Acknowledged weaknesses and development areas

While many researchers active in Technological Innovation Systems, from Carlsson and Stankiewicz [98] to Hannon et al. [97] have shown the applicability of the TIS framework in considering technological transitions, a recent debate chaired by Truffer [91] identified and sought to address recent criticisms of the approach.

Markard et al. [99] summarised these criticisms as follows, and sought to address them.

• Context. It is suggested that the TIS approach involves “a perceived myopia and lack of attention to context factors”. Leading TIS research Anna Bergek and her colleagues admit: “At the same time, the functions framework does not give much explicit attention to the dynamics of surrounding contexts.” [90].

• Hannon’s recent work [97] demonstrates this lack of context: by assessing only the impact of innovation policy on the development of wave energy, he fails to account for exogenous factors (such as the rapidly falling cost of offshore wind over the period) or technological challenges (the technical difficulty of actually developing and deploying a wave energy device).

• In response, Markard et al. [99] propose that conceptual extensions of the TIS framework should be encouraged, specifically to address

“context structures, their dynamics and interplay with focal TIS”. In even more recent work, Markard [100] noted that in the case of novel technologies such as wind and photovoltaic that “not just the focal technology is emerging but also the specific organizations, institutions and networks that support this technology. In other words there is a co-development of the TIS and its underlying focal technology.” He added that “changes in the TIS context can have an impact on the focal TIS. These changes may occur independent of the dynamics of the focal TIS, e.g. in the sense of “landscape-type developments”.

• This extension of the TIS to consider contextual factors appears to bring the TIS approach closer to the Multi-Level Perspective, which specifically includes context factors (including features it describes as “landscape” and “regime lock-in”). Bergek et al. [90] address this weakness directly, by proposing the definitions of “external links” and

“structural couplings” to provide a conceptualisation framework for contextual impact on a TIS.

• Delineation of TIS. It is suggested that TIS scholars can define the boundaries of the TIS “ad hoc and based on simple templates”, thereby “missing out on important relationships or interactions”.

In response, Markard et al. [99] emphasise that “TIS delineation must be done carefully”. They go on to explain that delineation of the TIS should take account of three aspects: dimensionality - many several dimensions of the TIS under consideration, including breadth of technological field, how much of the value chain to include, where the best spatial delineation lies (ie local, regional, national or global) and what timescale is most appropriate; context – delineation of the TIS should take account of the research question being addressed; networks – any delineation will cut across network boundaries, where networks include actors, technologies and institutional structures. Care should be taken to ensure that the delineation cuts these at appropriate lines of cleavage. Finally, Markard et al. raise

the ontological question of whether a TIS actually exists with an objective reality or is simply a “purely analytical construct”. They suggest, and this author agrees, that a TIS is neither one nor the other, but has aspects of both. They suggest that as a concept it is similar to a firm, or perhaps more accurately, “an industry sector”.

• Spatial dimension. Markard et al. [99] recognised that it is critical to define the geographic extent of the TIS clearly. They accepted the criticism that TIS analysis can overlook important features outside the spatial boundary defined for the study, if this spatial aspect is poorly defined. They refer to the example of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology, where very different aspects of technological innovation took place in geographically discrete areas.

In response, they point out that some TIS scholars have sought to address and unify these spatial aspects, and they urge practitioners to take account of spatial context.

• Usefulness. Markard et al. [99] say that the TIS approach is “viewed as a key framework in transition studies”, although it was “not designed for this in the first place”. They find that some scholars cast doubt on the usefulness of TIS analysis, claiming that it was developed as a tool to understand emerging technologies, and can fail to take account of “lock-in” and other pressures towards maintaining the status quo in socio-technical regimes. These criticisms appear to arise from advocates of the Multi-Level Perspective and generally seem to take the view that TIS and MLP are incompatible. Encouragingly, [101] has argued that the two approaches can complement one another and this author shares this view. Section 2.5 describes this potential integration.

In response, Markard et al. [99] admit that while TIS “cannot cover all aspects of socio-technical transitions”, and specifically admit that it does not address “the

• Incorporation of politics. It is suggested that the incorporation of politics, which researchers adopting the MLP framework would consider landscape factors, is not always well addressed in TIS analysis.

Markard et al. [99] accept this critique, and urge TIS scholars to strive to take greater account of these factors.

• Limits for policy recommendation. Markard et al. [99] recognise that TIS often considers how policy contributes to the development of a technology, and does not specifically address the question of whether the development of the technology is in itself desirable.

Hannon’s report [97] follows this pattern precisely. It is implicit in its analysis is that the development of wave energy technology is desirable, although this question is not directly addressed. A variant of this critique is that TIS can lead to general policy recommendations, rather than specific proposals. This critique can be levelled equally at MLP, and is not necessarily a side effect of the use of TIS.

•

Markard et al. [99] note this critique, and encourage TIS scholars to maintain an objective distance from the questions they consider. They further note that the critique is not specific to use of TIS.

2.4 MLP – Review