No abstract

Transitions are transformation processes in which society changes in a fundamental way over a generation or more. Although the goals of a transition are ultimately chosen by society, governments can play a role in bringing about structural change in a stepwise manner. Their management involves sensitivity to existing dynamics and regular adjustment of goals to overcome the conflict between long-term ambition and short-term concerns. This article uses the example of a transition to a low emission energy supply in the Netherlands to argue that transition management provides a basis for coherence and consistency in public policy and can be the spur to sustainable development.

Sustainable development requires changes in socio-technical systems and wider societal change-in beliefs, values and governance. In this article we present a model for managing processes of co-evolution: transition management. Transition management is a multilevel model of governance which shapes processes of co-evolution using visions, transition experiments and cycles of learning and adaptation. Transition management helps societies to transform themselves in a gradual, reflexive way through guided processes of variation and selection, the outcomes of which are stepping stones for further change. It shows that societies can break free from existing practices and technologies, by engaging in co-evolutionary steering. This is illustrated by the Dutch waste management transition. Perhaps transition management constitutes the third way that policy scientists have been looking for all the time, combining the advantages of incrementalism (based on mutual adaptation) with the advantages of planning (based on long-term objectives).

In this paper we examine and elaborate on the central elements of sustainable development and governance, considering their interrelations as they have emerged from the core themes in sustainable development discourses over the past decade and a half. We argue that sustainability is best viewed as a socially instituted process of adaptive change in which innovation is a necessary element. We discuss four key elements of governance for sustainability, which are integrated into the concept of transition management. The result is a conceptual framework for policy-making and action-taking aimed at progress towards sustainability.

No abstract

This article responds to increasing public and academic discourses on social innovation, which often rest on the assumption that social innovation can drive societal change and empower actors to deal with societal challenges and a retreating welfare state. In order to scrutinise this assumption, this article proposes a set of concepts to study the dynamics of transformative social innovation and underlying processes of multi-actor (dis)empowerment. First, the concept of transformative social innovation is unpacked by proposing four foundational concepts to help distinguish between different pertinent ‘shades’ of change and innovation: 1) social innovation, (2) system innovation, (3) game-changers, and (4) narratives of change. These concepts, invoking insights from transitions studies and social innovations literature, are used to construct a conceptual account of how transformative social innovation emerges as a co-evolutionary interaction between diverse shades of change and innovation. Second, the paper critically discusses the dialectic nature of multi-actor (dis)empowerment that underlies such processes of change and innovation. The paper then demonstrates how the conceptualisations are applied to three empirical case-studies of transformative social innovation: Impact Hub, Time Banks and Credit Unions. In the conclusion we synthesise how the concepts and the empirical examples help to understand contemporary shifts in societal power relations and the changing role of the welfare state

The idea of a circular economy (CE) has become prominent in both European and Chinese policy making. Chinese and European perspectives on a CE share a common conceptual basis and exhibit many similar concerns in seeking to enhance resource efficiency. Yet they also differ, and this article explores differences in the focus of CE policy in China and Europe. We present evidence on the differing understandings of the CE concept in Chinese and European policy discourse, drawing on qualitative and quantitative analysis of policy documents, media articles, and academic publications. We show that the Chinese perspective on the CE is broad, incorporating pollution and other issues alongside waste and resource concerns, and it is framed as a response to the environmental challenges created by rapid growth and industrialization. In contrast, Europe's conception of the CE has a narrower environmental scope, focusing more narrowly on waste and resources and opportunities for business. We then examine similarities and differences in the focus of policy activity in the two regions and in the indicators used to measure progress. We show differences in the treatment of issues of scale and place and different priorities across value chains (from design to manufacture, consumption, and waste management). We suggest some reasons for the divergent policy articulation of the CE concept and suggest lessons that each region can learn from the other. Keywords:China circular economy environmental governance European Union indicator industrial ecology Supporting information is linked to this article on the JIE website IntroductionChina and Europe face a number of structural economic challenges. Growth rates remain lower than expected in both regions, whereas environmental and social challenges demand attention. The linear model of production-based on a take, make, and dispose approach, which relies on imports of virgin natural resources and disposal of wastes and emissions-appears Conflict of interest statement: The authors have no conflict to declare.

This paper deals with fundamental change processes in socio-technical systems. It offers a typology of changes based on a multi-level perspective of innovation. Three types of change processes are identified: reproduction, transformation and transition. 'Reproduction' refers to incremental change along existing trajectories. 'Transformation' refers to a change in the direction of trajectories, related to a change in rules that guide innovative action. 'Transition' refers to a discontinuous shift to a new trajectory and system. Using the multi-level perspective, the underlying mechanisms of these change processes are identified. The transformation and transition processes are empirically illustrated by two contrasting case studies: the hygienic transition from cesspools to integrated sewer systems and the transformation in waste management in the Netherlands. r