kemp (1998) and others, but diverges as
societal structures are introduced as a separate level. In the work of scholars
on transition theory, the landscape level has been conceptualised rather weak
as a set of diverse external factors, such as oil shocks, wars, but also cultural
values and broad political coalitions (Geels, 2004a: 34). We do not argue
with the idea that real external factors, such as oil crises or climate change,
put pressure on regimes, but contend that the way pressure is put on the
regime takes place in a translation process within the wider societal
structures in which the sociotechnical system is embedded.
Let us return to our LASTPIN approach and introduce the core elements of
actors, technologies, practices, and networks 1 :
Actors, their behaviour, underlying objectives and beliefs, competencies, and
resources, on the one hand are conditioned and constrained by existing
systems but on the other hand shape the way systems develop, and some
actors may act as prime movers in the shaping of alternative paths and,
eventually, new systems. Actors are central in establishing and changing
systems, as decisions, activities, investments and strategies of actors
determine the way the system develops. Essential in our understanding,
based mainly on insights of evolutionary thinking, is the role of routines in
the behaviour of actors (individuals but also organisations). Routines are
based on acquired competencies, accumulated experiences, and learning, and
it is difficult to re-learn or de-learn towards other routines. Humans develop
routines to guide daily activity, but firms also develop routines in their
management and production, and for the evaluation of investments or
technologies. Frames of reference are developed based on accumulated
experiences, and involvement in alternative practices (including
technologies) requires de-routinising and reflective behaviour. As knowhow,
routines, decision rules and dominant competencies are relatively
invariant, this gives rise to dominant designs, technological regimes and
paradigms (Saviotti, 1996: 45). This culminates in the establishment of
belief systems shared by coalitions of actors, with certain problem
1 The process of formation of these elements was further inspired by the work of various
scholars on technological systems and innovation processes, such as Kash and Rycroft,
1999; Van de Ven et al., 1999; Carlsson et al., 2002; Jacobsson and Johnson, 2000;
Berkhout et al., 2002; and Arentsen 2002.