Comparing nuclear power trajectories in Germany and the UK: from ‘regimes' to ‘democracies’ in sociotechnical transitions and Discontinuities

This paper focuses on arguably the single most striking contrast in contemporary major energy politics in Europe (and even the developed world as a whole): the starkly differing civil nuclear policies of Germany and the UK. Germany is seeking entirely to phase out nuclear power by 2022. Yet the UK advocates a ‘nuclear renaissance’, promoting the most ambitious new nuclear construction programme in Western Europe.Here,this paper poses a simple yet quite fundamental question: what are the particular divergent conditions most strongly implicated in the contrasting developments in these two countries. With nuclear playing such an iconic role in historical discussions over technological continuity and transformation, answering this may assist in wider understandings of sociotechnical incumbency and discontinuity in the burgeoning field of‘sustainability transitions’. To this end, an ‘abductive’ approach is taken: deploying nine potentially relevant criteria for understanding the different directions pursued in Germany and the UK. Together constituted by 30 parameters spanning literatures related to socio-technical regimes in general as well as nuclear technology in particular, the criteria are divided into those that are ‘internal’ and ‘external’ to the ‘focal regime configuration’ of nuclear power and associated ‘challenger technologies’ like renewables. It is ‘internal’ criteria that are emphasised in conventional sociotechnical regime theory, with ‘external’ criteria relatively less well explored. Asking under each criterion whether attempted discontinuation of nuclear power would be more likely in Germany or the UK, a clear picture emerges. ‘Internal’ criteria suggest attempted nuclear discontinuation should be more likely in the UK than in Germany– the reverse of what is occurring. ‘External’ criteria are more aligned with observed dynamics –especially those relating to military nuclear commitments and broader ‘qualities of democracy’. Despite many differences of framing concerning exactly what constitutes ‘democracy’, a rich political science literature on this point is unanimous in characterising Germany more positively than the UK. Although based only on a single case,a potentially important question is nonetheless raised as to whether sociotechnical regime theory might usefully give greater attention to the general importance of various aspects of democracy in constituting conditions for significant technological discontinuities and transformations. If so, the policy implications are significant. A number of important areas are identified for future research, including the roles of diverse understandings and specific aspects of democracy and the particular relevance of military nuclear commitments– whose under-discussion in civil nuclear policy literatures raises its own questions of democratic accountability

Life Cycle Management of Infrastructures

By definition, life cycle management (LCM) is a framework “of concepts, techniques, and procedures to address environmental, economic, technological, and social aspects of products and organizations in order to achieve continuous ‘sustainable’ improvement from a life cycle perspective” (Hunkeler et al.\ua02001). Thus, LCM theoretically integrates all sustainability dimensions, and strives to provide a holistic perspective. It also assists in the efficient and effective use of constrained natural and financial resources to reduce negative impacts on society (Sonnemann and Leeuw\ua02006; Adibi et al.\ua02015). The LCM of infrastructures is the adaptation of product life cycle management (PLM) as techniques to the design, construction, and management of infrastructures. Infrastructure life cycle management requires accurate and extensive information that might be generated through different kinds of intelligent and connected information workflows, such as building information modeling (BIM)

Computational and mathematical approaches to societal transitions

After an introduction of the theoretical framework and concepts of transition studies, this article gives an overview of how structural change in social systems has been studied from various disciplinary perspectives. This overview first leads to the conclusion that computational and mathematical approaches and their practical form, modeling, up till now, have been almost absent in the research and theorizing of structural change or transitions in social systems. Second, this review of the social science literature suggests numerous theoretical constructs relevant for transition modeling. Relevant concepts include the conceptualization of the micro-to-macro link, the importance of explaining both stability and change, quantitative and qualitative definitions of structural change, the use of dichotomies, synchronic and diachronic reasoning in explaining structural change, definitions of basic patterns of social change, the conceptualization of resistance to change and intentional and normative aspects of social change. This article employs these theoretical concepts to describe and discuss the models presented in this special issue in order to develop an understanding of what exactly entails a computational or mathematical approach to societal transitions

The role of war in deep transitions: exploring mechanisms, imprints and rules in sociotechnical systems

This paper explores in what ways the two world wars influenced the development of sociotechnical systems underpinning the culmination of the first deep transition. The role of war is an underexplored aspect in both the Techno-Economic Paradigms (TEP) approach and the Multi-level perspective (MLP) which form the two key conceptual building blocks of the Deep Transitions (DT) framework. Thus, we develop a conceptual approach tailored to this particular topic which integrates accounts of total war and mechanisms of war from historical studies and imprinting from organisational studies with the DT framework’s attention towards rules and meta-rules. We explore in what ways the three sociotechnical systems of energy, food, and transport were affected by the emergence of new demand pressures and logistical challenges during conditions of total war; how war impacted the directionality of sociotechnical systems; the extent to which new national and international policy capacities emerged during wartime in the energy, food, and transport systems; and the extent to which these systems were influenced by cooperation and shared sacrifice under wartime conditions. We then explore what lasting changes were influenced by the two wars in the energy, food, and transport systems across the transatlantic zone. This paper seeks to open up a hitherto neglected area in analysis on sociotechnical transitions and we discuss the importance of further research that is attentive towards entanglements of warfare and the military particularly in the field of sustainability transitions

Societal Innovation: between dream and reality lies complexity

Jan Rotmans (1961) is one of the founders of Integrated Assessment (IA), and has outstanding experience in IA modeling, scenario-building, uncertainty management and transition management. During the past twenty years he has led a diversity of innovative projects in the field of climate change, global change, sustainable development and transitions and system innovations. He is founder and director of the International Centre for Integrative Studies (ICIS) (1998) at Maastricht University. Since 2004 he is a full professor in Transitions and Transition Management at Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Netherlands, where he founded the DRIFT-institute: Dutch Research Institute For Transitions. He is vice-president of The Integrated Assessment Society (TIAS), and founder and director of the Dutch Knowledge Network on System Innovations and Transitions (KSI). Jan Rotmans is founder of two scientific journals, Environmental Modeling and Assessment and Integrated Assessment, and has published ten books and more than 150 peer-reviewed scientific articles in journals and books in the fields of environment, sustainability, governance, transitions and system innovations.There are no easy, off-the-shelf solutions for persistent societal problems, because these are caused by fundamental flaws in our societal systems. Such systemic errors demand radical changes in our thinking and actions, i.e. transitions and system innovations. Transitions require a long period (one to two generations), and take time, patience, money, confidence, but also courage, daring and perseverance to gain the upper hand over various types of resistance. Research into transitions is by definition multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary. For this we need knowledge and experience from systems analysis, social administration, history, innovation science, economics, business administration and technology. The nature of research into transitions is fundamental, explorative, creative and practical. A conceptual framework for research into transitions is presented that consists of four interlinked conceptual building blocks, which in turn provide an outline of a transition theory in its embryonic stages. These concepts are rooted in common notions from complexity theory, new forms of governance and social theory. Central here is the concept of transition management, for which a new management framework is developed. Transition management is an attempt to tackle persistent stubborn problems by steering them in a more sustainable direction, through a visionary, cyclical process of putting issues on the agenda, learning, orchestrating and experimenting. Not based on management and control but through clever, subtle changes and adjustments at several levels concurrently. Transition management is a very promising management concept that can initially be applied to a wide range of complex societal problems: from health care to energy provision, and from social security to mobility. Transition management can also be applied to complex processes of change in a business context.Voor hardnekkige maatschappelijke problemen bestaan geen pasklare oplossingen. Deze zijn het gevolg van weeffouten in onze maatschappelijke stelsels. Deze systeemfouten vergen radicale veranderingen in ons denken en handelen: transities en systeeminnovaties. Transities vergen een lange periode (1 à 2 generaties), en kosten tijd, geduld, geld, vertrouwen, maar ook moed, durf en doorzettingsvermogen om verschillende soorten weerstand te overwinnen. Onderzoek naar transities is per definitie multi-en interdisciplinair, waarbij kennis nodig is vanuit de systeemkunde, bestuurskunde, geschiedenis, innovatiewetenschappen, economie, bedrijfskunde en techniek. Transitieonderzoek is zowel fundamenteel, exploratief, ontwerpend en praktisch van aard. Een conceptueel kader voor transitieonderzoek wordt gepresenteerd, dat bestaat uit een viertal samenhangende conceptuele bouwstenen, die de contouren vormen van een transitietheorie in wording. Deze concepten zijn geworteld in gemeenschappelijke noties uit de complexiteitstheorie, nieuwe vormen van governance en de sociale theorie. Centraal hierin staat het concept van transitiemanagement, waarvoor een nieuw sturingsraamwerk is ontwikkeld. Transitiemanagement beoogt hardnekkige problemen bij te sturen in een meer duurzame richting, via een visionair, cyclisch proces van agenderen, leren, instrumenteren en experimenteren. Niet op basis van controle en beheersing, maar via slim, subtiel schakelen en bijsturen op meerdere niveaus. Transitiemanagement is een veelbelovend sturingsconcept wat in beginsel toepasbaar is op tal van complexe maatschappelijke problemen: van gezondheidszorg tot energievoorziening, en van sociale zekerheid tot mobiliteit. Ook in de bedrijfscontext kan transitiemanagement worden toegepast op complexe veranderingsprocessen

Exploring sustainability transitions in the electricity sector with socio-technical pathways

This paper analyses sustainability transitions in the electricity system, using recent theories on socio-technical pathways. The paper describes three possible transition pathways and indicates the implications for (grid) infrastructures. The `transformation pathway is characterised by a further hybridization of the infrastructure; in the `reconfiguration pathway, internationalisation and scale increase in renewable generation lead to the emergence of a `Supergrid. The `de-alignment and re-alignment pathway is dominated by distributed generation and a focus on more local infrastructures. We suggest that this pathway, which involves a major restructuring of the electricity system, is less likely than the other two. The de-alignment and re-alignment pathway is therefore more dependent on external developments and/or strong policy interventions. All pathways, however, require major investments in infrastructure and innovative technologies

Innovatie en duurzaamheidstransities

No abstract