Understanding barriers to transitions in the
Multi-Level Perspective (MLP)
Prof. Frank Geels
University of Manchester (MBS)
Presentation for KAPSARC workshop
13-14 May 2014
Multi-level perspective (MLP) on socio-technical transitions (Geels,
2002): Socio-technical regimes form barriers for radical niche-innovations
Increasing structuration
of activities in local practices
Socio-technical
landscape
(exogenous
context)
Landscape developments
put pressure on existing regime,
which opens up,
creating windows
of opportunity for novelties
Markets, user
preferences
Sociotechnical
regime
New regime
influences
landscape
Industry
Science
Policy
Culture
Technology
Socio-technical regime is ‘dynamically stable’.
On different dimensions there are ongoing processes
External influences on niches
(via expectations and networks)
New configuration breaks through, taking
advantage of ‘windows of opportunity’.
Adjustments occur in socio-technical regime.
Elements become aligned,
and stabilise in a dominant design.
Internal momentum increases.
Nicheinnovations
Small networks of actors support novelties on the basis of expectations and visions.
Learning processes take place on multiple dimensions (co-construction).
Efforts to link different elements in a seamless web.
Time
Four ways to ‘overcome barriers’
1) ‘Head-on’ fights/struggles against regime
‘Overthrow’ by increasing internal niche-momentum
Economic dynamics:
a) Learning by doing
b) Increasing returns to adoption (scale, network externalities)
c) Strategic games between firms and innovation races (‘jockeying for position’)
Socio-cognitive dynamics:
a) Expansion of social networks and bandwagon effects
b) Positive discourses and visions create cultural enthusiasm and socio-political
legitimacy
Power and politics:
a) Increasing political support and adjustments in regulations, investment in
infrastructure, subsidies
b) New innovations gain political salience (jobs, exports, growth), which enable
struggles against vested interests (standard-battles, political struggles)
2) Using ‘windows of opportunity’ (clever fight)
Niche-innovations attack regimes where they are weak (‘cracks in
regime’), e.g. persistent problems or externalities, political
frictions, unsatisfied demand, negative cultural discourse.
Prevent direct economic fight, but try to gain momentum on other
dimensions, e.g. political, socio-cultural.
Provide ‘other’ economic and strategic reasons for transitions, e.g.
•build up local supply chains/jobs (UK offshore wind, Saudi solar)
•reduce import dependency
•geo-political arguments, e.g. energy security (US shale gas, UK
offshore wind).
3) Circumvent existing regimes (rather than compete directly)
a) Open up new markets (e.g. around new
functionalities), and only later on compete in
mainstream markets.
Example: mobile phones, early cars, steamships
b) Piggybacking on growing markets
Common (historical) pattern; see examples below.
From sailing ships to steamships (UK): (1820-1900)
From horses to automobiles in US
(1890-1930), as part of shift towards
more mobile societies
From steam engines to electric motors in US
manufacturing (1880-1930)
(combined with shift towards mass production)
Installed capacity (thousand
horsepower)
50000
45000
40000
35000
Steam engines
30000
25000
Water wheels and turbines
20000
Internal combustion engines
15000
Steam turbines
Electric motors
10000
5000
0
1869 1879 1889 1899 1909 1919 1929
Time (years)
4) New combinations between ‘new’ and ‘old’
* Substitution is not the only transition pathway
* Gradual reconfiguration is another option
Landscape level
Regime/systems
level
Niche level
1) Novelties emerge in technoscientific niches in context
of stable system architecture
2) Diffusion and adoption
of innovations in
existing system
3) Reconfiguration of
elements leads to
new system architecture
Specific example of technical add-on and hybridization
Comet (1812)
Rising Star (1822)
Great Britain (1843)
Great Eastern (1858)
Other add-on + hybridisation examples
•Hybrid electric vehicles
•Biofuel cars
•Co-combustion of coal and biomass
•CHP (cogeneration of heat and power)
•Smart grids (adding ICT to grid)
Concluding comments
• MLP offers a nuanced multi-dimensional framework to
understand transitions
• There are more transition pathways than head-on
economic competition (substitution)
• Need to analyse interactions between technology,
markets, politics, culture, infrastructure
• [price/performance is important, but not the only
consideration]