Technological transitions

The Russian economist Kondratiev[7] proposed that economic growth operated in boom and bust cycles of approximately 50 year periods. These cycles were characterised by periods of expansion, stagnation and recession. The period of expansion is associated with the introduction of a new technology, e.g. steam power or the microprocessor. At the time of publication, Kondratiev had considered that two cycles had occurred in the nineteenth century and third was beginning at the turn of the twentieth. Modern writers, such as Freeman and Perez[8] outlined five cycles in the modern age:

• The Industrial Revolution (1770–1830)
• Victorian Prosperity: Age of steam and Rail (1830–1880)
• The Age of Steel (1880–1930)
• Oil, Mass Production and the Consumer Society (1930–1980)
• The Information Age (1980-?)

Freeman and Perez[8] proposed that each cycle consists of pervasive technologies, their production and economic structures that support them. Termed ‘techno-economic paradigms’, they suggest that the shift from one paradigm to another is the result of emergent new technologies.

Following the recent economic crisis, authors such as Moody and Nogrady[9] have suggested that a new cycle is emerging from the old, centred on the use of sustainable technologies in a resource depleted world.

Thomas Kuhn[10] described how a paradigm shift is a wholesale shift in the basic understanding of a scientific theory. Examples in science include the change of thought from miasma to germ theory as a cause of disease. Building on this work, Giovanni Dosi[11] developed the concept of ’technical paradigms’ and ‘technological trajectories’. In considering how engineers work, the technical paradigm is an outlook on the technological problem, a definition of what the problems and solutions are. It charts the idea of specific progress. By identifying the problems to be solved the paradigm exerts an influence on technological change. The pattern of problem solving activity and the direction of progress is the technological trajectory. In similar fashion, Nelson and Winter (,[12][13])defined the concept of the ‘technological regime’ which directs technological change through the beliefs of engineers of what problems to solve. The work of the actors and organisations is the result of organisational and cognitive routines which determines search behaviour. This places boundaries and also trajectories (direction) to those boundaries.

Recently, the scope of academic sustainability discourse and investigative focus has broadened beyond the study of technological products, innovations and subsequent transitions.[14] Much of the literature now examines technological artefacts and innovations through a wider scope of socio-technical systems.[15] It has been argued that this contemporary framework has emerged in response to both an increased understanding of the urgency of environmental problems and the recognition that more substantiative transitions are required across multiple interdependent systems to mitigate impacts.[16]

The technological transitions framework does acknowledge the co-evolution and mutual unfolding of societal change alongside technological innovation. However, the socio-technical transitions framework considers a more encompassing view of the interdependent links that technology maintains with systems that both generate the need for new innovations and ultimately produce and maintain them (.[17] More specifically, the systems that comprise the socio-technical paradigm include technology, supply networks, infrastructure, maintenance networks, regulation, cultural meaning as well as user practices and markets.[18] As such, socio-technical transitions can be defined as the multi-dimensional shift from one socio-technical system to another involving changes in both technological and social systems that are intrinsically linked in a feedback loop.[14] Generally speaking, socio-technical transitions are a slow process as technological innovation tends to occur incrementally along fixed trajectories due to the rigidity of economic, social, cultural, infrastructural and regulative norms.[19] This is referred to as path dependency, creating technological ‘lock-ins’ which prevent innovation that disrupts the status quo.[20] Therefore, the breakthrough and dissemination of technological innovations is dependent on more than their respective benefits, providing an insight into the complexity of the forces and multiple dimensions at play.

The multi-level perspective (MLP) is an analytical tool that attempts to deal with this complexity and resistance to change. Focussing on the dynamics of wider transitionary developments as opposed to discrete technological innovations, the MLP concerns itself with socio-technical system transformations, particularly with transitions towards sustainability and resilience.[21] As the name implies, the MLP posits three analytical and heuristic levels on which processes interact and align to result in socio-technical system transformations; landscape (macro-level), regimes (meso-level) and niches (micro-level).[22] Firstly, the regime level represents the current structures and practices characterised by dominant rules, institutions and technologies that are self-reinforcing.[23] The socio-technical regime is dynamically stable in the sense that innovation still transpires albeit incrementally and along a predictable trajectory.[14] This makes the regime ‘locked-in’ and resistant to both technological and social transitions.[24] Secondly, the landscape level is defined as the exogenous, broader contextual developments in deep-seated cultural patterns, macro-economics, macro-politics and spatial structures, potentially arising from shocks associated with wars, economic crisis, natural disaster and political upheaval.[25] Additionally, landscapes are beyond the direct influence of actors, yet stimulate and exert pressure on them at the regime and niche levels. Finally, the niche is defined as the “locus for radical innovations” where dedicated actors nurture the development of technological novelties.[26] Incubated from market and regulation influences, the niche fosters innovations that differ fundamentally from the prevailing regime and usually require landscape developments that open windows of opportunity in at the regime level.[19] Therefore, the MLP attributes socio-technical transitions to the interaction of stabilising forces at the regime level with destabilising forces from both the landscape and niche levels.[20]

Due to the systems approach inherent in the MLP, analysis can be approached from different disciplinary perspectives according to their respective ontologies and priorities. From an urban planning perspective, the framework could be used to pinpoint the barriers and drivers associated with low carbon transport systems to better target policy efforts.[27] To begin, from an urban mobility perspective, the landscape level is currently pressured by both stabilising and destabilising pressures. Namely, Peak Oil, public concern surrounding inaction towards climate change mitigation and information technologies that digitise daily life (e.g. tele-commuting) destabilises the landscape and automobility regime.[28] Conversely, the landscape level is solidified by stabilising forces such as cultural preferences for private ownership, timesaving, autonomy and privacy, as well as car-favouring urban fabric and infrastructure.[29] This is further enhanced by universal pressures of globalisation which presupposes urban mobility to increase flows of goods and people.[28]

This tension between stabilising and destabilising forces is mirrored in the prevailing automobility regime. The regime is stabilised by persistent investment in road projects, lifestyle norms and consumer preferences that perpetuate car use and resistance to major change by vested actors such as transport planners, policy makers and industry actors (e.g. car manufactures).[29] Despite this stability, shifts in the landscape has allowed “cracks” in the regime such as traffic management policy (traffic calming, parking restrictions, etc.), diminishing policy commitment to the regime and industry actors proclaiming awareness of landscape pressures associated with climate change [30]

In these contexts, niche socio-technical innovations that challenge the assumptions and norms of the regime have been birthed, mainly in the form of local policy and infrastructure initiatives on a city-scale. For example, intermodal travel in the form of bus/bike-rail integration schemes, bike rental/sharing have been trialled in many cities globally.[29] Also, niche sustainable urban planning concepts such as compact cities, smart growth and transit-oriented development have modestly emerged into sustainably mobility discourse.[29] However, the persistence of the automobility regime due to the general stability of the landscape has resulted in limited, small-scale implementations of these niche innovations.[29] As such, prevailing user preference and cultural values at the landscape level appear to be a major barrier in transport system socio-technical transitions, as they stabilise the automobility regime, disallowing niche innovations to gain a foothold.