transition management as a model for managing processes …transition management kemp, loorbach and...

Transition management as a model formanaging processes of co-evolutiontowards sustainable development

René Kemp, Derk Loorbach and Jan Rotmans

UNU-MERIT, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Key words: Co-evolution, sustainable development, multi-level governance, incrementalism, planning,and goal-oriented modulation

SUMMARYSustainable development requires changes in socio-technical systems and wider societalchange – in beliefs, values and governance. In this article we present a model for manag-ing processes of co-evolution: transition management. Transition management is a multi-level model of governance which shapes processes of co-evolution using visions, transitionexperiments and cycles of learning and adaptation. Transition management helpssocieties to transform themselves in a gradual, reflexive way through guided processes ofvariation and selection, the outcomes of which are stepping stones for further change. Itshows that societies can break free from existing practices and technologies, by engagingin co-evolutionary steering. This is illustrated by the Dutch waste management transition.Perhaps transition management constitutes the third way that policy scientists have beenlooking for all the time, combining the advantages of incrementalism (based on mutualadaptation) with the advantages of planning (based on long-term objectives).

INTRODUCTION

Sustainable development is about the redirectionof development (WCED,1987). It is not about anidentifiable end state. Sustainable development is anever-ending process of progressive social change.It involves multiple transitions or system innova-tions. Each transition is made up of processes ofco-evolution involving changes in needs, wants,institutions, culture and practices. In this articlewe argue that sustainable development requiresradical changes in functional systems and changesnot only in government policy but also in currentsystems of governance (the orientation of societyand patterns of interaction over collective issues).In our view, the existing policy frameworks with

fragmented policy areas are not suited for dealingwith social complexity and desired long-termchange. Different types of governance are needed:more open, adaptive, and oriented towards learn-ing and experimenting.

Special attention is given to co-evolution, wheredifferent subsystems are shaping but not determiningeach other (relative autonomy). We will argue thata co-evolution perspective is the proper perspectivefor thinking about governance for sustainabledevelopment (Norgaard 1994; Van den Bergh andStagl 2002; Rammel et al. 2004), and will describe amodel of shaping co-evolution processes to sustain-ability goals, which is transition management.

International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 14 (2007) 1–15

Correspondence: René Kemp, UNU-MERIT, Keizer Karelplein 19, 6211 TC Maastricht, The Netherlands.Email: [email protected]

1

Through transition management (developed byRotmans et al. 2000) alternative social trajectoriesare explored in an adaptive and anticipatorymanner.

The first part of the article examines the notionof sustainable development and its relation withco-evolution. The second part discusses problemsof steering, offering suggestions for how problemsof distributed control, dissent and political myopiamay be overcome through transition management.The model of transition management is illustratedby Dutch waste management policies as an exampleof reflexive, co-evolutionary steering. The last partcompares the model of transition managementwith other models for policy and governance: plan-ning (relying on control) and incremental politics(relying on small steps and cycles of learning andadaptation). As we will see, in terms of govern-ance, transition management makes use of whatLindblom (1979) calls ‘partisan mutual adjust-ment’ but with special attention given to problemstructuring, long-term goals and learning aboutsystem innovation. It combines the capacity toadapt to change with a capacity to shape change(Rammel et al. 2004) and is concerned with positivegoals (collectively chosen by society following a pro-cess of problem structuring). The first element –adaptivity of systems to their environment – iswell-established within the literature on co-evolution (looking at resilience), the second ele-ment – shaping subsystems and their environment –has received far less attention. It is on this that thisarticle intends to make a valuable contribution,using the waste management transition in theNetherlands as an example.

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ASCO-EVOLUTION

Following the Brundtland report Our CommonFuture (WCED 1987) sustainable developmentcame to be defined as redirection of trajectories ofchange in ways that combine economic wealth,environmental protection with social cohesion.After the initial optimism about win-win opportuni-ties, it is increasingly understood that there aretradeoffs between the three goals in any type ofdevelopment (at least in the short term) and thateach development tosses up new problems forsociety which must be dealt with by policy (Beck1994). Car-based transport was once much more

clean than horse-drawn carriages which filled thestreet with horse excrement, giving rise to the occu-pation of road sweepers, clearing the road forpeople to walk (Kemp and Soete 1992). These days,we have ozone problems caused by automobiles,congestion problems, noise problems and over amillion traffic deaths yearly worldwide. In 2000,1.26 million people died in road accidents (WHO2004).

Approaching sustainable development as a con-tinuous process of change means that it cannot betranslated into a blueprint or a defined end statefrom which criteria could be derived and unambig-uous decisions be taken to get there (Voss et al.2006: as a multi-dimensional and dynamic conceptsustainable development can neither be translatedinto the narrow terms of static optimisation nor is itconducive to strategies based on direct control,fixed goals and predictability (Rammel et al. 2004:1). We face a dynamic process where the startingpoint cannot be a fixed idea of sustainability butderives from social consensus on what we considerto be unsustainable (Wilkinson and Cary 2002quoted in Rammel et al. 2004). Sustainability refersto a process and a standard and not to an end state:each generation must take up the challenge anew,determining in what directions their developmentobjectives lie, what constitutes the boundaries ofthe environmentally possible and the environ-mentally desirable, and what is their understandingof the requirements of social justice (Meadowcroft1997: 37).

In sustainability discussions, the term co-evolution is frequently used. For instance, Norgaard(1984) sees the solution in a co-evolutionary poten-tial based on diversity in the widest sense (includingdiversity in governance). A co-evolutionary viewindeed is important for thinking about governancefor sustainable development for two reasons. First,it accepts that we have cause-effect-cause loops acrossdifferent scales and systems, with effects becomingcauses of other developments (‘positive feedback’in systems terms). A good example is the use of cars,which facilitated travel and urban sprawl, and inturn increased the demand for cars. This simpleexample also shows that people’s needs are partlyendogenous to other developments. See forinstance studies on the co-evolution of perceptionsand bounded rationality, which point to the rela-tion between human needs, are partly endogenousand related to a selective environment (Hadfield

Transition management Kemp, Loorbach and Rotmans

2 International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology

and Seaton 1999; van den Bergh and Stagl 2003).The same is true for policy, which is not indepen-dent from economy but a response to problems,pollution for instance, with the policies giving riseto new problems (high costs or waste). Second, veryparadoxically, a co-evolutionary perspective seesdevelopments in different subsystems as partiallyindependent. Co-evolution is a special type of inter-dependency: A influences but does not determineB and C, which in turn influence but do not deter-mine A, although both A, B and C change irrevers-ibly. The different units of evolution enjoy relativeautonomy in development. Technical change co-evolves with institutional change (within systems ofgovernance and organizations and culture), theyare shaping but not determining each other.

In the literature on societal change differenttypes of co-evolution have been noted: supply anddemand (Nelson and Winter 1982); technologyand users (von Hippel 1988; Leonard-Barton1988); technology, industry structure and institu-tions (Nelson 1994; Rosenkopf and Tushman1994;); actor and structure (Giddens 1984); tech-nology and society (Rip and Kemp 1998; van de Venand Garud 1994; von Tunzelmann 2001); and eco-logy, economy and society (Norgaard 1984; Kempand Soete 1992; Gowdy 1994; Kemp and Rotmans2005).

Obviously, not every type of interaction shouldbe called co-evolution. Strictly speaking, co-evolution occurs when two evolutionary processesare interlinked (van den Bergh and Stagl 2003) butas some people will say that processes with teleo-logical elements (as in human/social evolution)cannot reasonably be viewed as evolutionary(because in economic evolution there is purposeand no gene type), we propose to use the definitionof relative autonomy. The co-evolution idea hasbeen taken up by many authors outside biology butthe management and governance aspects remainunderdeveloped. Useful attempts at that are pro-vided by Lee (1993), Rammel and van der Bergh(2003), Rammel et al. (2004) and Bleischwitz(2004). These co-evolutionary approaches all buildon the model of punctuated equilibrium in whichperiods of slow change are punctuated by periodsof radical change. This means that in evolution wehave panarchy (Gunderson and Holling 2002) ortransitions (Rotmans et al. 2001; Geels 2002, 2005),transitional shifts from one dynamic equilibriumto another. Transitions in society or societal

subsystems are the outcome of processes of co-evolution in the above sense (Rotmans et al. 2001).In transition terms we speak of co-evolution if theinteraction between different societal subsystemsinfluences the dynamics of the individual societalsubsystems, leading to irreversible patterns ofchange. Within the context of transitions co-evolution has been dealt with partially: e.g. co-evolution between science and technology,between culture and technology and between tech-nology and society (Geels 2002). However, a com-prehensive study of co-evolution in broad societaltransitions is lacking (Rotmans 2005).

TRANSITION MANAGEMENT FORSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The co-evolutionary perspective provides a fertileground for thinking about policy and governancein the context of sustainable development. Itimplies that straightforward planning as well asincremental strategies are insufficient becausethese are not able to tackle system failures under-lying persistent problems in an adequate manner,leading to suboptimal solutions. To bridge the gapbetween top-down planning and bottom-up incre-mentalism, the Dutch model of transition manage-ment appears useful. The model of transitionmanagement tries to utilize innovative bottom-updevelopments in a more strategic way by coordinat-ing different levels of governance and fosteringself-organization through new types of interactionand cycles of learning and action for radical innova-tions offering sustainability benefits. Transitionmanagement views societal change as a result of theinteraction between all relevant actors on differentsocietal levels within the context of a changingsocietal landscape. It is thus concerned with theuse and coordination of interaction and co-evolutionary processes.

Transition management is developed as a modelfor governance based on a number of principlesand instruments described below. Before wedescribe them we should first discuss key problemsin managing processes of societal change. Theproblems are common problems for any type ofsteering. The novelty of transition management isthat it sets out to deal with them in an integratedway, something that is important for sustainabilitytransitions.


International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 3

Problem 1: Dissent

Complex societal problems related to sustainabilityare characterized by dissent on the ranking ofgoals, means and nature of the problem. Differentpeople have different perspectives on the (nature)of the problem and preferred solutions. For exam-ple, there is no consensus on what sustainableenergy or agriculture means in real practical terms.For some biological agriculture is sustainable; forothers the larger land requirements of biologicalfarming makes it not sustainable in a global con-text. Each option has its own setbacks. Over andabove this, there is uncertainty about long-termsystemic impacts. A proximate solution for this is:continuous and iterative deliberation and assess-ment in a well-organized discourse; even whenthere is dissent about appropriate solutions, it maybe possible to come to define key parameters for afuture system, such as that a sustainable energysystem is reliable, affordable and CO2-low. Otherparameters could be added, such as that thereshould be no biodiversity loss (relevant for bio-energy). Problem structuring methods (Rosenheadand Mingers 2002) may be used for getting to ashared problem definition about the currentsystem (the non-sustainable aspects). Assessmentof long-term systemic impacts of various socio-technical options may lead to at least a better under-standing of systemic impacts. Through such assess-ments visions of sustainability may be revised ormade more concrete.

Problem 2: Distributed control

In pluricentric societies control cannot be exer-cised from the top (Mayntz 1994; Pierre 2000).Control is distributed over various actors with dif-ferent beliefs, interests and resources. Influence isexercised at different points, also within govern-ment, which consist of different layers and silos,making unitary action impossible (Eising andKohler-Koch 1999). The distributed nature of con-trol calls for cooperation and network manage-ment. Current modes of network management arenot equipped for long-term structural change.They are too little concerned about long-term sub-stantive ends and too much with the process itself.We need another form of network managementwhich is concerned with expressing long-term aimsand the management of transition processes. The

essence of transition management is that substanceand process go hand-in-hand, creating partisanmutual adjustment against long-term transitiongoals. The formulation of joint visions and com-mon goals helps actors to coordinate their actions.Different visions are explored by different actorsrepresenting different interests.

Problem 3: Determination of short-termsteps

It is unclear how long-term structural change maybe achieved through short-term steps. Short-termaction for long-term structural change present a bigproblem to policy-makers. There exists little theoryon this. Here we propose a dual strategy of forwardreasoning and backward reasoning. The reasoningforward would first be based on trend analysis andforecasting exercises. Second, reasoning forwardconsists of the identification of useful steps, short-term actions which generate useful lessons andfacilitate further change. Experiments can be usedto learn about user satisfaction concerning a rangeof technical issues. They help to identify problemsand to create networks for cooperation (Kemp et al.1998; Hoogma et al. 2002). Back casting may help toidentify strategic experiments and help to set goalsfor new socio-technical systems. Integrated systemsanalysis may help to identify pathways, help identifyrobust options, and help set goals (Rotmans 1998).

Problem 4: Danger of lock-in

There is a danger that one gets locked in to particu-lar solutions that are not optimal from a longer-term perspective. For example, by choosing thebest available option at the beginning of a transi-tion process while other options are still in develop-ment, the chances are that future development willbe dominated by that specific option. An example isthe fossil-based energy system, which is now difficultto transform since infrastructures, regulation andinstitutions are all in support of that specific option.A way to avoid the danger of getting locked intosub-optimal solutions from a sustainability perspec-tive is the development and use of a portfolio ofoptions (Kemp et al. 2005). When there is a lot ofuncertainty about which option is best this is agood strategy, which is widely practiced in business.Support for options could be based on promisesand specific benefits for the nation or region in



which it is used. The support should be regularlyreviewed and adapted.

Problem 5: Political myopia

From historical studies (Geels 2005) we know thattransitions in socio-technical systems take onegeneration or more and thus span various politicalcycles. Transition management in some way mustsurvive short-term political changes. There is nosimple solution for this except that policy-makersand politicians have to accept that a transition takesone generation or more and be willing to wait forlong-term results. For this to happen they have to beconvinced that a problem needs fundamentalchange and that time is needed for such a changeto occur. The transition arena (Loorbach andRotmans 2006) is proposed as an instrument thatcan be used when the sense of urgency is relativelyhigh. The transition arena forms the context inwhich the focus is on the long term and on in-depthanalysis of the problem at hand with a discourseabout preferred long-term development. By creat-ing a transition arena outside the regular politicalshort-term cycles, more innovative and radicalsolutions can emerge as well as novel coalitionsand consensus decisions. The structural changeprocess should then be institutionalized throughthe development of transition agendas, newcoalitions and rules and laws and be made adaptiveto deal with changing circumstances and politi-cal wishes (co-evolution). From this, the followingstrategies emerge as useful for managing sustain-ability transitions: problem structuring, partici-patory integrated assessment, complex systemsanalysis, vision development, portfolio manage-ment, iterative decision-making and adaptivepolicy, experiments, cooperation, and commit-ment to transitions. They help to alter regimes ofgovernance and nested hierarchies in the provi-sion of goods and services through processes ofvariation and selection – of beliefs, concepts,artifacts and institutions.

For changing the order and direction of societyand managing transitions of societal systems, a formof multi-level governance is needed in which theabove elements are integrated in some way. The wayin which this is done in transition managementis through the interaction between three levels(Loorbach 2004):

1. Strategic level: processes of vision develop-ment, strategic discussions, long-term goalformulation, etc.

2. Tactical level: processes of agenda building,negotiating, networking, coalition building,etc.

3. Operational level: processes of experiment-ing, project building, implementation, etc.

The processes and outputs of the processes differ ateach level (visions, strategies, agendas, projects)and ‘co-evolve’ throughout the process. Transitionmanagement relies on the interaction between pro-cesses at three levels. Transition management triesto align these processes through a combination ofnetwork governance, self-organization and processmanagement leading to modulation of ongoingdynamics. At each level, specific types of actorsparticipate, specific (policy) instruments are usedand different competencies are needed. Transi-tions are the outcome of the interactions betweenactors on one level and interactions between levels(see Figure 1).

Operationally, transition management consistsof four different clusters of activities: the strategictransition arena (problem structuring and visiondevelopment), tactical transition coalitions andnetworks (agenda building, transition paths),operational-level experiments and projects andfinally the monitoring and evaluation of progress(both in terms of process as well as content), lead-ing to adaptation (see Rotmans et al. 2001;Loorbach and Rotmans 2006). This helps to dealwith the issue of distributed control because everyactor is ‘managing’ or influencing at least some partof the system. Through a process of partisan mutualadaptation against collectively chosen goals newinteraction patterns, policies and socio-technicaltrajectories emerge in a self-organised mannerrather than through steering from the top.

Transition management can be considered as aspecific form of multi-level governance (Scharpf1994, 1999; Hooghe and Marks 2001) whereby stateand non state actors are brought together to co-pro-duce and coordinate policies in an iterative andevolutionary manner on different policy levels,adhering to the aforementioned principles. Transi-tion management tries to improve the interactionbetween different levels of government for the sakeof certain transitions. Transition management thus



offers a framework for policy integration with thefollowing types of policies:

1. Science policy: sustainability assessments of sys-tem innovations, studies of past and ongoingtransitions, focusing on the role of policy andusefulness of various governance models;

2. Innovation policy: the creation of innovationalliances, R&D programmes for sustainabletechnologies, the use of transition experi-ments, and alignment of innovation policiesto transition goals;

3. Sector policy: niche policies (through procure-ment, regulations or the use of economicincentives), the removal of barriers to thedevelopment of system innovations, and form-ulation of long-term goals and visions to givedirection to research and innovation.

In short, the activities of transition management areaimed at influencing, organizing and coordinatingprocesses at different (strategic, tactical, opera-tional) levels so that these processes are aligned andreinforce each other. Transition management isconcerned with the co-evolution of technology andsociety in a broader sense through analyzing inter-actions and feedbacks between various subsystemsand use these insights for creating levers for

influencing these subsystems in order to increasethe possibility that these subsystems (and thus thesystem as a whole) move into a more sustainabledirection (Rotmans 2005). The subsystems may befunctional systems, such as energy and mobility orhousing and care, or different domains and levelsof government. The space for innovation is openedup and there is less short-termism. Partial solutionsare forgone for options offering a greater suite ofbenefits.

Transition management comes down to dealingwith a multiplicity of steering activities by differentactors, different mechanisms and different instru-ments and driving socio-technical activities in ashared and desired direction. Actor roles willchange over time endogenously (as part of thedevelopment process). For instance, in the courseof an energy transition process, oil companies maydecide to become energy companies. Transitionmanagement will give rise to altered actor-systemdynamics, leading to altered actor configurationsand altered power constellations and institutionalarrangements that form a different selectionenvironment wherein social innovations canmature more easily.

Actually, transition management is a co-evolutionary form of governance in the sense that itaims to develop an innovative governance context



Figure 1 Multilevel approach to transition management

which enables processes of co-evolution. Transitionmanagement is about organizing a sophisticatedprocess whereby the different elements of thecyclical transition management process may co-evolve: the joint problem perception, vision,agenda, instruments, experiments and monitoringthrough a process of social learning about radicalinnovations and new systems.

The transition in the Dutch wastemanagement system

An example of a co-produced transition is theDutch waste-management transition (Loorbachet al. 2003). Today around 80% of the total amountof waste produced is re-used (also through inciner-ation), compared to 49% in 1985 (in this year thestate started collection of waste-related data). Thenumber of landfill sites fell from 450 in 1977 to 34in 2000. Today all landfills have advanced systems ofsoil protection and systems of methane extraction.The capacity of incineration increased steadily,from 2.2 Mton in 1980 to 4.9 Mton in 2000.

The transition from a local system of wastecollection to a national system of recycling andincreased incineration with controlled landfillingas a last resort option is often viewed as the result ofpolicy. Such a view, although not wrong in itself,overlooks that policy itself was heavily influenced bysocietal events and changes in consumption andproduction: the growing volumes of waste, thewaste scandals in the 1980s and early 1990s, andchanges in beliefs (such as the belief that waste is ‘a

waste of resources’ and the belief that landfillingshould be done in a hygienic manner and be usedas a last resort option) in a period in which environ-ment was very much on the mind of people.

The transition towards better waste manage-ment is best understood as a process of co-evolutionof the waste management subsystem and societalvalues and beliefs (a society growing conscious ofwaste problems and hostile to landfill sites). Wastescandals of polluted sites and dioxins from inciner-ators brought attention to problems, which helpedto close down old incinerators and build betterones. Various waste acts were introduced and a neworganization was created for coordinating theactions of waste players, the waste managementcouncil, AOO. The AOO was a network organiza-tion that brought together the three layers ofgovernment (local, provincial and central) andall waste players. The AOO served important co-ordinating function, acting as a change agent andmediator.

Strategic level

At the strategic level there was a change in think-ing about waste. With the growing environ-mentalism and discovery of landfilled toxic waste(Vogelmeerpolder and Lekkerkerk) waste andwaste management became a political issue. At theend of the 1980s environmental authorities real-ized that in order to effectively deal with the contin-uing increases in waste volumes and the negativeeffects of common waste management practices



Figure 2 PLEASE PROVIDE LEGEND

(mainly landfilling), long-term, integrated poli-cies were required, replacing fragmented, locallyorganized management. Central to policy thinkingwas the ‘waste hierarchy’ proposed in the parlia-mentary motion of Ad Lansink in 1979. This hier-archy prioritized between different managementoptions and went from prevention, through re-use(of products), recycling (of materials), incinera-tion (with energy production) and landfilling as thelast option. The motion became law in 1986 and wasan important cognitive institution (Parto 2005). Toachieve such a differentiated form of waste manage-ment, waste management had to be organised at ahigher scale (Commission Welschen). This impor-tant strategic direction of creating a national systemof waste management based on the waste hierarchywas incorporated in the first national environ-mental policy plan (NEP).

Tactical Level

At the tactical level there were negotiations,changes in market structure and organization ofwaste management at larger scales (first supra-localthen nationwide). A very important event was thecreation in 1990 of a new coordinating body (WasteManagement Council, AOO), to coordinate poli-cies between the Environment Ministry (VROM),the provinces (IPO) and the municipalities (VNG)and play an important role in the modernization ofthe waste system. Producer responsibility wasintroduced and the waste companies organizedthemselves in new organizations at the nationallevel. The societal actors were willing to cooperatebecause the waste management subsystem was in astate of crisis due to acute capacity problems, dioxinproblems from incinerators and problems ofleaking landfills. A new multilevel form of govern-ance was created which could deal with immediateproblems in a forward-looking manner. Thechanges that happened subsequently can be con-sidered as a form of incremental institutionaliza-tion, with an acceleration of this process duringthe 1990s. The creation of new laws and nationalpolicies (which in turn were the outcome ofchanged beliefs and new problem definitions)enabled lower-level changes. Organization of thebusinesses in the sector was, for example, madepossible through the creation of AOO. These twodevelopments combined facilitated the planning

of national infrastructures and accordingly imple-mentation and regulation of more differentiatedwaste policies.

Operational level

Operational changes consisted in the closing of oldlandfill sites and incinerators and creation of newones with controlled disposal and incineration withheat recovery. In 1994 household waste separationwas introduced, which also stimulated the environ-mental (waste) awareness leading to changes inconsumer behaviour. This change in behaviour wasaccompanied by changes in the practices of wasteoperators and the structure of the waste subsystem.Waste operators had to learn how to accommodateregulatory requirements regarding collection andhandling of waste, while deposit depots (milieu-perrons) were established to facilitate maximumcitizen participation in waste elimination/mini-mization efforts. In 1994 so-called VAM vats (greenboxes for organic waste) were distributed to everyhousehold. Differentiated tariffs (Diftar) wereintroduced by some municipalities to stimulaterecovery and re-use. This innovation diffusedwidely, also thanks to the information servicesprovided by the AOO.

We are not sure whether to call the multileveldevelopments a process of co-evolution of co-dynamics, although it is clear that the waste man-agement subsystem changed in co-evolution withchanges on a societal level (in governance andbeliefs) and in other societal systems (such asenergy provision, consumption and production).The evolution of the waste management system wasan unfolding process in which new institutionsemerged (on top of existing institutions), such asthe waste hierarchy and the waste managementcouncil AOO, responding to pressing problems inan adaptive and anticipative (forward-looking)manner similar to transition management. Aschematic view of the multilevel co-evololutionstory is given in Figure 2. The process of change waspath-dependent and could only be understood thatway. Many institutional changes followed eachother (the waste laws, the waste hierarchy, profes-sional private companies, creation of the AOOand the view of waste as a waste of resources, withthe new waste practices taking away concerns fromcitizens).





Figu

re3

Mul

ti-le

velm

apof

the

tran

siti

onin

the

Dut

chw

aste

sect

or(a

fter

Loo

rbac

het

al.2

003)

TRANSITION MANAGEMENT AS ATHIRD WAY

Transition management combines elements oflong-term planning with incrementalism and relieson markets and network management. We there-fore refer to transition management as ‘directedincrementalism’ (Grunwald 2000), being theEnglish translation of ‘Perspektivischer Inkre-mentalismus’. It is an example of goal-orientedmodulation or process management against a set of

societal meta-goals using sustainability visions andimages. In Table 1 we compare transition manage-ment with incrementalism and planning, where wewill see that goal-oriented modulation is not asimple mix of the other two models but a distinctivemodel (in the same way network management wasdistinctively different from markets and hierarchyas a model of economic coordination).

Transition management uses goals but does notaim to control the future (to use Wildavsky’s term).



IncrementalismGoal-oriented modulation – of whichtransition management is an example Planning

Key actors Private and publicactors

Private and public actors, experts Bureaucrats andexperts

Steering philosophy Partisan mutualadaptation,learning-by-doing

Modulation of developments tocollectively chosen goals, governmentis facilitator and mediator

Hierarchy

Role for anticipation Limited (no long-term goals)

Dynamic, adaptive anticipation ofdesired futures as basis for interaction

Future is analysed andimplemented throughblueprint plans

Type of learning First order: learningabout quick fixes forremedying immediateills

Second-order and first-order (rethinkfollowing problem structuring)

First order(instrumental)

Mechanism forcoordination

Markets and emergentinstitutionalisation

Markets, network management,institutionalisation (both designed andemergent)

Hierarchy (top-down)

Degree of adaptivity Adaptive Highly adaptive thanks to institutionalizedevaluation and (policy) learning,portfolios and re-evaluation of goals

Hardly adaptive

Role for strategy andplans

Limited role Important role for goals and strategicexperiments for exploring socialtrajectories, undertaken as part of adaptiveprogrammes for system innovation

Plans with steps

Things against whichpolicies are evaluated

Individual goals andshort-term gains

Policy goals and learning goals, helpingto determine what to do next

Predefined outcomes

Interest mediation/conflict resolution

Individual gains foreveryone

Rewards for innovators, phase out ofnon-sustainable practices throughmarkets and politics (collective choice)

Little mediation(implementation andenforcement)

Policy integration Minimal Important but typically evolving Narrow if present

Type of change thatis sought

Incremental,non-disruptive change(system improvement)

System innovation (renewal) and systemimprovement

Predeterminedoutcomes which couldbe an improved oldsystem or a new one

Table 1 Goal-oriented modulation: between planning and incrementalism

It relies heavily on market forces and decentralizeddecision-making. It does not blankly rely on marketforces, but is concerned with the conditions underwhich market forces operate, by engaging in ‘con-text control’ so as to orient market dynamicstowards societal goals. It consists of governmentacting to secure circumstances that will maximizethe possibilities for progressive social movement bypromoting innovation and mitigating negativeeffects (Meadowcroft 1997: 27). Private initiative isthus not curtailed but rather reoriented towardsthose activities that serve not only private goalsbut also serve sustainability goals. This is donethrough programmes for system innovation andthrough the use of policy goals providing guidanceto societal actors.

Transition management uses advantages ofincrementalism. First, it is do-able because it is notdisruptive from the viewpoint of special interests;second, the costs of a certain step being a mistakeare kept low; third, it allows changing course to pre-vent lock–in from unwanted solutions; and fourth,useful lessons may be learned informing furthersteps. Transition management is not a strategy ofincremental politics but is rather an incrementaliststrategy for changing functional systems towards a moresustainable society. The reason is that, with new tech-nology systems, as with politics, it is impossible tomove to the desired state in a straight line sincethere are too many variables and uncertainties. Thebest strategy is to take small steps in what is gener-ally perceived ‘the right (sustainable) direction,’ totry different solutions and to alter course whenneeded. Like politics, technologies are not bornperfect but require adaptation before they consti-tute a good solution. It is often insufficiently real-ized that the efficiency of markets rests on theweeding out of sub-optimal designs of products andtechnologies through market competition (Nelson1990). Evolutionary change, founded on trial anderror, while wasteful in the short term, leads tobetter outcomes in the long run.

Transition management is different fromLindblom’s model of incremental politics and doesnot opt for disjointed incrementalism, as in thepolicy analysis method. Integrated problem analy-sis and complex systems analysis are part of transi-tion management, which is also concerned withpositive (sustainability) goals. For this reason it isbetter viewed as ‘logical incrementalism’ (Quinn1978, 1980). Logical incrementalism is a strategy

development process where managers have a viewof where they want the organization to be in years tocome and try to move towards this position in anevolutionary way. They do this by attempting toensure the success and development of a strong,secure, but flexible, core business, building on theexperience gained in that business to inform deci-sions about the development of the business andusing experiments. In transition managementthere is also a sense of where one want to be in thefuture, based on collective goals for functionalsystems, but without specifying the means for fulfill-ing them. Like incremental politics, transitionmanagement opts for steps but the policy steps arechosen to get closer to collectively chosen goals andvisions of sustainability.

The use of adaptive, evolutionary steps helps todeal with the criticisms voiced against anticipatoryrationality, based on backward reasoning fromanticipated consequences. As March and Olsen(1995) write in their book Democratic Governance:

‘Too many atrocities of stupidity and immo-rality have been based on anticipatory ratio-nality and too many efforts to improve humanaction through importing technologies ofdecision engineering have been disappoint-ing.’ (March and Olsen 1995:198–99)

To them the solution lies in adaptive management,in particular in developing capabilities to respond.They propose the creation of mechanisms capableof organizing experience in the service of improvedlearning (March and Olsen 1995: 199). In our view,their criticism of anticipatory rationality shouldprobably not be taken as criticism of anticipation ora call for short sightedness but rather as a criticismof a particular method for dealing with the future:strategic planning. A nicely worked-out applica-tion of the model of adaptive management is the‘compass and gyroscope’ model of Lee (1993) forcombining science with politics. Conflict is keptwithin bounds but is accepted and even viewednecessary. Transition management also tries tokeep conflict within bounds, through the orienta-tion to social learning based on problem structur-ing and strategic experiments (as in the modelof Lee).

The steering philosophy is the modulationof ongoing societal developments against a set ofcollective chosen goals. The various roles of the gov-ernment are that of initiator, stimulator, facilitator



and mediator. The structuring form is heterarchy,centralised, cooperative context-steering orientedto producing controlled structural change in whichthere is modification of structural links and modifi-cation of the self-understanding of actors (identi-ties), strategic capacities and interests of individualsand collective actors and hence their preferredstrategies and tactics (Jessop 1997: 109–110).Reinstitutionalisation is an important aim of transi-tion management for which it relies on reflexivity(self-confrontation and learning).

In our view, our model of transition manage-ment combines the advantages of both types ofapproaches. It inserts a strategic element inincrementalism and makes planning more adaptive(open with regard to outcomes) and participatory(open to stakeholders). In Table 1 we delineate thekey features. From the table it is clear that goal-oriented modulation is not a simple mix of incre-mentalism and planning but has set distinctivefeatures: problem structuring, social learning, port-folios and strategic experiments, transitions arenasfor envisioning and institutionalisation of learningand capacity building in government and society.Perhaps it constitutes the third way political scien-tists have been looking for (cf. Etzioni 1986).

CONCLUSIONS

In this article we have examined co-evolutionaspects of sustainable development, focusing onpossibilities for managing processes of co-evolutioninto a more sustainable direction in a co-evolutionarymanner. We examined three approaches for shap-ing co-evolution: incrementalism (dealing with illsthrough mutual adaptation) as a bottom-upapproach; comprehensive planning as a top-downapproach; and transition management as a com-bined bottom-up and top down approach ofgoal-oriented modulation. All three approachesare concerned with the normative orientation ofsocietal processes and seek, to different degrees, toovercome the conflict between long-term impera-tives and short-term concerns. Based on what weknow, incrementalism is useful but by far notenough; experiments with innovative solutions arebest pursued as part of a broader approach suchas transition management. Overall, transitionmanagement is a co-evolutionary steering conceptthat involves a cyclical process of notions, ideas,

instruments and mechanisms that co-evolve: sharedproblem perception, sustainability vision, agenda,experiments, instruments and monitoring througha process of social learning about radical systemicchange offering sustainability benefits besides userbenefits.

Transition management employs an integrativeand multi-scale framework for policy deliberation,choice of instruments, and actions by individuals,private and public organizations, and societyat large. It comprises elements of network man-agement, self-organisation, a perspective-based(guided) form of process management, portfoliomanagement, planning and market coordination.Transition management is inclusive and calls forsetting long-term and intermediate goals, align-ment of policies short- and long-term policies andstrategic experimentation, besides traditionalpolicies. Because it aims for long-term change infunctional systems in a gradual manner throughvariation and selection, it is do-able in a society inwhich interests are well organized and steeringfrom the top is basically impossible. It is used in theNetherlands for managing the transition to sustain-able energy, sustainable mobility, sustainable agri-culture, sustainable water use and the biodiversityand natural resource transition.

The presented concept of transition manage-ment has been derived from the complex systemsapproach, new forms of governance and socialtheory. These management principles have beentranslated into an operational model. This manage-ment concept is both descriptive and prescriptive inthe sense that it can be used to analyse as well as toinfluence transitions. Looking at different levels ofgovernance, the way innovations at each level areorganized and developed will provide understand-ing of their impacts in the context of transition. Butperhaps even more importantly, the concept can beused to prescriptively formulate a governancemodel to select, organize and structure the appro-priate governance styles and tools. This governancemix is context-specific, but its general outlines andframework are generic.

Transition management is possibly best des-cribed as ‘Perspektivischer Inkrementalismus’ ordirected incrementalism (Grunwald 2000), takingon board criticisms voiced against incrementalismsuch as lack of orientation, conservatism and nega-tive stance against analysis as noted in Weiss and



Woodhouse (1992). Transition managementbuilds on processes of co-evolution, which areshaped in a reflexive manner through multilevelprocesses of variation and selection.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the editor and reviewer for very helpfulcomments on an earlier version.

REFERENCESBeck U. The Reinvention of Politics. Towards a

Theory of Reflexive Modernization. In Beck U,Giddens A and Lash S (eds), Reflexive Moderniza-tion. Politics, Tradition and Aesthetics in the ModernSocial Order. Oxford: Polity Press; 1994:1–55

Bleischwitz R. Governance of sustainable develop-ment: co-evolution of corporate and politicalstrategies. International Journal Of SustainableDevelopment 2004;7(1):27–43

Eising R and Kohler-Koch B. The Transformation ofEU Governance. London: Routledge; 1999

Etzioni A. Mixed Scanning Revisited. Public Adminis-tration Review 1986;Jan/Feb:8–14

Geels FW. Technological transitions as evolutionaryreconfiguration processes: A multi-level perspec-tive and a case-study. Research Policy 2002;31(8/9):1257–74

Geels FW. System Innovation and the Transition to Sus-tainability. Theory, Evidence and Policy. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar; 2005

Giddens A. The constitution of society. Outline of the theoryof structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press; 1984

Gowdy J. Coevolutionary Economics: The Economy, Societyand the Environment. Dordrecht: Kluwer; 1994

Gunderson LH and Holling CS. Panarchy: Understand-ing transformations in human and natural systems.Washington DC: Island Press; 2002

Grunwald A. Technology Policy between Long-termPlanning Requirements and Short-ranged Accept-ance Problems. New Challenges for TechnologyAssessment. In Grin J and Grunwald A (eds), VisionAssessment: Shaping Technology in the 21st CenturySociety. Towards a Repertoire for Technology assessment.Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer; 2000

Hadfield L and Seaton R. A co-evolutionary model ofchange in environmental management. Futures1999;31:577–92

Hooghe L and Marks G. Multi-level governance andEuropean integration. Oxford: Rowman & LittlefieldPublishers; 2001

Hoogma R, Kemp R, Schot J and Truffer B. Experiment-ing for Sustainable Transport. The Approach of StrategicNiche Management. London: EF&N Spon; 2002

Jessop B. The Governance of Complexity and theComplexity of Governance: Preliminary remarkson some problems and limits of economic

guidance. In Amin A and Hausner J (eds), Beyondmarket and Hierarchy. Interactive Governance andSocial Complexity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 1997

Kemp R and Soete L. The Greening of TechnologicalProgress: An Evolutionary Perspective. Futures1992;24(5):437–57

Kemp R, Schot J and Hoogma R. Regime Shifts toSustainability through Processes of Niche Forma-tion. The Approach of Strategic Niche Manage-ment. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management1998;10(2):175–95

Kemp R and Rotmans J. Managing the Transition toSustainable Mobility. In Elzen B, Geels F andGreen K (eds), System Innovation and the Transitionto Sustainability: Theory, Evidence and Policy.Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar; 2004:137–67

Kemp R and Rotmans J. The management of theco-evolution of technical, environmental andsocial systems. In Weber M and Hemmelskamp J(eds), Towards Environmental Innovation Systems.Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer Verlag; 2005: 33–55

Kemp R, Parto S and Gibson RB. Governance forSustainable Development: Moving from theory topractice. The International Journal of SustainableDevelopment 2005;12:13–30

Kenny M and Meadowcroft J. Planning Sustainability.London and New York: Routledge; 1997

Lee KN. Compass and Gyroscope. Integrating Science andPolitics for the Environment. Washington DC: IslandPress; 1993

Leonard-Barton D. Implementation as Mutual Adap-tation of Technology and Organisation. ResearchPolicy 1988;17:251–67

Lindblom CE. Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. PublicAdministration Review 1979;Nov/Dec:517–26

Lindblom CE. Century of Planning. In Kenny Mand Meadowcroft J (eds), Planning sustainability.London and New York: Routledge; 1997:39–65

Loorbach D, Parto S and Kemp R. From Waste Disposalto Waste Management: Transitions in waste manage-ment in the Netherlands. Paper presented at theNetherlands Organization for Scientific Research(NWO); May 2003

Loorbach D. Governance and transitions: a multi-levelpolicy-framework based on complex systems thinking.Paper read at Conference on Human Dimensions



of Global Environmental Change, Berlin,Germany; 2004

Loorbach D and Rotmans J. Managing transitions forsustainable development. In Wieczorek AJ andOlsthoorn X (eds), Industrial Transformation –disciplinairy approaches towards transformationresearch. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers;2006

March JG and Olsen JP. Democratic Governance. NewYork: The Free Press; 1995

Mayntz R. Governing Failures and the Problem ofGovernability: Some Comments on a TheoreticalParadigm. I: Kooiman J (ed.), Modern Governance.New Government-Society Interactions. London: Sage;1994:9–20

Meadowcroft J. Planning for sustainable develop-ment: what can be learned from the critics? InKenny M and Meadowcroft J (eds), Planningsustainability. London and New York: Routledge;1997:12–38

Nelson RR. The Co-evolution of Technology, Indus-trial Structure, and Supporting Institutions. Indus-trial and Corporate Change 1994;3:47–63

Nelson RR and Winter SG. An Evolutionary Theory ofEconomic Change. Cambridge MA: Bellknap Press;1982

Nelson RR. Capitalism as an engine of progress.Research Policy 1990;19(3):193–214

Norgaard R. Coevolutionary Development Potential.Land Economics 1984:60:160–73

Norgaard R. Development betrayed: The end of progress anda co evolutionary revisioning of the future. London:Routledge; 1994

NMP-4. Een wereld en een wil. Werken aan duurzaamheid.(A World and a will. Working on Sustainability).The Hague, the Netherlands; 2000

Parto S. Economic Activity and Institutions: TakingStock. Journal of Economic Issues 2005;39(1):21–52

Pierre J. Debating Governance. Authority, Steering andDemocracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2000

Quinn JB. Strategic Change: “Logical Incrementa-lism”. Sloan Management Review 1978;fall:7–21

Quinn JB. Strategies for Change: Logical Incrementalism.Homewood: Irwin; 1980

Rammel C, Hinterberger F and Bechthold U. Govern-ing Sustainable Development—A Co-evolutionaryPerspective on Transitions and Change. GoSD workingpaper 1. 2004

Rammel C and van den Bergh J. An evolutionary pers-pective on policies for sustainable development.Ecological Economics 2003;47(2–3):121–33

Rip A and Kemp R. Technological Change. In RaynerS and Malone EL (eds), Human Choice and ClimateChange. Columbus OH: Battelle Press; 1998:vol 2:327–99

Rosenhead J and Mingers J. Rational Analysis for a Prob-lematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methodsfor Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. London:Wiley and Sons; 2002

Rosenkopf L and Tushman M. The Coevolution ofTechnology and Organization. In: Baum J andSingh J, eds. Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations.Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994:403–24

Rotmans J, Kemp R, van Asselt M, Geels F, Verbong Gand Molendijk K. Transities & Transitiemanagement.De casus van een emissiearme energievoorziening. Finalreport of study “Transitions and Transition man-agement” for the 4th National EnvironmentalPolicy Plan (NMP-4) of the Netherlands.Maastricht: ICIS & MERIT; October 2000

Rotmans J, Kemp R and van Asselt M. More Evolutionthan Revolution. Transition Management inPublic Policy. Foresight 2001;3(1):15–31

Rotmans J. Methods for IA: The challenges and oppor-tunities ahead. Environmental Modelling and Assess-ment 1998;3:155–79.

Rotmans J. Societal innovation: between dream and realitylies complexity. Inaugural Speech, Erasmus Univer-sity Rotterdam; 2005

Scharpf F. Community and Autonomy. Multi-LevelPolicy Making in the EU. Journal of European PublicPolicy 1994;1:219–42

Scharp F. Governing in Europe: effective and democratic?Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999

Van den Bergh JCJM and Stagl S. Co evolution ofeconomic behaviour and institutions: towards atheory of institutional change. Journal of Evolu-tionary Economics 2003;13(3):289–317

Van de Ven AH and Garud R. The Co evolution ofTechnical and Institutional Events in the Develop-ment of an Innovation. In Baum JA and Singh JV(eds), Evolutionary Dynamics of Organizations. NewYork and Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1994:425–43

Von Hippel E. The Sources of Innovation. New York:Oxford University Press; 1988

Von Tunzelmann N. Historical co evolution of governanceand technology. Presented at the Conference “TheFuture of Innovation Studies” Eindhoven Univer-sity of Technology; 20–23 September 2001

Voss J-P, Kemp R and Bauknecht D. Reflexive Gover-nance: A View on the Emerging Path, In Voss JP,Bauknecht D and Kemp R (eds), Reflexive Gover-nance for Sustainable Development. Cheltenham:Edward Elgar 2006;419–38

WCED. Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford Univer-sity Press; 1987

Weiss ?? and Woodhouse ??INITIALS??. ReframingIncrementalism: A constructive response to thecritics. Policy Sciences 1992;25(3):255–73



WHO. World report on road traffic injury prevention.Geneva: WHO; 2004

Wilkinson R and Cary J. Sustainability as an Evolution-ary Process. The International Journal of SustainableDevelopment 2002;5(4):381– 91



transition management as a model for managing processes …transition management kemp, loorbach and...

Documents