Transition pathways P

In the analysis of transitions, it is important to distinguish transition concepts by type. The idea of the multi-level perspective is that transitions come about through interplay among processes at multiple levels: 1) changes at the landscape exerts considerable pressure on existing regime, 2) it is perceived that these pressures cannot be dealt with by incremental innovation in the existing regime, resulting to regime destabilisation and creating windows of opportunity for niche innovations, 3) niche innovations are reasonably developed for adoption in the regime (Schot & Geels, 2008). Transitions typically occur through the interaction of two or more of the three MLP levels. Geels and Schot (2007) and A. Smith et al. (2005) suggested different typologies based on the levels of the landscape pressure and maturity niche of niche innovations, and the timing of landscape pressure action with respect to maturity level of niche innovations. Bergman et al., (2008) defines a transition pathway as “a minimal sequence of mechanisms and events needed to generate a transition, including a

description of the initial and final states of the system.” The regime is the main level where transitions occur while the landscape and niche are considered as derived concepts (Geels, 2011). The five transition pathways are discussed as follows.

P00 Reproduction pathway

The first transition pathway is called reproduction processes. Reproduction pathway is a result of a regime reproducing itself in the absence of a disruptive landscape pressure without the introduction of new innovations into regime. This implies that reproduction is a regime only transition. The absence of landscape level means there is no pressure influence on regime actors to change orientation and/or adopt new innovations. However, the regime is dynamically stable in the sense that dynamics such as market competition, new investments etc. have been in existence. The aim is only to optimise a system without tempering with the basic regime settings. Regime players often have the impression that minor problems that may arise within the regime could be resolved using internal solutions without the need of any external input. Achievements in reproduction are a result of invisibly slow accumulation of modifications through small and continuous innovation improvements. It is assumed that reproduction (i.e. incremental improvements to existing technologies) will continue in any given socio-technical regime (Rosenberg, 1982; Geels & Schots, 2007; Shackley & Green, 2007).

P01 Transformation pathway

Transformation occurs as a result of interactions between the regime and the landscape without a substantial involvement of the niche level. The regime experiences a moderate landscape pressure at a time when niche innovations are not sufficiently developed. These pressures are usually translated by societal pressure groups and social movements. In response to the pressure, regime actors modify the direction of development paths and

innovation activities by using the innovations as add-ons to solve local problems. These modifications occur without changing the basic architecture of the existing regime. In this pathway, regime actors survive as new regimes emerge from the old regime through cumulative adjustments and gradual trajectory realignments. The new regime emerges out of the old one through cumulative adjustments and reorientations. In this pathway, government intervention can be used to focus and encourage the pace of change (Kamp et. al., 2010; Shackley & Green, 2007; Verbong & Geels, 2010).

P02 Reconfiguration pathway

This pathway is a result of interactions among all the three levels and occurs when a system changes through cumulative component changes and new combinations through the adoption of niche-innovations. Reconfiguration take place when innovations developed in niches trigger further adjustments at the regime level (Kamp et. al., 2010). This pathway involves the replacement of a set of interlocking technologies by an alternative array of inter-related technologies which fulfil the same, or similar, functions. The alignments of alternative interlocking technologies in response to huge and continually emerging landscape pressure result in new regime architecture and broader changes in the system.

Symbiotic innovations, which developed in niches, were initially adopted in the regime as supplementary components to solve local problems. At this point these alterations were not enough to trigger changes in regime rules and the basic architecture normally remains unchanged just like the transformation pathway. Overtime, learning processes may reveal potential roles of novelties in the regime, opening up windows of opportunity for niche- innovations. Subsequent innovations further lead to social and technical changes and under continued landscape pressure, gives rise to large-scale re-alignment and re-orientation of the socio-technical regime. The reconfiguration pathway can best be described under the context

of a distributed socio-technical system with multiple interrelated technologies such as agriculture (soil enrichment, pesticides, canning, etc.), hospital (X-ray, laboratory, theatre, etc.), etc. (Bergman et al., 2008; Foxon et al., 2008; Geels & Schots, 2007; Haxeltine et al., 2008; Shackley & Green, 2007).

P03 Substitution pathway

Substitution occurs as a result of interactions among all the three levels on the MLP. The regime experiences enormous pressure from the landscape at a time when a niche innovation is fully matured and is ready to break through. Before this pressure, the innovation remains stuck in the niche because the regime is strongly entrenched, unwilling to give up to an alternative technology. But with the development of the intense pressure on the regime, windows of opportunity for the new technology are created, allowing it to compete favourably with the incumbent dominant technology. The niche innovation will break through and ultimately replace the existing regime. Therefore this pathway has a ‘technology push’ character whereby the existing dominant regime is gradually displaced by the emerging niche technology, resulting to radical transformation of the incumbent regime. Technological substitution is a direct replacement of one dominant technology within the socio-technical regime by another (Nunez-Lopez, 2014 ; Haxeltine et al., 2008; Shackley & Green, 2007).

P04 De-alignment/re-alignment pathway

De-alignment/de-alignment occurs through the interplay among all the three levels on the MLP. It is characterised by a divergent, sudden and huge disruptive landscape pressure on a regime at a time when a number of immature niche innovations exist. The pressure is so enormous to cause regime destabilisation, and subsequent erosion or de-alignment of existing regimes because actors lose faith in the usual solutions. This creates space for competition between the dominant technology within the regime and a number of other competing options

which have different performance characteristics. This leads to uncertainties in choice and adoption, causing the exploration of different possible trajectories. In this pathway, there is no clear substitute for the eroded regime and this leaves space for the emergence and co- existence of multiple innovations that compete for attention and resources. This is eventually resolved through the emergence of one niche-innovation (after a prolonged period of competition) which becomes dominant, forming the core for re-alignment of a new regime and re-institutionalisation. This pathway is characterised by a long period of experimentation, co-existence, competition and learning before the new regime emerges. This pathway results to a major restructuring of the system in terms of new guiding principles, beliefs and practices (Bergman et al., 2008; Foxon, et al., 2008; Verbong & Geels, 2008).