Raquel Kuperus
September 10, 2019
Reflection #1: Multi-level Perspective
The multi-level perspective (MLP) is an analytical tool to help understand the complexity of
socio technical regime transitions, specifically how such transitions emerge and subsequently unfold.
It does so by viewing a technological transition as part of a web of many influential factors. The MLP
categorizes these factors into three levels: landscape, regime, and niches. The regime is the current
system and is defined by the rules, technologies, values, infrastructure, etc that are currently in place.
The landscape describes the broader contextual factors that actors can not control and that either
reinforce or put pressure on the regime. The niches are the alternatives to the existing regime and are
where innovation starts. According to this perspective, transitions occur when changes in the
landscape disturb the regime, giving the opportunity for niches to enter and replace the existing
regime (Geels, 2002).
The MLP succeeds in explaining why community based virtual power plants (cVPPs) have
emerged within today’s landscape, which regime they would replace, and which niches present
possible threats. However, the MLP is limited in the sense that it only outlines one way that cVPPs
could transition into being part of a regime. Therefore, the MLP approach should be adapted to
present all the possible transition trajectories that cVPP (and other technologies) could follow. This is
a normative claim since it evaluates the applicability of the multi-level perspective to the case of
cVPPs and because it is prescriptive in suggesting how the MLP should be adapted.
I make this claim because applying the MLP approach does help to explain and interpret the
landscape, regime, and niches associated with cVPPs. It becomes clear that the landscape involves
global warming, depletion of non-renewable resources, growing environmental awareness, awareness
of unfair industry practices, and the dependency on power and electricity. The regime is the
infrastructure of centralized energy generation and distribution that works at the interest of large
energy companies. It can also be understood that possible competing or symbiotic niches include
energy neutral housing or government based energy distribution.
Beyond providing this understanding, however, the MLP is unable to fully explain how a
transition towards cVPPs could unfold. The MLP approach only explains one way that a transition can
happen: a niche replacing a regime when the landscape and regime are under significant pressure,
called the “technological substitution pathway”. It ignores the fact that landscape, regime, and niche
developments might not always align in this way (Geels & Schot, 2007). In the case of cVPPs, if the
current regime were to come under extreme stress, the niche of cVPPs would not be developed
enough to enter as a replacement regime. This is evident since cVPPs are still in the testing phases in
communities in Belgium, Ireland, and the Netherlands (Van Summeren). Therefore, the
“technological substitution pathway” outlined in the MLP approach would not be realistic for cVPPs.
As proposed by Geels and Schot (2007), there are actually four possible transition pathways. The
transition towards widespread cVPPs is more likely to follow a “transformation pathway” with
gradual developments and modifications to the current regime. The MLP approach fails to
accommodate for this transition pathway of cVPPs.
The assumption behind this claim is that cVPP is currently not sufficiently developed and is
therefore not capable of replacing the regime. This assumption depends on what is deemed
“sufficient”. Regardless of this assumption, the claim that the MLP approach is limited and should be
adapted to include all possible transition pathways is still valid. This claim makes the most sense from
the perspective of a cVPP advocate because it expresses an interest in understanding how the
transition towards cVPP could be made to work. However, the claim still holds from other
perspectives since it is simply an evaluation of the applicability of the MLP approach.
References
Geels, F.W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A
multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), pp. 1257-1274,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733302000628
Geels, F.W., Schot, J. (2007). Typology of socio-technical transition pathways. Research Policy,
36(3), pp. 399-417, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733307000248
Van Summeren, L. F. M. ​et al.​ (no date) ‘Community energy meets smart grids: Reviewing
goals, ownership, and roles in community-based Virtual Power Plants in Belgium,
Ireland, and the Netherlands’, ​Energy Research & Social Science.​ What is a cVPP non-published please treat confidentially.pdf