Multi-perspective Framework for System Innovations in India; an Analysis of the
Renewable Energy Development
Gopal K Sarangi1 and Arabinda Mishra2
Paper ID: 106
System innovations through the interactions among multiple actors shape the dynamic
structure of any system. System innovations occur through interplay of many actors that
influence each other in varying scales. To grasp the dynamics of such complicated
processes in a coherent analytical framework, the present paper applies multi-actor,
multi-factor and multi-level aspects of transition propounded by Geels et al. (2004). The
multi-level framework is widely applied due to its flexibility in accommodating the
contribution of various actors. The dynamic multi-level models of transitions also have
been used in the energy sector to track the directions of transitions occur in the sector
(Sirkku, Kivisaari, 2004). The present paper uses this multi-perspective interaction
framework to explain the transitions happened in the renewable energy system in India. It
emphasizes the interactions occurring between the legal, socio-economic structure and
technical change shaping the sectoral outcomes. Renewable energy has emerged as one
of such niche areas to make such sustainable transitions a reality. The approach here is to
gradually replace the traditional fossil fuel regime and move towards a more greener and
eco-friendly regime. A set of new actors and institutions are introduced to facilitate this
transition to drive the sector to achieve the overarching green goals of the society. Given
the above context, the present paper attempts to investigate following set of research
questions: a) analyze the dynamic interactions and interplay of various actors stimulating
innovations in renewable energy sector in India, b) investigate how these interactions
differ across states depending on differing socio-economic background, c) examine
whether the transitions occurring in the sector moving in sustainable direction.
1
Research Scholar, Centre for Regulatory Policy and Research, TERI University, IHC, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi: 110003. E-mail: gopalkrishna.sarangi@gmail.com, gopal@teriuniversity.ac.in
2
Dean, TERI University and Director, Climate Change Division, TERI
1
Keywords: Multi-level perspective framework, renewable energy, actors and
networks
I.
Introduction
The crave for sustainability and the emphasis on devising ways to achieve the desired
level of sustainability grounded on the well established consensus that various
characteristics of modern societies are not sustainable (Elzen et al.,2004). The need for
radical change in area of energy, food, water and mobility calls for a transformation in
the current pattern of consumption and production as well as change in the incentive
structures and institutions and their interactions The momentum towards sustainability
received increasing attention with the declaration of Bruntland Report in 1987. The 2002
World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg kick started the cross
cutting programmes for transforming sustainable consumption and production systems
and reiterated the promise made in 1987.
The analytical focus of the current debate on sustainability is on the transformation from
clean products to sustainable systems (Schot et al., 1994; Vellinga and Herb, 1999;
Unruh,2000; Jacobbson and Johnson, 2000;Berkhout,2002). The irony of this transition is
that it has not taken up as expected and appears to be ‘locked in’ in many dimensions. It
is contended that this happens partially due to economic reasons, but there are also social,
cultural, infrastructural and regulatory reasons (Geels et al., 2004).
The paper is an attempt to understand the dynamics of transition to a greener regime in
India through the lens of multi level perspective (MLP) transition framework propounded
by several scholars (Rip and Kemp, 1998; Schot, 1998; and Geels, 2002;2004;). The
paper argues that while the pressure stemming from the change in the landscape level acts
as a major driver for influencing the internal dynamics of the socio-technical regime
governing the renewable energy in India. This is reflected in the change in the actor
networks and their interaction in shaping the growth and causing the diversity in the
renewable energy development in India. The paper is organized as follows. The section II
offers a theoretical framework highlighting the dynamics of transition and multi-level
perspective framework analyzing the system innovations. The third section seeks to
explain the transition towards a sustainable energy regime. Section IV elaborates the
2
evolution of energy transition to a green energy regime in India. Fifth section examines
the dynamic interaction shaping the transition and last section concludes the paper.
II. Transition Dynamics and MLP Framework for System Innovations:
Theoretical Analytics
Transitions are complex, uncertain, and involve multiple societal stakeholders (Rotmans
and Loorbach, 2010). The varieties of policy paradigms and instruments complicate the
issue of governing transitions and raise doubts about their practicality and efficacy in
explaining it (Geels et al, 2004). Analytically transitions are characterized by strong nonlinear behavior.
The theoretical arguments on transitions can be traced back to’ technological regime
paradigm’ propounded by evolutionary economists like Nelson and Winter (1977). They
put forward that technological regimes refer to the cognitive routines shared by a
community of engineers and guide their research and development (R & D) activities.
This notion of technological regime can be related to the Dosi’s (1982) work on
‘technological trajectories’ and ‘technological paradigms’.
The technology centered transition paradigm has been criticized for overemphasizing the
supply side aspects of the innovations (Van de Ven and Garud, 1989;, Etzkowitz and
Leydesdorff, 2000, Breschi and Malerba, 1997; Malerba, 2002; Lynn et al., 1996) and
neglecting the user perspective to innovation. Scholars argue that these technology
centered transition paradigm takes user preference as granted or at best it narrows it to
’the market’ (Geels et al., 2004). It is contended that users can not be taken as passive
and they go beyond ‘the market’ framework of analyzing the innovation and can play a
vital role in making the technology to adapt to the existing societal framework.
Technological artifacts are effectively integrated into the user practices (Lie and
Sorenson, 1996; Du Gay et al., 1997).
The second set of research gap is based on the analysis of literature on ‘path dependence’
and ‘lock in’. The strand of literature based on the theoretical propositions of ‘path
dependence’ and ‘lock in’ while able to explicate the stability aspects of the existing
systems, does not possess the potential to address the issue of change and the transition
from one system to another. It is put forward that while path dependency literature helps
3
us in understanding the complexity of lock in, it does not suggest us how to ‘lock out’
(Geels et al., 2004).
Critically analyzing the earlier theories on transition dynamics, Geels et al. (2004) point
out that though these theories contribute to the development and understanding of the
system innovations, they are mostly in bits and pieces which are difficult to add up. The
challenge therefore is to integrate these theoretical propositions in an effective manner.
Multi-level perspective framework addresses these theoretical voids and integrates all the
relevant factors in a coherent manner.
Multi-level perspective is an approach has been widely advocated and propounded by
several scholars (Rip and Kemp, 1998; Geels 2002; Geels; 2004; Geels and Schot, 2007).
The novelty of multi-level perspective lies in its contribution to better understand the
system innovation approach to transition by effectively integrating various theoretical
strands such as STS, evolutionary economics and structuration theory (Rip and Kemp,
1998; Kemp et al., 1998; Schot, 1998; and Geels, 2002;2004). Grin et al, 2010).System
innovations involve transformation in the socio-technical systems consisting of a network
of actors and an array of factors such as technology, regulations, user practices and
markets, cultural meanings, infrastructure, maintenance networks and supply networks
(Elzen et al., 2004). It is further maintained that though technologies act as an important
driver in fulfilling societal functions, its operations depend on its relationship with other
factors. The mutual dependences and interrelatedness is termed as ‘socio-technical
systems’.
System innovations require an understanding about what constitutes a system. A ‘system’
is often defined as ‘a set of interrelated economic activities and actors and flows of goods
and services’ (Vellinga, 2004). An effective transformation of the system requires an
attention to be given to all facets of life like technology, institutions, economy and sociocultural sphere. As Geels et al. (2004) assert that system innovations not only involve
technological know-how but also other aspects like new markets, new forms of user
practices, regulations, infrastructures and cultural meanings.
4
Figure.1; Multi-level framework for analysis of socio-technical transitions
Source: Adapted from Geels (2002)
Analytic understanding of the processes of system innovations is premised on three levels
i.e. socio-technical landscapes, socio-technical regimes and niches (presented in the
Figure 1). The notion of socio-technical regimes is built upon Nelson and Winter’s
(1982) technological regimes, but includes more actors and more number of rules.
Widening of actors and rules imply more social groups are taken on board than
engineering communities. It further suggests that technological pathways are not
influenced by engineers, but also by users, policy makers, societal groups, suppliers,
scientists, banks etc. The stability in the socio-technical regimes are of dynamic in nature.
Multiple dimensions of a socio-technical system such as technology, scientific
knowledge, markets, infrastructure, culture and symbolic meaning, industry networks and
sectoral policies move in a trajectory quite interlinked and interconnected to each other.
The stability and resilience is created in the system by aligning different trajectories.
Often these trajectories diverge from each other and cause maladjustments and create
tensions in the system. When activities of different social groups diverge from the
pathways, this creates misalignment and instability in the system.
5
Technological trajectories are placed in a socio-technical landscapes consisting of deep
structural trends. The metaphor landscape connotes the broader ‘conditions’,
‘environment’, and ‘pressures’ for transitions. Landscapes form a broad external
environment which is beyond the direct influence of regime and niche (Grin et al., 2010).
The landscape is at the macro level and highlights the issues like political cultures,
economic growth, macro-economic trends, land use, utility infrastructures and so on
(Geels, 2002) and landscapes put pressures on existing socio-technical regimes and open
up opportunities for critical responses (Geels and Schot, 2007). The material context of
the society determines the landscape e.g. material and spatial arrangement of cities,
factories and electricity infrastructures etc. The socio-technical landscapes consist of a
bunch of heterogeneous, slow changing factors such as cultural and normative values,
broad political coalitions, long term economic developments, environmental problems
growth, emigration etc. The socio-technical landscapes are often shaped by shocks and
surprises like war, sudden rise in oil prices, climatic eruptions etc. So primarily the
landscape is the external context for actors in niches and regimes. While regime can be
changed up to an extent, it becomes difficult to change landscape. Geels and Schot
(2007) define landscape as follows;
“The sociotechnical landscape is a broad context that sustains action and makes more
actions easier than others. These external landscape developments do not mechanically
impact niches and regimes, but need to be perceived and translated by actors to exert
influence”).
While regimes create incremental innovations, radical innovations are generated in
niches. Niches are protected from normal market selection, and provide scopes for radical
novelties (Schot, 1998). Novelties often stay at the niche level for quite a long time
period because of several reasons (Grin et al., 2010). This might be due to long period of
technological development and troubleshooting within the niche or due to the existing
incompatibility in the novelties and regimes. Niches also offer space to develop the social
networks which support innovations. The initiation of regime change originates in the
niche, when practices and norms developed in niche get momentum leading to wider
technological regime becomes completely transformed by the configurations originally
nurtured in the niche. Often breakthroughs in the niche-innovations stem from landscapes
6
which create pressure on the existing regimes and offer windows of opportunity for
innovations.
The interconnectedness of these three concepts can be best understood in the framework
called ‘nested hierarchy’. The nested character of these levels implies that regimes are
embedded within landscapes, and niches within regimes. The novelties in the niches are
primarily designed to address the problems in the regimes. Actors in the social network
which support niche believe that the novelties created in the niche will be used eventually
in the regime or even replace it. The entrenchment of elements in regimes is strong
enough to not allow the novelties to replace the current regime. Nevertheless, niches play
an important role in innovations and act as the source of change. Often radical novelties
stand themselves incompatible with the current regimes. Innovations occurring at the
niche can break through and enter into the regime if external environment is conducive
that is the existing process at the levels of regime and landscape create a window of
opportunities. When innovations enter into competitions in the regime, it replaces the
current regime; it is accompanied by the change in the wider dimensions of the sociotechnical regimes. This indicates that system innovations not only include change in the
technology and market shares, but also changes in the regulation, infrastructure, symbolic
meaning and industrial network. The new regime ultimately influences the landscape
development.
Geels et al. (2004) argue that multiple perspective framework combines the two way
explanation of the systems innovations i.e. external circumstances and b) internal drivers.
Often change in the external circumstances offer windows of opportunities for novelties.
This happens when change in the external environment create tensions between elements
in the socio-technical regimes and results in misaligning of activities in the regime. For
example, climate change putting pressure on energy and transport. Pressure might come
from the change in the cultural values, ideologies and political co-coalitions. Internal
technical problems in the existing regime can also contribute in creating opportunities for
novelties. Often negative externalities also create pressure on the regime. Changing user
preferences often results in tensions when established technologies have difficulties in
meeting them.
7
System innovations are co-evolutionary processes involving both supply side
(technology, knowledge and industry structure) and demand side (user practices, cultural
status and infrastructure) interactions. System innovations are architectural innovations
involving large changes instead of incremental or change in one component, these are
multi-actor processes and they appear in a long time scale (Geels et al, 2004). There is
also scale consideration to the systems innovation processes. There are national systems
of innovations, regional systems of innovation and sectoral innovation systems. The three
scale levels are functional scale levels rather than spatial or geographical ones. They
represent functional relationships between actors, regime and niche actors.
MLP framework to system innovations also has been criticized by several scholars.
Smith and others (Smith et al., 2005; Berkes et al., 2003) argue against the theoretical
proposition extended by systems innovations that regime change is initiated in niches and
runs upwards. They rather argue that this theoretical proposition undermines the
importance of relationship between landscape and regimes. This explanation is posited in
the framework of governance of regime transformation. They argue that the framework
should pay adequate to the agency and the role of power in the socio-technical regime
shifts. They assert that it is not only about selection pressures but also about adaptive
capacity, or the relationships, resources and their levels of co-ordination that constitute a
response to these pressures.
It is also argued that the contending notions of socio-technical regime can be based on the
empirical validation. What looks like a regime shift at one level may be actually be an
incremental change from a wider regime’s perspective. In many transition cases with
regard to sustainability problems, multiple niche innovations are involved. There may be
the case that multiple niches interact with regimes, Often niches interact with each other
and stimulate and frustrate each other’s development (Grin et al, 2010). There are also
interactions between multiple regimes as a future research topic.
III. Transitions to a Sustainable Energy Regime: Global Perspectives
The arguments on sustainable transitions predate to the neoclassical propositions of
rational resource allocations under the conditions of resource scarcity. Neoclassical
8
economists perceive transitions as the movements from one economic structure to
another. They postulate that environmental problems are caused by market failures and
not reflected in the pricing structure of the products or services. The arguments posit that
environmental considerations are poorly dealt by the existing markets. This occurs as
costs and prices fail to internalize environmental externalities resulting poor response to
produce cleaner innovations (Pearce et al., 1989). In order to drive the change in the
direction of sustainable development requires change in the conditions under which
markets operate (Butter and Hofkes, 2006). Market failures can be addressed by using
several policy instruments like environmental taxes, subsidies and tradable permits. In the
nutshell neoclassical arguments on sustainable transitions can be viewed as change in the
technological structure to reflect the changing structure of prices (Geels, 2010).
The technological discontinuity approach to transition propounded by Schumpeter (1939)
poses transition as the development of ‘green’ technologies (Geels et al., 2010). This was
further elaborated by Freeman in his concept of ‘green’ techno-economic paradigm
(Freeman, 1992). Freeman argues that the green techno-economic paradigm emphasizes
on the energy and material savings in the existing product and production processes. He
further contends that this green techno-economic paradigm does not offer a solution for
transitions of the sector. Rather it emphasizes on the bits and pieces of transition
dynamics. He observes silence about the green system innovations.
The next theoretical development was structural-functionalism approach to transition.
They argue that transitions are shaped by setting overarching goals like Kyoto protocols
and Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Recognizing non-linear dynamics and
uncertainties in complex systems, these scholars argue that adaptive management of
socio-environmental systems based on diversity, learning, flexibility and stakeholder
involvement (Berkes et al., 2003).
The importance of transitioning to a sustainable regime viewed in the context of
emerging global environmental problems such as climate change, biodiversity and fast
depleting natural resources. The modern day transition problems being different from the
problems encountered in 1970s and 1980s require different approaches to address them
(Elzen et al., 2004; and Van den Bergh and Bruinsma, 2008). These transitions can be
called ‘socio-technical’ owing to the fact that they are not only technological
9
transformations but also changes in the markets, user practices, policy and cultural
meanings (Geels, 2004). IEA (2008) argues there is a need for massive transition required
to move from the current energy regime primarily based on the conventional source of
energy towards a regime which is more sustainable and environmentally friendly. The
following figure depicts the movement towards greening the economies in several
countries of the world by offering several green stimulus packages as part of their
development initiatives. It can be elicited from the picture below that China and South
Korea have the greatest green stimulus packages among the countries compared. Though
transition to a greener energy regime have gained adequate attention in many countries of
the world, the share of renewable energy production is almost constant (13 %) since
1974, even though total energy production has doubled (IEA, 2009)
Figure.2: Green Investment Packages Across Countries
Source: Von Weizsäcke, (2009).
The smooth transitions to sustainability do not come about easily as these sectors (energy,
transport, housing and agri-food) are characterized by lock-in mechanisms due to the
inherent nature of the sector such as sunk investments, behavioural patterns, vested
interests, infrastructure, favorable subsidies and regulations (Unruh, 2000).
IV. Movement Towards Green Energy Regime in India
India being one of the fastest growing economies of the world has been confronting
several challenges in the energy front. India is having fifth largest generating capacity in
the world with an estimated capacity of 152 GW which is about 4 percent of world’s
generation capacity. The average per capita consumption is about 704 KWh during 200810
09. As depicted in the following figure, India has experienced a negative energy balance
through out the years and still facing the same challenge.
Fig.3: India’s Energy Balance
The transition to a greener energy regime in India is driven by both ‘external’ or
‘landscape’ factors, like energy prices, market developments, political culture and the
emphasis on climate change as well as internal factors like the goal to achieve long term
energy security and the need for enhancing access to energy. The case for a shift to a
green energy regime in India is based on several key arguments such as i.e. India possess
adequate renewable energy potential, renewable energy can address the environmental
concerns effectively, renewable energy also have the potential to meet the rural energy
needs, it can also address the energy security concerns of India and renewable energy
sources are becoming more and more competitive with traditional sources of energy
(McKinsey, 2008).
The structural change is reflected in the shift in the role of the state and the private firms
in the energy sector. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) sketch the
development of renewable energy in India into various phases. 1970s as research phase,
1980s as demonstration phase and 1990s onwards as commercialization phase.The
renewable energy development in India though still constitute a small portion of the
entire production (4 -5 % power production and 10 % installed capacity), the pro-active
11
initiatives taken recently has accelerated the speed of the renewable energy’s contribution
to the energy basket in India. Realizing the future importance of the renewable energy in
the country’s energy basket, Government of India envisages that by 2012 the renewable
source would contribute around 10,000 MW, which will be around 10 percent of the
entire capacity additions (Ministry of Power). The major recent intiative in this direction
is the jawaharlal nehru Natioonal Solar Mission (JNNSM) which aims to produce 20,000
MW by 2022 in three different phases. The development of wind energy in India
contributes substantially to the overall renewable energy development in India. Overtime
the wind energy development has grown from a subsidy driven source of energy more
towards a market driven energy market (Goyal, 2010). The restructuring of the energy
market and the enactment of Electricity Act 2003 has changed the structure of the
renewable energy development in India. The tariff for renewable energy is no more
determined by the state/central governments; rather it is determined by the state/central
electricity boards. There has been market mechanisms introduced to trade renewable
energy among states in India. The network of actors governing the renewable energy
development has changed over time. New actors like regulatory commissions, energy
exchanges have been playing critical roles in the development of renewable energy in
India. An analysis carried out shows that the compound annual growth rate of wind
energy development is around 27 % from 2002 to 2007. The Indian Wind Energy
Outlook Report 2009 suggests that there is a possibility of wind power contributing 25 %
of total energy requirement by 2030.
12
Fig .4: Trend showing wind energy development in India
The above diagram (Figure.4) gives a synpotic view of the wind power development
in india. Two important interventions need to be mentioned. One is during 1994
where Ministry of New and Renewable Energy anounced key financial support for
boosting the power generation from such source. The other is during the legalisation
of reform with the enactment of Electricity Act in 2003. Though the development of
wind energy experienced a decline during 2007-08, it has again taken up and being
considered vital to support the energy basket in India.
V. Dynamic Interactions of Entities and Actors Stimulating the Renewable
Energy Development in India
The structural change in the India’s energy system can be explained by drawing
insights from the systems innovation theoretical approaches with multi-level and
multi-perspective framework. The present section elaborates the interaction among
various entities promoting renewable energy in India. The interaction among actors
are fast changing and shaping the growth of renewable energy in India.
In a conventional set up, the renewable energy development at the sub-national level
in India were mostly undertaken by the state energy departments/ministries and/or
state energy development authorities (SEDAs). Of late, the restructuring exercise
created a new set of actors like state electricity regulatory commissions (SERCs) with
new set of instruments and measures to take up the electricity sector on a sustainable
path. The recent thrust on climate change and the urgency to address it through
sectoral approaches have expanded the scale of activities carried out by electricity
regulators and added extra regulatory burden on them. Regulators serve as key in
introducing various policy instruments and initiating promotional measures for
making the desired environmental goals a reality. They can have strong impacts on
the development of renewable energy.
Table-1, demonstrates a comparative framework of the creation of state energy
development authorities (SEDAs) and state electricity regulatory commissions
(SERCs). It could be discerned from the table that except Rajasthan, all SERCs are
newly created institutions in contrast to the SEDAs. The noteworthy point is that
13
before the creation of SERCs, SEDAs were the prime decision making authorities on
behalf of the respective state governments to incentivise and promote renewable
energy in the state, but with the appearance of the SERCs, the responsibility to
promote renewable energy is shared in disproportionate manner between SEDAs and
SERCs across states. While states like Maharashtra experienced a very intensive and
continuous deliberation between the Maharashtra Energy Development Authority
(MEDA) and Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC), other states
like Orissa does not reveal such kind of intensive interaction, rather, taking into
account the apathetic attitude of State Government of Orissa and its designated
authority i.e. Orissa Renewable Energy Authority (OREDA) in promoting renewable
energy in the state, Orissa Electricity Regulatory Commission has recently, suo-moto
, has directed OREDA to expedite the process of renewable energy development in
the state.
14
Table.1; Creation of SEDA and SERC in Select States in India
State Energy
Development Year of
Year of
Authority
establishment Establishment
State
(SEDA)
of SEDA
of SERC
Orissa
OREDA
1984
1996
Purpose of SEDA
To promote research, development and popularization of nonconventional and renewable sources of energy
To promote renewable energy technologies and create an environment
West Bengal WBREDA
1993
2000
conducive to their commercialisation through innovative projects
To promote the use of new and renewable source of energy, to promote
energy conservation activities, to encourage R & D in renewable
Tamil Nadu TEDA
1985
1999
energy
To promote and popularise renewable energy and energy conservation
Gujarat
GEDA
1979
1998
in the state of Gujarat
To promote and develop non-conventional energy sources in the state
and as a state designated agency (SDA) for enforcement of provisions
Rajasthan
RRECL
2002
1999
of Energy Conservation Act 2001 in the State
to promote and develop non-conventional and renewable energy
Punjab
PEDA
1991
1999
programs or projects in the State
15
Madhya
Pradesh
To implement various programs and policies of the Government of
MPUVNL
1982
1999
India as well as the State Government for the renewable energy sector.
To undertake the development of renewable energy and facilitate
Maharashtra MEDA
1985
1999
energy conservation in the State of Maharashtra
To gather and disseminate useful knowledge in various fields of Nonconventional Energy, Energy Conservation and Rural Technology;
conduct studies, demonstrate, implement and support implementation
Kerala
ANERT
1986
2002
of schemes and projects.
Karnataka
KREDL
1996
1999
To promote non-conventional energy sources in Karnataka
Andhra
Pradesh
To implement non-conventional energy programmes sponsored by
NEDCAP
1986
1999
both the State and Central Governments
16
VI. Conclusion
It is argued that there is no overall rationality to guide transitions rather actors direct the
transition through probing and learning. Multi-level perspective has the advantage of
encompassing sociological, economic and socio-technical theories (Elzen et al., 2004).
Importantly, user preferences has enormous important in the transition processes. Change
in the users behavior and preferences is central for a transition. Users may act as a barrier
to transition as they usually do not easily change their ways and adopt new patterns of
behavior. Users can either make or break the transition (Elzen et al., 2004). Transition is
often argued as the process to ‘modulate the ongoing dynamics’.
The present paper argues how the changing networks and actors are driving the
renewable energy development in India. There has been a significant change in the actor
networks after the restructuring of electricity industry in India around 2003. This has
definite implications for the renewable energy development in India. In absolute terms
though there are still challenges ahead to develop renewable energy as the key source of
energy supply, but the current focus on various policies and programmes and the effort to
integrate green source of energy in the mainstream of energy supply reveals that it is not
only technological development alone which is driving the sector, rather an array of
socio-economic drivers also causing this transition in the required dimension. The
growing awareness about green energy’s role in the clean environment is increasingly
changing the user’s preferences for green energy. This is visible in the development of
renewable energy based off-grid energy systems being vigorously pursued in many parts
of the country. Introduction of market for renewable energy also acts as an important
driver for pushing ahead the renewable energy production. It can be discerned that there
is regime shift happening in India, from fossil fuel centered energy regime towards a
renewable based energy.
17
VII. Reference
Berkhout, F. (2002), ‘Technological Regimes, Path Dependency and the Environment’,
Global Environmental Change, 12, 1-4.
Breschi, Stefano and Franco Malerba (1997), ‘Societal Innovation Systems:
Technological Regimes, Schumpeterian Dynamics, and Spatial Boundaries’, in Charles
Edquist (ed.), Systems Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organization, London
and Washington, DC: Pinter, pp. 130-56.
Berkes, F.,
J.F. Colding, C.Folke (Eds.) ( 2003), ‘Navigating Nature’s Dynamics:
Building Resilience for Complexity and Change’, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Butter, F.A.G. and M.W. den Hofkes (2006), ‘ A Neo-classical Economics View Point in
Technology Transitions, In Olsthoorn, X., Wieczoreck, A. J. 9Eds.), Understanding
Industrial Transformation: View from Different Disciplines, Springer, Dodret, NL,
pp.141-162.
Dosi, G. (1982), ‘Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested
Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change’, Research
Policy,6(3), 147-162.
Du Gay, Paul, Stuart Hall, Linda Janes, Hugh MacKey and Keith Negus (1997), Doing
Cultural Studies : The Story of the Sony Walkman, London : Sage Publications.
Elzen, Boelie, Frank W. Geels and Ken Green (2004). ‘System Innovation and Transition
to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy’, Edward Elgar Publication, UK.
18
Etzkowitz, H., and L. Leydesdorff (2000), ‘ The Dynamics of Innovation: From National
Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple helix of University-Industry Government Relations’,
Research Policy, 29 (2), 109-23.
Freeman, C. (1992), ‘ A Green Techno-economic Paradigm for the World Economy’, In
Freeman, C. (Ed.). The Economics of Hope. Pinter Publishers, London, pp-190-211.
Geels, F.W. (2002). ‘Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration
Processes: a Multi-level Perspective and a Case Study’, Research Policy 31 (8/9), 12571274.
Geels, Frank W., Boelie Elzen and Ken Green (2004). ‘General Introduction: System
Innovation and Transitions to Sustainability’, in Boelie Elzen, Frank W. Geels and Ken
Green (edt.) ‘System Innovation and Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and
Policy’, Edward Elgar Publication, UK.
Geels, F.W., (2004), ‘From Sectoral Systems of Innovation to Socio-technical Systems:
Insights About Dynamics and Change from Sociology and Institutional Theory’,
Research Policy 33 (6/7), 897-920.
Geels, F., and R. Raven (2006), ‘Non-linearity and Expectations in Niche Development
Trajectories: Ups and Downs in Dutch Biogas Development (1973-2003), Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management 18 (3/4), 375-392.
Geels, F.W., and J.W. Schot (2007), ‘Typology of Socio-technical Transition Pathways’,
Research Policy, 36 (3), 399-417.
Geels, F.W. (2010), ‘Ontologies, Socio-technical Transitions (to Sustainability), and the
Multi-level Perspective’, Research Policy 39 (2010) 495-510.
Goyal, Mohit (2010), “Repowering – Next Big Thing in India”, Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14, 1400 – 1409.
19
Grin, J, Jan Rotmans and Johan Schot(2010), ‘Transitions to Sustainable Development’,
Routledge Publication, NewYork.
IEA (2008), ‘International Energy Agency’, World Energy Outlook’, International
Energy Agency, Paris.
IEA (2009), IEA Score Board 2009: 35 Key Energy Trends Over 35 Years, International
Energy Agency, Paris.
Jacobbson, S., and A. Johnson (2000), ‘The Diffusion of Renewable Energy Technology;
an Analytical Framework and Key Issues of Research’, Energy Policy, 28, 625-40.
Kemp, R., J.Schot and R. Hoogma (1998), ‘Regime Shifts to Sustainability Through
Processes of Niche Formation: The Approach for Strategic Niche Management’,
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 10, 175-96.
Kemp , R. And J, Rotmans (2004), ‘ Managing the Transition to Sustainability Mobility’,
in Elzen, Boelie, Frank W. Geels and Ken Green (Eds.) ‘System Innovation and
Transition to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy’, Edward Elgar Publication,
UK.
Kivisaari, S. Raimo Lovio and E. Vayrynen (2004), Managing Experiments for
Tansitions: Exampes of Societal Embedding in Energy and Health Care Sectors’, in
Elzen, Boelie, Frank W. Geels and Ken Green (eds.) ‘System Innovation and Transition
to Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy’, Edward Elgar Publication, UK.
Lie, Merete and Knut H. Sorensen (eds) (1996), Making Technology Our Own:
Domesticating Technology in Everyday Life, Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
20
Lovell, H. (2007), ‘The Governance of Innovation in Socio-technical Systems: the
Difficulties of Strategic Niche management in Practice’, Science and Public Policy (SPP)
34 (1), 35-44.
Lynn, L.H., N.M. Reddy and J.D. Aram (1996), “ Linking Technology and Institutions :
The Innovation Community Framework’, Research Policy, 25, 91-106.
Malerba, F. (2002), ‘Sectoral Systems of Innovations’, Research Policy, 31 92), 247-64.
McKinsey (2008), “Powering India: The Road to 2017”, McKinsey & Company, July
2008.
Nelson, Richard R., and Sidney G. Winter (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic
Change, Cambridge (MA)Bellknap Press.
Pearce, D., A. Markandya, E.B. Barbier (1989), ‘Blueprint for a Green Economy’,
Earthscan, London.
Raven, R (2004), ‘Implementation of Manure Digestion and Co-combustion in the Dutch
Electricity Regime: A Multi-level Analysis of Market Implementation in the Netherlands,
Energy Policy 32 (1), 29-39.
Raven, R (2006), ‘Towards Alternative Trajectories? Reconfigurations in the Dutch
Electricity Regime’, Research Policy 35 (4), 581-595.
Raven, R (2007),’Co-evolution of Waste and Electricity Regimes: Multi-regime
Dynamics in the Netherlands (1969-2003), Energy Policy 35, 2197-2208.
21
Rip, A., and R. Kemp (1998), ‘Technological Change’, in :Rayner, S., Malone, E.L.
(Eds.), ‘Human Choice and Climate Change’, Battelle Press, Columbus, OH, pp. 327399.
Rotmans, J., R. Kemp, M. Van Asselt, F. Geels, G. Verbong and K. Molendijik (2000),
Transitions and Transition Management: The Case of Low Energy Supply’.
Rotmans, J and D. Loorbach (2010), ‘Towards a Better Understanding of Transitions and
Their Governance: A Systematic and Reflexive Approach”, in Grin, J, Jan Rotmans and
Johan Schot (Eds.), ‘Transitions to Sustainable Development’, Routledge Publication,
NewYork.
Schot,J., R. Hoogma and B. Elzen (1994), ‘Strategies for Shifting Technological
Systems: The Case of Automobile Systems’, Futures, 26, 1060-76.
Schot, J. (1998), ‘The Usefulness of Evolutionary Models for Explaining Innovation, The
Case of the Netherlands in the Nineteenth Century’, History of Technology, 14-173-200.
Schumpeter, J.A. (1939), ‘Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical and Statistical
Analysis of the Capitalist Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Smith, Adrian, Andy Stirling and Frans Berkhout (2005), ‘The Governance of
Sustainable Socio-technical Transitions’, Research Policy, 34, 1491-1510.
Smith, A. (2007), “Emerging in Between: the Multi-level Governance of Renewable
Energy in the English Regions’, Energy Policy 35 912), 6266-6280.
Unruh, G.C. (2000), ‘Understanding Cabon Lock-in’, Energy Policy, 28, 817-30.
22
Van de Ven, Andrew H., and Raghu Garud (1989), ‘A Framework for Understanding the
Emergence of New Industries’, in Richard Rosenbloom and Robert Burgelman (eds).
Research in Technological Innovations, Management and Policy, Greenwich, CT:Jai
Press, pp 195-225.
Van den Bergh J.C.J.M., andF.R. Bruinsma (eds.) ( 2008), ‘Managing the Transition to
Renewable Energy: Theory and Practice from Local, Regional and Macro Perspectives,
Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Vellinga, Pier (2004).’ ‘Foreword’ in the book ‘System Innovation and Transition to
Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy’ edt. by Boelie Elzen, Frank W. Geels and
Ken Green (2004), Edward Elgar Publication, UK.
Vellimga, Pier, and Nadia Herb (eds) (1999), ‘Industrial Transformation Science Plan’,
International Human Dimensions Programme, Report No. 12.
Von Weizsäcker, E. (2009). Managing the transition to resource-efficient and low carbon
industries, International Conference on Green Industry in Asia, Manila, Philippines, 9-11
September 2009.
Walker, W. (2000), ‘Entrapment in Large Technology Systems: Institutional
Commitments and Power Relations’, Research Policy, 29 (7-8), 833-846.
Wiskerke, J.S.C., and Van der Ploeg (2004), ‘Seeds of Transition: Essays on Novelty
Production: Niches and Regimes in Agriculture’, Van Gorcum, Assen.
23