Content uploaded by Katharina Biely
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Katharina Biely on Aug 21, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Sustainability Transition Theories: Perpetuating or Breaking with
the Status Quo
Author: Dr. Katharina Biely
Affiliation: Knowledge Technology and Innovation Group, Wageningen University and
Research, Wageningen 6700EW, The Netherlands
Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7060-0242
Keywords: Thomas Kuhn, Sustainability Transition, Socio-ecological transition, Socio-
technological transition
Abstract:
How scientists frame problems impact the solutions offered. Since the late 1940s, with the
help of scientists, progress and development have been equated with modernization, the
adoption of technologies, and economic growth. Contrasting to this technocentric view on
development and progress an ecocentric view has developed since the 1960s. This was,
amongst others, the result of increasing environmental problems. Despite the criticism of
technocentric views and increasing evidence that human societies are not reaching their
environmental and social goals, technocentric views have remained predominant in the
sustainable development discourse. Using a Kuhnian lens, the divide between technocentric
and ecocentric perspectives can be framed as distinct paradigms within the sustainable
development discourse. This paper outlines the continuation of the ecocentric versus
technocentric worldview divide within sustainability transition studies. It also shows that the
technocentric view is predominant. The paper concludes that socio-technical transition
theory fails to break with technocentric and growth-focused approaches to progress and
development.
2
1. Introduction
Human societies have created unsustainable systems. The landmark publication by
Rockstrom et al. (2009) illustrated that human societies overshoot several planetary
boundaries. In a more recent publication, a similar approach was used to show that societies
neither perform well on social indicators (Rockström et al., 2023).
To create more sustainable societies the United Nations developed the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), which were adopted in 2015. The SDGs are clustered into 17
overarching goals and contain 169 targets to create sustainable societies. In a recent progress
report, it has been highlighted that we are not on track to reach the SDGs by 2030.
“It's time to sound the alarm. At the mid-way point on our way to 2030, the SDGs are
in deep trouble. A preliminary assessment of the roughly 140 targets with data show
only about 12% are on track; close to half, though showing progress, are moderately
or severely off track and some 30% have either seen no movement or regressed below
the 2015 baseline” (United Nations, 2023).
The latest IPCC report similarly shows that human societies are not on track to reach the Paris
Agreement, which requires limiting temperature increase to 1,5°C. The IPCC warns that the
window to take action is limited and that urgent and decisive action is needed (Lee & Romero,
2023).
Transition studies provide frameworks to understand past transitions and to hypothesize
about how future transitions could unfold (Asquith et al., 2018; Schlaile & Urmetzer, 2021;
Scoones et al., 2020; Sovacool & Hess, 2017). There are many different conceptions such as
socio-technical transition theory (Frank W. Geels, 2002), socio-ecological transition theory
(Gunderson & Holling, 2002), socio-institutional (Loorbach, Frantzeskaki, & Avelino, 2017) or
socio-economic transition theory (Kemp, Pel, Scholl, & Boons, 2022), transition pathways (Ely,
2021b), the three horizons (Sharpe, Hodgson, Leicester, Lyon, & Fazey, 2016), etc. Many
transition concepts have developed since the beginning of the 21st century. However,
transition thinking predates the 21st century and can be connected to the sustainable
development discourse (Schlaile & Urmetzer, 2021). Thus, the field of transition studies is part
of development studies (Escobar, 2015).
The connection between the (sustainable) development debate and transition studies is
illustrated by the history of the SDGs and its founding document. The SDGs are the successor
of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which mostly targeted the development of the
Global South (United Nations, 2015, p. 5f.). The resolution that enacted the SDGs is titled
Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The notion of
transformation is thus central to the SDGs. Understandably so, some projects exploring
transitions use the SDGs as a starting point (Ely, 2021b).
The development debate is based on Western concepts of progress (Schöneberg & Häckl,
2020). What progress entails and how to measure it, is based on Western ideas. Nations
should transform from rural to industrialized. This pathway includes modernization and the
use of novel technologies, the installation of liberal market economies, and a certain annual
GDP growth (Schmelzer, 2017). A famous framework that captures this development pathway
is Rostow’s (1969) Stages of Economic Growth (Foster-Carter, 1976). In his book, Rostow
(1969) discussed the development steps starting from a traditional society and culminating in
a society coined by high mass consumption. Rostow (1969) proposed that development and
progress are achieved through industrialization, thus technological advancement (Mokyr,
3
2005) and economic growth (Schmelzer, 2015). Despite the criticism of Rostow’s work his
ideas and the notion of modernization as the path towards development and progress have
not lost relevance (Solivetti, 2005).
The economic growth narrative is intricately linked to the development narrative (Schmelzer,
2017). Development and progress are not only linked to the notion of economic growth but
also to the adoption of novel technology and continuous investment in technologies
(Rosenberg, 1974). As Mokyr (2005) puts it: “Technology is knowledge. Knowledge […] is at
the core of modern economic growth, […].“ Due to the relevance of technology for economic
growth and development, there are several scientific studies investigating the connection
between science, technology, and economic growth (Pakes & Sokoloff, 1996; Rosenberg,
1974). Furthermore, research is dedicated to studying the conditions supporting the diffusion
of innovations (Griliches, 1957; Rogers, 1983). The work of Rogers (1983), first published in
1962 (The Diffusion of Innovation), continues to influence studies about the diffusion of
innovation (Alexander & Kent, 2021; Palm, 2022; Tabrizian, 2019).
Within the current economic system, it is argued that economic growth is needed to create
the necessary savings to invest in new technology. That technology helps to increase the
efficiency of processes, which helps to maintain and/or increase profits and thus invest in new
technologies. Thus, the nexus between economic growth and technology creates a virtuous
circle. In terms of development, it was technologies and modernization that freed up
workforce (from agricultural activities) and made industrialization possible. Thus, questioning
economic growth means questioning progress and well-being. Likewise, questioning
technology means questioning progress and well-being. Despite the success of the Western
path to progress, in the 1960s negative side-effects of this development path became
apparent.
Rogers’ (1983) book on the Diffusion of Innovation does not only discuss the conditions for
technology uptake. He also reflects on a discourse that started as a response to the negative
side effects of industrialization. Rogers (1983) argues that a paradigm shift is needed. Though
he does not refer to a technological paradigm shift. Rather he criticizes the Eurocentric
perspective on development as well as the blind focus on economic growth. Economic growth
criticism started in the late 1960s. A landmark publication was the well-known Limits to
Growth report published in 1972 (Meadows, 2010). Another example is Schumacher’s Small
Is Beautiful: A Study of Economics As If People Mattered, published in 1973 (Schumacher,
1973). Already in 1966 Boulding (1966) published his paper about the planet Earth as a
spaceship criticizing people’s but especially economists’ inability to adjust to the fact that
humans have to get by a limited amount of resources.
Since some environmental and social problems could be solved (at least temporarily), the
environmental movements lost traction. The arguments brought forth by proponents of the
technocentric perspective got support through successes in some areas. The Green
Revolution provided more food to developing countries, and it seemed like the war on hunger
was won (Paddock, 1970; Wharton, 1969). The energy shortage experienced in the 1970s was
over due to the discovery and exploitation of new oil fields (Hall & Day, 2009).
Technological innovation has not only become the motor of economic growth but also a
means to overcome resource shortages (Solow, 1974). Further, new technologies are used to
solve problems that other technologies have caused (Fawzy, Osman, Doran, & Rooney, 2020;
Freebairn, 1963). This might lead to the conclusion that environmental degradation can be
4
accepted since new technologies will eventually take care of it. With continuous economic
growth and continuous resources invested in innovations, at some point, environmental
degradation will diminish. The Environmental Kuznets (EK) curve captures this idea. The KC
curve supports the idea of decoupling environmental burdens from economic activity,
whereas decoupling is facilitated through innovation, such as clean technology. However,
neither an EK curve pattern (Kaya Kanlı & Küçükefe, 2023) nor absolute decoupling could be
attested (Haberl et al., 2020; Hickel & Kallis, 2020). Despite this evidence, trust in technology
to facilitate sustainable development seems not to diminish.
Thus, the discourse that started in the 1960s is an ongoing one. It is a discourse between
technocratic and ecocentric worldviews (Marletto, Franceschini, Ortolani, & Sillig, 2016). It is
the discourse about weak and strong sustainability (Beckerman, 1995; Daly, 1995), the
discourse between environmental and ecological economists. It is about discount rates, the
incommensurability of capitals, the ways to measure and define well-being, or the
monetarization of nature (Biely, 2014). It is about keeping the current economic system or
replacing it with another one. It is about moving to a post-growth society or remaining stuck
in a system that is based on unlimited (green) growth facilitated by technological
advancements.
Mapping out different approaches to sustainable development, Marletto et al. (2016)
distinguished between status quo and transformative approaches, whereat technocentric
ones belong to the former and ecocentric ones to the latter. As pointed out above, the
sustainability transition discourse is a continuation of the sustainable development discourse.
Similar to the development discourse one can identify a technocentric and an ecocentric
approach to transformation within transition studies. These two are represented by socio-
technical and socio-ecological transition theory.
The work of Thomas Kuhn provides insights into paradigm changes within science. Socio-
technical and socio-ecological transition theory can be understood as two transition theories
based on different paradigms. To expand on this, the next section introduces the work of
Thomas Kuhn. Further, the division into two different paradigms, marked by the
institutionalization of the respective research streams, is outlined. Thereafter the dominance
of one of the research streams within sustainability transition literature is illustrated. The next
section explores how the two research streams break or continue with the dominant
paradigm. The paper closes with a short discussion and the conclusion that the socio-technical
transition theory fails to break with technocentric and growth-focused approaches to
progress and development.
2. Kuhn’s scientific revolutions
Kuhn’s (2012) book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is about paradigm changes within
scientific disciplines. Science and society are connected. Scientific knowledge enters society
in many ways, such as consultancy, education (Halbe, Adamowski, & Pahl-Wostl, 2015;
Lozano, Lozano, Mulder, Huisingh, & Waas, 2013), or policy-making (Blythe et al., 2018;
Pregernig, 2014; Schlüter et al., 2022). Thus, the way scientists frame problems and the
solutions that scientists suggest influence societies (Blythe et al., 2018; Pregernig, 2014).
“Researchers play an important role in framing sustainability transformations, and this calls
for reflexivity, given the power they hold as actors within them” (Ely, 2021a, p. 41).
Accordingly, scientists are not detached from society but take active roles (Kurzman & Owens,
2002). Transition literature suggests that scientists should seek an even more active role in
5
transformative processes (Wittmayer & Schäpke, 2014). An example of the influence of
scientists is the development of the GDP metric, which was linked to scientific endeavors
(Lepenies, 2016; Schmelzer, 2015). Similarly, endeavors to provide alternative metrics (such
as GPI) influence societies (Berik, 2018; Le Cacheux & Laurent, 2015).
Given the fact that we are not achieving our SDGs and that we are continuing to overshoot
planetary boundaries, it can be argued the scientific fields dealing with sustainable
development and sustainability transitions (including economics) need a paradigm shift just
as much as our societies need such a paradigm shift. Breaking with how scientists frame
sustainability problems could help to stop perpetuating narratives that are part of the
problem.
Thomas Kuhn’s (2012) work gives insights into paradigm shifts within science. He does not
only outline how such shifts come about but also why they are lengthy and difficult processes.
The discussion about paradigm changes related to sustainable development and sustainability
transition discourse is not new. Already Rogers (1983), who wrote about The Diffusion of
Innovation, reflected on the resonance of the diffusion discourse with the development
paradigm and the echo chambers within scientific disciplines. Pertaining to the latter, he
referred to the insights of Thomas Kuhn.
„During the past twenty years or so, diffusion research has grown to be widely
recognized, applied, and admired, but it has also been subjected to constructive and
destructive criticism. This criticism is due in large part to the stereotyped and limited
ways in which most diffusion scholars have come to define the scope and method of
their field of study. Once diffusion researchers came to represent an "invisible
college,"* they began to limit unnecessarily the ways in which they went about
studying the diffusion of innovations. Such standardization of approaches has,
especially in the past decade, begun to constrain the intellectual progress of diffusion
research” (Rogers, 1983, p. xvii).
In the footnote (marked by the asterisk), Rogers referred to the work of Kuhn, explaining that
the “invisible college is an informal network of researchers who form around an intellectual
paradigm […]” (ibid.). In fact, Rogers dedicated a whole section to the topic of paradigms and
the invisible colleges (Rogers, 1983, p. 42ff.). Connected to this discussion about paradigms is
Rogers’ reflection on the diffusion studies' contribution to the at the time prevalent
development paradigm. Rogers concluded that the elements of the development paradigm
fit the classical diffusion model quite well. These elements, among others, are a focus on
economic growth, industrialization, and technology. As pointed out above, Rogers called for
a paradigm shift. Not merely for a technological paradigm shift, but a shift away from
growthism, trickle-down rhetoric, and Eurocentric development views (Rogers, 1983, p.
120ff.).
Others have used Kuhn’s work as well to discuss paradigm changes in the context of the
sustainable development discourse
1
. Foster-Carter (1976) used Kuhn’s ideas to discuss
conflicting paradigms within development studies. He used it to confront the prevalent
development paradigm, based on Rostow’s (1969) Stages of Economic Growth, with neo-
Marxian ideas of development. Williams and McNeill (2005) used Kuhn’s work to describe the
1
For an account about the limitations of Kuhn’s work in context of social sciences see Foster-Carter (1976).
6
paradigm shift within economics and its relation to development thought. Thus, a shift from
growth-centered technocentric development towards an ecocentric perspective.
Kuhn (2012) described scientific activities as puzzle-solving. This puzzle-solving activity is
called normal science. Puzzle-solving does not aim to discover real novelty. That is since the
result of the puzzle is predetermined by the paradigm. One could say that the paradigm is the
picture on the box of the puzzle. If scientists encounter anomalies, the paradigm is not
automatically scrutinized, but the anomalies are made fit the paradigm. That is why paradigm
changes within science take a long time. There are mechanisms that protect a discipline from
a paradigm change. These are institutional and psychological mechanisms. For example, Kuhn
(2012) referred to confirmation bias. Examples are scientists who, being confronted with an
anomaly, rather question their experimental setup than the paradigm. Or they search for
logical explanations that are in line with the paradigm, rather than questioning the paradigm.
Furthermore, Kuhn (2012) referred to power structures. As indicated by Rogers (1983),
scientists are part of an ingroup, which is following a specific paradigm. The group tries to
protect its existence by protecting the paradigm. Examples are journals reluctant to publish
research that challenges the paradigm the journal represents.
Despite these protective mechanisms at some point, paradigms change. That happens when
too many anomalies have been found and a new paradigm is better at explaining these
anomalies. Kuhn (2012) described different phases as well as the characteristics of these
phases. For example, a prevalent paradigm is usually institutionalized. The paradigm is
represented by journals, scientific groups, and curricula. Evolving new paradigms strive for
this institutionalization as well. Proponents of an alternative paradigm need to establish their
own institutions because they are not heard in the institutions representing the dominant
paradigm. Thus, new journals and new groups can be an indication of alternative paradigms
forming. The evolution of a new paradigm is also signaled through books. That is because the
foundation needs to be built and hence scientific papers do not provide enough space to lay
out this foundation.
The paradigm change does not mean that we get more evidence than we had before, but that
we see the evidence we have in different ways. The different way of seeing the world is
incommensurable with the previous way of seeing the world. If they were not a new paradigm
was not necessary to form as it could be an extension of the old. An example is GDP. Some
see it as a metric to measure well-being, others as a metric to measure material throughput
(thus rather degradation) (Daly, 1996). It is the same set of data, interpreted in different ways.
The different interpretation stems from different worldviews through which researchers
approach the dataset.
2.1. Socio-technical and socio-ecological paradigm
Within this paper, two different paradigms within transition studies are used to illustrate that
the discourse within sustainable development studies is continuing within transition studies.
The paradigms building the foundation for socio-technical and socio-ecological transition
theory present a continuation of the technocentric versus ecocentric worldview discourse.
Following Kuhn’s (2012) work there are clear indicators for the formation of distinct research
avenues that are based on specific paradigms. These indicators are related to the
institutionalization of distinct research avenues. Socio-ecological and socio-technical
approaches to sustainability transition are represented in distinct groups (Sustainability
Transitions Research Network (STRN) and Future Earth), different journals (Environmental
7
Innovation and Societal Transitions (EIST) and Ecology and Society), different conferences
(International Sustainability Transitions Conference (IST) and Transformations) as well as
different books providing the basic foundations of the respective paradigm (for example: Grin,
Rotmans, and Schot (2010) and Gunderson and Holling (2002)).
The topics within the representative journals indicate a clear dominance of one of the two
paradigms. A Scopus keyword search limited to title, abstract, and keywords within the two
main journals shows that EIST has 141 articles with the keyword “socio-tech*” and only 4 with
the keyword “socio-ecol*”. In Ecology and Society, 20 articles have the keyword “socio-ecol*”
and 8 the keyword “socio-tech*”. This pattern indicates what Kuhn (2012) discussed in terms
of a journal’s potential reluctance to publish ideas that challenge the paradigm represented
by the respective journal.
There are many similarities between the socio-ecological transition theory (the adaptive
cycle) and the socio-technical transition theory (using the MLP). For example, both work on
different scales, whereas each scale has certain characteristics (e.g. stability). Both discuss the
problem of lock-ins created by the rigidity of the current system. Socio-technical theory uses
the notion of the socio-technical landscape. A similar approach can be found in resilience
theory, where resilience is explained using the topography of a landscape (Walker, Holling,
Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004). Socio-ecological transition theory uses resilience thinking as well
as the notion of lock-ins. However, resilience is not only determined by technological artifacts
but by the natural system as well. Other similarities are that both refer to Schumpeter’s idea
of creative destruction, both look at the role of technology
2
in change processes and both use
the concept of complex adaptive systems.
Despite these similarities, I argue that the different transition theories cannot be combined.
Even if one might be tempted to see how they can be integrated (Frank W. Geels, 2010;
Nilsen, 2010). They cannot be combined because they develop out of different worldviews,
one that understands nature to be an external factor and one that does not. In line with
Kuhn’s (2012) argumentation, one could say that if socio-technical and socio-ecological
transition theories were the same, they would not need different institutions. One could
easily integrate publications focusing on human-nature interactions within journals that
frame the world as a socio-technical system. The split between socio-technical and socio-
ecological transition theory is similar to the split between environmental economics and
ecological economics (Biely, 2014). These two follow different pre-analytical visions, as Daly
(1996) calls it. The different pre-analytical visions are famously illustrated by the weak and
strong sustainability illustrations (see Figure 1). And it is reflected by ecological economists
taking the economic system out of its vacuum and placing it within the natural environment
(R. Costanza, Hart, Posner, & Talberth, 2009).
2
This is obvious for socio-technical transition theory. But socio-ecological theory too looks at the role of
technology. For Gunderson and Holling (2002) the use of technology is one of four factors that explains
differences between the natural and the social system and why socio-ecological systems can change faster
than natural systems. These factors can also explain why systems become maladaptive and hence to not
change.
8
Figure 1: a) weak sustainability, b) strong sustainability. Weak sustainability depicts sustainability as the overlap between
social, economic, and environmental spheres. Strong sustainability depicts the economy embedded within the social system,
which is embedded in the natural system.
3. The dominance of theories
Analog to the views of scientific pluralism (Ludwig & Ruphy, 2021) it can be stated that
scientific inquiry and knowledge production profit from diversity. A diversity of concepts,
theories, or approaches allows scientists to reflect and thus further develop the field (Bernard
& Cooperdock, 2018; Kuhn, 2012). A lack of diversity may create an ontological and
epistemological lock-in, where scientists get trapped in an echo chamber (Chappin & Ligtvoet,
2014; Unerman, 2020), or an invisible college, as Rogers (1983) called it. A diversity of
transition approaches can “safeguard against the appropriation of the term [transition or
transformation] by any single framing or perspective” (Blythe et al., 2018). And as Ely (2021a,
p. 41) states: “Working across and beyond different disciplines alerts us to the fact that
sustainability is subject to very different and conflicting understandings.” To investigate the
diversity of concepts within sustainability transition literature, a systematic literature search
was conducted.
Using the search key "sustainability transition" limited to title, abstract, and keywords on
Scopus rendered 2442 scientific publications. To explore this body of literature, the keywords
were analyzed. Among the 20 most used keywords only socio-technical transition theory and
transition management can be found (see Table 1). Concepts that focus on other aspects of
sustainability transitions or frame systems in different ways could be found in ranks 29 and
33 (resilience and socio-ecological). Other keywords related to socio-ecological framings were
ranked even further down the list. This illustrates the dominance of socio-technical transition
theory within sustainability transition literature. It shows that the main analytical frame for
sustainability transitions is the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP) and that systems are
predominantly framed as socio-technical.
Table 1: Keyword frequency
Keyword
Count
Sustainability transition
995
Sustainability
229
Transition
126
Multi-level perspective
105
Sustainable development
69
Circular economy
60
Socio-technical transition
58
a) b)
9
Transition management
57
Energy transition
55
Governance
47
Renewable energy
41
Climate change
37
Innovation
37
Socio-technical systems
37
Transformation
35
Agency
32
Transdisciplinarity
32
Strategic niche management
30
Policy mix
27
Social innovation
27
Agroecology
24
Urban sustainability transition
23
China
22
Cities
21
Bioeconomy
21
Policy
21
Social learning
21
Figure 2: evolution of keyword use. Socio-technical is the sum of the following keywords: Socio-technical, Socio-technical
analysis, Socio-technical change, Socio-technical configuration analysis, Socio-technical configurations Socio-technical
experiments, socio-technical imaginaries, socio-technical innovation, socio-technical landscape, socio-technical levers, socio-
technical niches, Socio-technical pathways, Socio-technical regimes, Socio-technical scenario, socio-technical systems, socio-
technical systems analysis, socio-technical transition, socio-technical transition theory. Multi-level perspective is the sum of
the following keywords: Multi-level perspective, Multi-level perspective of sustainability transition, multi-level perspective on
socio-technical transition, Multi-level perspective on sustainability transition, multi-level perspective theory. The
sustainability transition keyword (right axis) is a combination of sustainability transition and sustainability transformation.
Over the years the socio-technical transition theory has become the dominant sustainability
transition theory. Figure 2 shows the keyword development between 1997 and 2023. It
illustrates only the keywords “socio-technical” and “multi-level perspective” along with
“sustainability transition”. The number of keywords per year related to socio-ecology is too
small to be visible on this chart. The dominance of the socio-technical transition theory might
reflect the general dominance of this worldview among scientists dealing with sustainability
transition questions. The dominance might be further pushed by books titled Transitions to
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
Keyword development
Socio-technical Multi-level perspective Sustainability transition
10
Sustainable Development (Grin et al., 2010), which only cover socio-technical transition
theory and transition management. Similarly, in a review of transition theories, Markard,
Raven, and Truffer (2012) only include theories related to technological change. The main
theories mentioned are Technological Innovation Systems, Multi-Level Perspective, Strategic
Niche Management, and Transition Management. The less well-versed reader might get the
impression that socio-technical transition theory is indeed THE transition theory, which is, of
course, a misrepresentation, as there are many transition theories (Asquith et al., 2018;
Schlaile & Urmetzer, 2021). Arguably, socio-technical transition theory provides a good
analytical framework to understand technological change (Frank W. Geels, 2006) and lock-ins
(Ford & Newell, 2021). Though, the question is whether it should implicitly be framed as THE
sustainability transition theory and whether it should be used for transitions that are not
about technology (Vandeventer, Cattaneo, & Zografos, 2019).
Education is one of the ways paradigms are established and maintained (Kuhn, 2012). Not
only is education a means to recruit new scientists to follow the taught paradigm. It is also a
means to connect science with the real world. Future politicians, CEOs, and employees are
taught a specific worldview (Jickling, 2016). Without a diversity of theories provided to
students, they might blindly take over the paradigm they were taught. Examples of biased
representations of transition studies are provided by Markard et al. (2012) as well as Grin et
al. (2010). In both publications, the authors fall short of mentioning sustainability transition
approaches that do not focus on technology. Yet the titles of the documents and the text give
the impression that the content captures sustainability transitions literature in its entirety. An
updated version of the Markard et al. (2012) paper similarly falls short of mentioning
sustainability approaches that capture human-nature connections (such as socio-ecological
thinking) (Köhler et al., 2019).
The Markard et al. (2012) paper not only captures transition studies but also the
institutionalization of these studies through the launch of EIST and the formation of STRN.
Thus, the publication serves to demarcate the field. Clearly, socio-ecological views are not
part of it. From a Kuhnian perspective, one can see how socio-technical transition theory
formed as a distinct paradigm within transition studies that has managed to become the
predominant one.
4. Socio-technical transition theory
Socio-technical transition theory gained momentum through the work of Frank Geels (F. W.
Geels, 2002)
3
. His dissertation is titled: Understanding the Dynamics of Technological
Transitions: A Co-evolutionary and Socio-technical Analysis. His first scientific paper capturing
his Ph.D. thesis is titled: Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes:
a multi-level perspective and a case-study (Frank W. Geels, 2002). The headings indicate that
Geels approaches processes of social change through a technological lens. That technology
lens is also emphasized in the abstract of his 2002 paper: “This paper addresses the question
of how technological transition (TT) comes about?” The social sphere is added to understand
technological change, as he outlines that the mainstreaming of technology requires “changes
in user practices, regulations, industrial networks infrastructure, and symbolic meaning or
culture” (Frank W. Geels, 2002). Thus, Geels’ work falls in the sociological tradition of diffusion
3
The multi-level perspective as well as socio-technical transition were already earlier discussed by René Kemp,
Arie Rip, or Johan Schott. The latter two were Frank Geels PhD promotors.
11
of innovation research investigating the connection between technological innovations and
society (Rogers, 1983, p. 50)
4
Although socio-technical transition theory might be framed as sustainability transition theory,
it has been developed to understand technological transitions. Arguably the societal aspects
of technological transitions have been further explored since the 2002 paper. Using insights
from sociology, Frank W. Geels (2004) outlined in more detail how technological changes are
connected to society. The Multi-Level Perspective
5
has also been combined with behavioral
science (Keller, Sahakian, & Hirt, 2022), research on power (Avelino, 2017; Frank W. Geels,
2014), or agency (F. W. Geels, 2020). Some have also extended the MLP to integrate the role
of individuals (F. W. Geels, 2020; Göpel, 2016).
With socio-technical transition theory being the main sustainability transition theory it has
found wide applications such as for the green economy (Gibbs & O'Neill, 2014), the circular
economy (Mathur, Gregory, & Imran, 2022), the protein transition (Bulah, Tziva, Bidmon, &
Hekkert, 2023), or the energy transition (Prados, Iglesias-Pascual, & Barral, 2022). Though
focusing on technological change (and its connections to society) does not address the
underlying problems that caused the sustainability challenges humanity is facing (Ruggeri &
Garrido, 2021).
For example, an energy transition that is merely based on switching to renewables without
considering resource limitations will lead to new problems (Watari et al., 2019). A transition
toward a sustainable fashion industry might be inhibited in a system that requires economic
growth (Dzhengiz, Haukkala, & Sahimaa, 2023). Accordingly, it can be questioned whether
technological innovation per se leads to sustainable societies. Technological innovations do
not address questions of resource access, or the distribution of burden and benefit.
Technologies widely used today, have on the one hand contributed to the well-being of some
share of the global population. Though, on the other hand, these technologies are devastating
our planet (e.g. plastic: Bergmann et al., 2022; MacLeod, Arp, Tekman, & Jahnke, 2021). New
technologies that aim to solve current problems are not free of negative environmental side
effects (Marín & Goya, 2021; Watari et al., 2019). Thus, we remain with the points brought
up by Boulding in 1966.
Technological innovation is for sure part of a sustainability transition, but there are many
more topics that need to be addressed (Kates & Parris, 2003). One of these topics is whether
an economic system that is based on continuous economic growth can create sustainable
societies. Can an economy where the I in the IPAT equation is predominantly reduced through
the T, create sustainable societies? As I have indicated above, evidence shows, that the
Affluence variable needs to be addressed too (Common & Stagl, 2005). That though, calls for
an alternative economic system where a reduction in consumption does not equate to
recession and hardship.
Accordingly, many argue that a sustainability transition requires addressing worldviews and
paradigms (such as economic growth) (Abson et al., 2017; Davelaar, 2021; Fischer & Riechers,
4
At the time Rogers‘ wrote his book, economics was only categorized as a minor tradition of diffusion of
technology studies. Given the significance of market mechanism within socio-technical transition theory and the
fact that it is based on evolutionary economics, socio-technical transition theory is also part of the the economic
tradition.
5
This is the analytical frame used to understand the interactions between technology markets and society on
three different scales.
12
2019; Woiwode et al., 2021). Some have used the MLP to explore a worldview shift. Göpel’s
(2016) work on The Great Mindshift, used the MLP to illustrate the worldview shift within the
transition process. Similarly, Naberhaus et al. (2011) theorized about worldview changes
using the MLP. Thus, the MLP might be a tool that can be used to challenge the current
development narrative. Though these authors mostly seem to use the MLP because of its
ability to illustrate different scales. The MLP is then no longer used to investigate
technological innovation. One also remains to wonder what the vehicle of change in these
examples might be. The MLP builds on market forces. It is difficult to imagine how market
forces lead to a mindset change (though enlightening books are exchanged within the market
system). The idea of market forces being the vehicle of change resembles the idea of a Trojan
horse, where the current is destroyed from within. Even if Vandeventer et al. (2019) used the
MLP to explain the growth of the degrowth movement it remains unclear what the vehicle of
a system-wider worldview change would be.
With its focus on technological transition, it seems that socio-technical transition theory
perpetuates the development narrative and the separation of humans from nature.
Specifically, the notion of the landscape within the MLP supports this assumption.
Environmental factors are captured in the landscape (amongst others). The landscape is
framed as an external factor that can hardly be influenced by the regime or the niche. By
defining the environment as an external factor
6
, the MLP frame has parallels to neoliberal
views. There too environmental factors are external (Robert Costanza et al., 1998). As
Boulding (1966) discussed in 1966, the exclusion of the environment leads to environmental
degradation.
Within socio-technical transition theory, the detachment between nature and societies is
further supported by proposing that humans do not live in a biotope but in a technotope
(Frank W. Geels & Schot, 2007). The idea of the technotope perpetuates the worldview that
technology is the main factor influencing our lives. It perpetuates the neglect of the material
base that is necessary for all that is, for the natural buffer systems that have allowed humans
to live in a stable environment. It is humans’ neglect of that reality that jeopardizes the natural
buffer systems and resource abundance.
With its focus on technological transition, one needs to question whether socio-technical
transition theory can help us to understand how we can change our economic system; how
we can abandon growthism. Since technological progress and economic growth are tied
together one must also ask whether the socio-technical transition theory is perpetuating the
progress and development narratives born in the late 1940s (Schmelzer, 2017). From a
Kuhnian perspective, socio-technical transition theory represents puzzle-solving within
normal science.
5. Socio-ecological transition theory
A transition theory that acknowledges the fact that humans are living within a biotope is the
socio-ecological transition theory. In Panarchy, Gunderson and Holling (2002) outlined the
phases of change captured by the adaptive cycle. The adaptive cycle itself was born out of the
analysis of natural change processes. Gunderson and Holling (2002) used the adaptive cycle
6
Without discussing this further it might also give the impression that humans might not have the ability to do
something about climate change. Therefore, it limits the agency of humans for problems human societies have
created.
13
to explain change processes of socio-ecological systems. I do not want to expand on the
adaptive cycle itself and how the process of change is described as this is not the purpose of
this article. The main point is that socio-ecological thinking frames the system as socio-
ecological. Within Panarchy, technologies are presented as relevant factors within transition
processes as well (Gunderson & Holling, 2002). However, instead of framing technology as
the solution to sustainability issues, the downsides of technology are highlighted. The
downsides relate to the notion of socio-technical landscapes used in socio-technical transition
theory (Frank W. Geels & Schot, 2007). The lock-ins created by technologies stem from
human’s inability to fully understand the world’s complexity. Thus, solutions only address a
current problem without taking account of (or ignoring) side effects across scales (time and
space). That has the effect that humans are trapped in a vicious cycle where they constantly
have to solve the problem created by the solution they have applied to another problem
(Béné, 2022).
I have already indicated that the way lock-ins are described through the notion of socio-
technical landscapes strikingly resembles the illustration of resilience by Walker et al. (2004).
Gunderson and Holling (2002) reflect on two different approaches to resilience. One focuses
on efficiency, the other on sustenance. The former is the technocentric approach to resilience
where one wants to increase control, thus reducing variability. The other focuses on diversity.
This is based on an ecological understanding of resilience where diversity and redundancies
create the buffers for a system to remain stable over long periods of time. An ecological
approach to resilience calls for maintaining the niche. It does not want to upscale the niche
as this would rid the system of necessary buffer capacity.
An ecological worldview leads to completely different problem framings and thus the
solutions one would suggest are different. A socio-ecological view does not neglect the role
of technology, but it places technology within a socio-ecological context. It would turn
economic thinking on its head asking for where we need to create redundancies (thus
inefficiency) to increase the resilience and thus the adaptability of the system. Such thought
might conflict with economic theory that is based on the generation of profit (to increase
saving to invest in new technologies that can increase efficiencies so that we can create more
profit, etc.). Thus socio-ecological thinking would call for breaking with the currently
dominant growth paradigm and technocentric views. Socio-ecology, framing the world
differently, provides alternative solutions for the anomalies we have been observing since the
1960s.
6. Discussion and Conclusion
As argued in transition literature, scientists may take a more active role in transition studies.
Though scientists are influencing the world, whether or not they are working with
stakeholders. The way we frame problems and the solutions we offer make a difference. In
the book Transformative Pathways to Sustainability: Learning Across Disciplines, Cultures and
Contexts, Ely (2021a, p. 38) discussed how academia itself contributes to stagnancy. The
authors refer to the article by Blythe et al. (2018) who discussed The Dark Side of
Transformations. One of these is that the academic discourse supports perpetuating the
status quo by using a new label instead of really changing something. One such example used
by Blythe et al. (2018) is green growth or the green economy; a matter also discussed in more
detail by others (R. T. V. Hamilton & Ramcilovic-Suominen, 2023; Wanner, 2015). The
14
perpetuation of the status quo is also discussed by Leach, Stirling, and Scoones (2010), who
highlight the aspect of dominance (see also R. T. V. Hamilton & Ramcilovic-Suominen, 2023).
“Particular narratives are produced by particular actors and co-construct particular
pathways of response. Some are dominant and; shaped by powerful institutions and
substantial financial backing – these are the ‘motorways’ that channel current
mainstream environments and development efforts. But these can often obscure and
overrun alternatives; the smaller by-ways and brush paths that define and respond to
different goals, values and forms of knowledge” (Leach et al., 2010, p. 5).
I have indicated that environmental and social problems related to economic activity are not
a new phenomenon. Nevertheless, questioning growthism and technocentric views is
difficult. Proponents of these views have managed to provide explanations that make the
anomalies (sustainability challenges) fit the paradigm. The idea of weak sustainability is the
pushback of economists showing that the anomalies do not invalidate their assumptions (K.
Hamilton, 1995; Solow, 1974). Thus, the concept of weak sustainability needed to be invented
to integrate the anomalies within the economic growth paradigm. Increasing inequality has
been matched with the Kuznets curve and trickle-down rhetoric. Or the blame was put on
government mismanagement rather than the market mechanism (Raffer & Singer, 2001).
Environmental problems have been matched with the EK curve and ideas of decoupling. Or
the blame was put on market failures (e.g., externalities, which interestingly then calls for an
extension of the market mechanism).
The role of technology is key to defending the current economic system and it is central to
the mainstream sustainability transition discourse. The economy has become green, circular,
or bio. The role of technology to make this change happen is central. Though, these changes
do not address the fundamental problems of our current economic system. Research
indicates that a circular, bioeconomy needs to acknowledge planetary boundaries (Desing et
al., 2020; Holden, Neill, Stout, O’Brien, & Morris, 2023; Ramcilovic-Suominen, Kröger, &
Dressler, 2022). Accordingly, we need to shift from viewing society as being embedded in a
technotope, to one embedded in a biotope. As Borrello, Cembalo, and D’Amico (2023) put it:
“Based on the power that concepts as the Circular Economy and the Anthropocene
have had in the recent past, a future step to develop an ecological worldview across
society, and nourish individual identities deeply committed with the preservation of
natural ecosystems, is working on narratives based on the notion of human-nature
interdependence.“
As long as suggested transformations focus on technology and market mechanisms they will
fall short of solving underlying problems (Pungas, 2023). Using practical examples, Leach et
al. (2010) illustrated how closed-down technocratic worldviews equate to the application of
a reductionist frame that brings forth ill-suited solutions. Similarly, Leeuwis, Boogaard, and
Atta-Krah (2021) showed how interventions in the food system do not change the
fundamental problems within that system. They argued that the interventions fail to address
issues of inequality because they do not challenge but rather align with the current paradigm.
To tackle inequality, they suggested reverting to alternative approaches that challenge the
dominant paradigm. Specifically, they refer to approaches that “[…] start from ecological
principles of community and environmental sustainability“ (ibid.).
Analyzing transformations in food systems Béné (2022) stated that one problem with
technology-based transitions is that they rely on market forces. A primary condition for a
15
technology to survive and to be mainstreamed is the technologies “economic viability not its
potential future societal benefits” (Béné, 2022). He reflected on an article by Herrero et al.
(2020), who selected 75 innovations that could transform the food system. Béné (2022)
highlighted that these 75 innovations are a wish list, but that due to the complexity of the
transition process, it cannot be assured that these technologies really succeed.
“Symbolistically, they [scientists] replace the ‘invisible hand’ by a visible one in an attempt to
steer innovations towards sustainability. But the market, left alone, is blind to sustainability“
(Béné, 2022). Arguably, the same is true for technologies. Technologies are blind to
sustainability. With every technology, we are faced with burden and benefit questions, with
questions about sustainable scales, etc. To consider these questions we not only have to
understand the social dynamics permitting or blocking technology mainstreaming. We not
only have to understand the positive and negative consequences of technology upscaling on
the social system. We also must understand that the social system sits within an ecosphere.
Thus, the solutions we apply and how we apply them depend on our worldview.
Socio-technical transition theory focuses on technology transitions, and it relies on the market
mechanism as a vehicle of change. Potentially most importantly it describes society as being
placed within a technotope, further perpetuating the narrative of societies being detached
from nature. It perpetuates the narrative of progress that was born in the late 1940s. Thus,
instead of providing real novelty, it remains in the realm of normal science. Similar to the
analysis of Marletto et al. (2016), one has to conclude that socio-technical transition theory
is a sustainability transition approach that argues that through business-as-usual mechanisms
sustainability can be achieved. As I have outlined scientists have contributed to making
anomalies fit into the mainstream growth paradigm. Socio-technical transition theory does
not break with this endeavor.
References:
Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., . . . Lang, D. J.
(2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46(1), 30-39.
doi:10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y
Alexander, B., & Kent, A. (2021). Tracking technology diffusion in-store: a fashion retail
perspective. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 49(10), 1369-
1390. doi:10.1108/IJRDM-05-2020-0191
Asquith, M., Backhaus, J., Geels, F., Golland, A., Hof, A., Kemp, R., . . . Weaver, P. (2018).
Perspectives on transitions to sustainability. Retrieved from
blob:https://www.eea.europa.eu/bd16ce9d-19e4-4243-8c7d-39182dbcfceb
Avelino, F. (2017). Power in Sustainability Transitions: Analysing power and
(dis)empowerment in transformative change towards sustainability. Environmental
Policy and Governance, 27(6), 505-520. doi:10.1002/eet.1777
Beckerman, W. (1995). How Would you Like your 'Sustainability', Sir? Weak or Strong? A Reply
to my Critics. Environmental Values, 4(2), 169-179. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30301474
Béné, C. (2022). Why the Great Food Transformation may not happen – A deep-dive into our
food systems’ political economy, controversies and politics of evidence. World
Development, 154, 105881. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.105881
Bergmann, M., Collard, F., Fabres, J., Gabrielsen, G. W., Provencher, J. F., Rochman, C. M., . .
. Tekman, M. B. (2022). Plastic pollution in the Arctic. Nature Reviews Earth &
Environment, 3(5), 323-337. doi:10.1038/s43017-022-00279-8
16
Berik, G. (2018). Toward more inclusive measures of economic well-being: Debates and
practices. Retrieved from https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/--
-cabinet/documents/publication/wcms_649127.pdf
Bernard, R. E., & Cooperdock, E. H. G. (2018). No progress on diversity in 40 years. Nature
Geoscience, 11(5), 292-295. doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0116-6
Biely, K. (2014). Environmental and Ecological Economics: Two approaches in dealing with
economy-environment interrelations and the case of the Economics of Land
Degradation initiative. (Magistra). Universität Wien, Vienna. Retrieved from
https://www.katharinabiely.com/_files/ugd/e849da_baf573475ec64925b4a6ef3eefa
bc572.pdf
Blythe, J., Silver, J., Evans, L., Armitage, D., Bennett, N. J., Moore, M.-L., . . . Brown, K. (2018).
The Dark Side of Transformation: Latent Risks in Contemporary Sustainability
Discourse. Antipode, 50(5), 1206-1223. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12405
Borrello, M., Cembalo, L., & D’Amico, V. (2023). Narratives to revert overconsumption:
human-nature interdependence and Circular Economy. Agricultural and Food
Economics, 11(1), 19. doi:10.1186/s40100-023-00259-6
Boulding, K. (1966). The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth,. Paper presented at the
Resources for the Future Forum, Washington.
Bulah, B. M., Tziva, M., Bidmon, C., & Hekkert, M. P. (2023). Incumbent entry modes and entry
timing in sustainable niches: The plant-based protein transition in the United States,
Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions,
48, 100735. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2023.100735
Chappin, E. J. L., & Ligtvoet, A. (2014). Transition and transformation: A bibliometric analysis
of two scientific networks researching socio-technical change. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30, 715-723.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.11.013
Common, M., & Stagl, S. (2005). Ecological Economics: An Introduction. Cambridge, New York,
Melbourne, Cape Town, Singapore, Sao Paulo, Delhi, Mexico City: Cambridge
University Press.
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., . . . van den Belt, M.
(1998). The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecological
Economics, 25(1), 3-15. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00020-2
Costanza, R., Hart, M., Posner, S., & Talberth, J. (2009). Beyond GDP: The Need for New
Measures of Progress. Boston: Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range
Future.
Daly, H. E. (1995). On Wilfred Beckerman's Critique of Sustainable Development.
Environmental Values, 4(1), 49-55. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30301392
Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond Growth: The Economics of Sustainable Development. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Davelaar, D. (2021). Transformation for sustainability: a deep leverage points approach.
Sustainability Science, 16(3), 727-747. doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00872-0
Desing, H., Brunner, D., Takacs, F., Nahrath, S., Frankenberger, K., & Hischier, R. (2020). A
circular economy within the planetary boundaries: Towards a resource-based,
systemic approach. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 155, 104673.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104673
17
Dzhengiz, T., Haukkala, T., & Sahimaa, O. (2023). (Un)Sustainable transitions towards fast and
ultra-fast fashion. Fashion and Textiles, 10(1), 19. doi:10.1186/s40691-023-00337-9
Ely, A. (2021a). Transformations. In A. Ely (Ed.), Transformative Pathways to Sustainability:
Learning Across Disciplines, Cultures and Contexts (1st edition ed.): Routledge.
Ely, A. (2021b). Transformative Pathways to Sustainability: Learning Across Disciplines,
Cultures and Contexts (1st edition ed.): Routledge.
Escobar, A. (2015). Degrowth, postdevelopment, and transitions: a preliminary conversation.
Sustainability Science, 10(3), 451-462. doi:10.1007/s11625-015-0297-5
Fawzy, S., Osman, A. I., Doran, J., & Rooney, D. W. (2020). Strategies for mitigation of climate
change: a review. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 18(6), 2069-2094.
doi:10.1007/s10311-020-01059-w
Fischer, J., & Riechers, M. (2019). A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People and
Nature, 1(1), 115-120. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.13
Ford, A., & Newell, P. (2021). Regime resistance and accommodation: Toward a neo-
Gramscian perspective on energy transitions. Energy Research & Social Science, 79,
102163. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102163
Foster-Carter, A. (1976). From Rostow to Gunder Frank: Conflicting paradigms in the analysis
of underdevelopment. World Development, 4(3), 167-180.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-750X(76)90025-5
Freebairn, H. T. (1963). Removal of Toxic Gases in Smog with Metal Filters. Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association, 13(5), 218-219. doi:10.1080/00022470.1963.10468169
Geels, F. W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a
multi-level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31(8–9), 1257-1274.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8
Geels, F. W. (2002). Understanding the Dynamics of Technological Transitions, A Co-
evolutionary and Socio-technical Analysis. (Ph.D.). Twente University Press, Enschede,
NL.
Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights
about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy,
33(6–7), 897-920. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015
Geels, F. W. (2006). Major system change through stepwise reconfiguration: A multi-level
analysis of the transformation of American factory production (1850–1930).
Technology in Society, 28(4), 445-476.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2006.09.006
Geels, F. W. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-
level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495-510.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022
Geels, F. W. (2014). Regime Resistance against Low-Carbon Transitions: Introducing Politics
and Power into the Multi-Level Perspective. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(5), 21-
40. doi:10.1177/0263276414531627
Geels, F. W. (2020). Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical
transitions: Developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers
between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional theory.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 152.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119894
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research
Policy, 36(3), 399-417. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
18
Gibbs, D., & O'Neill, K. (2014). The green economy, sustainability transitions and transition
regions: a case study of boston. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography,
96(3), 201-216. doi:10.1111/geob.12046
Göpel, M. (2016). The Great Mindshift: How a New Economic Paradigm and Sustainability
Transformations go Hand in Hand. Cham: Springer.
Griliches, Z. (1957). Hybrid Corn: An Exploration in the Economics of Technological Change.
Econometrica, 25(4), 501-522. doi:10.2307/1905380
Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2010). Transitions to Sustainable Development: New
Directions in the Study of Long Term Transformative Change. London, UNITED
KINGDOM: Taylor & Francis Group.
Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human
and natural systems. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press.
Haberl, H., Wiedenhofer, D., Virág, D., Kalt, G., Plank, B., Brockway, P., . . . Creutzig, F. (2020).
A systematic review of the evidence on decoupling of GDP, resource use and GHG
emissions, part II: synthesizing the insights. Environmental Research Letters, 15(6),
065003. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a
Halbe, J., Adamowski, J., & Pahl-Wostl, C. (2015). The role of paradigms in engineering
practice and education for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production,
106, 272-282. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.093
Hall, C. A. S., & Day, J. W. (2009). Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil: In the 1970s
a rising world population and the finite resources available to support it were hot
topics. Interest faded—but it's time to take another look. American Scientist, 97(3),
230-237. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/stable/27859331
Hamilton, K. (1995). Sustainable development, the Hartwick rule and optimal growth.
Environmental and Resource Economics, 5(4), 393-411. doi:10.1007/BF00691576
Hamilton, R. T. V., & Ramcilovic-Suominen, S. (2023). From hegemony-reinforcing to
hegemony-transcending transformations: horizons of possibility and strategies of
escape. Sustainability Science, 18(2), 737-748. doi:10.1007/s11625-022-01257-1
Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Mason-D’Croz, D., Palmer, J., Benton, T. G., Bodirsky, B. L., . . .
West, P. C. (2020). Innovation can accelerate the transition towards a sustainable food
system. Nature Food, 1(5), 266-272. doi:10.1038/s43016-020-0074-1
Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2020). Is Green Growth Possible? New Political Economy, 25(4), 469-
486. doi:10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964
Holden, N. M., Neill, A. M., Stout, J. C., O’Brien, D., & Morris, M. A. (2023). Biocircularity: a
Framework to Define Sustainable, Circular Bioeconomy. Circular Economy and
Sustainability, 3(1), 77-91. doi:10.1007/s43615-022-00180-y
Jickling, B. (2016). Losing traction and the art of slip-sliding away: Or, getting over education
for sustainable development. The Journal of Environmental Education, 47(2), 128-138.
doi:10.1080/00958964.2015.1080653
Kates, R. W., & Parris, T. M. (2003). Long-term trends and a sustainability transition.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(14), 8062-8067.
doi:10.1073/pnas.1231331100
Kaya Kanlı, N., & Küçükefe, B. (2023). Is the environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis valid? A
global analysis for carbon dioxide emissions. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 25(3), 2339-2367. doi:10.1007/s10668-022-02138-4
19
Keller, M., Sahakian, M., & Hirt, L. F. (2022). Connecting the multi-level-perspective and social
practice approach for sustainable transitions. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions, 44, 14-28. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2022.05.004
Kemp, R., Pel, B., Scholl, C., & Boons, F. (2022). Diversifying deep transitions: Accounting for
socio-economic directionality. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 44,
110-124. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.06.002
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., . . . Wells, P. (2019).
An agenda for sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1-32.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition (4th edition
ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Kurzman, C., & Owens, L. (2002). The Sociology of Intellectuals. Annual Review of Sociology,
28(1), 63-90. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.140745
Le Cacheux, J., & Laurent, E. (2015). The EU “Beyond GDP”. In Report on the State of the
European Union: Is Europe Sustainable? (pp. 154-167). London: Palgrave Macmillan
UK.
Leach, M., Stirling, A. C., & Scoones, I. (2010). Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology,
Environment, Social Justice (1st edition ed.): Routledge.
Lee, H., & Romero, J. (2023). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2023: Synthesis
Report. A Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Contribution of
Working Groups I, II and III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, . Retrieved from Geneva, Switzerland:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_SYR_SPM.pdf
Leeuwis, C., Boogaard, B. K., & Atta-Krah, K. (2021). How food systems change (or not):
governance implications for system transformation processes. Food Security, 13(4),
761-780. doi:10.1007/s12571-021-01178-4
Lepenies, P. (2016). The Power of a Single Number: A Political History of GDP: Columbia
University Press.
Loorbach, D., Frantzeskaki, N., & Avelino, F. (2017). Sustainability Transitions Research:
Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources, 42(1), 599-626. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-102014-021340
Lozano, R., Lozano, F. J., Mulder, K., Huisingh, D., & Waas, T. (2013). Advancing Higher
Education for Sustainable Development: international insights and critical reflections.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 48, 3-9.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.034
Ludwig, D., & Ruphy, S. (2021). Scientific Pluralism. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
MacLeod, M., Arp, H. P. H., Tekman, M. B., & Jahnke, A. (2021). The global threat from plastic
pollution. Science, 373(6550), 61-65. doi:doi:10.1126/science.abg5433
Marín, A., & Goya, D. (2021). Mining—The dark side of the energy transition. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 41, 86-88.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2021.09.011
Markard, J., Raven, R., & Truffer, B. (2012). Sustainability transitions: An emerging field of
research and its prospects. Research Policy, 41(6), 955-967.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.02.013
20
Marletto, G., Franceschini, S., Ortolani, C., & Sillig, C. (2016). Mapping Sustainability
Transitions. Cham: Springer.
Mathur, D., Gregory, R., & Imran, M. (2022). Transitioning towards a circular economy solar
energy system in Northern Australia: insights from a multi-level perspective.
Australian Planner, 58(3-4), 115-122. doi:10.1080/07293682.2023.2200956
Meadows, D. (2010). Die Grenzen des Denkens: Wie wir sie mit System erkennen koennen und
ueberwinden koennen (K. Bossel & H. Bossel, Trans.). Muenchen: oekom.
Mokyr, J. (2005). Chapter 17 - Long-Term Economic Growth and the History of Technology. In
P. Aghion & S. N. Durlauf (Eds.), Handbook of Economic Growth (Vol. 1, pp. 1113-
1180): Elsevier.
Naberhaus, M., Ashford, C., Buhr, M., Hanisch, F., Şengün, K., & Tunçer, B. (2011). Effective
change strategies for the Great Transition: Five leverage points for civil society
organisations. Retrieved from
https://base.socioeco.org/docs/smartcsosreportfinal.pdf
Nilsen, H. R. (2010). The joint discourse ‘reflexive sustainable development’ — From weak
towards strong sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 69(3), 495-501.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.011
Paddock, W. C. (1970). How Green Is the Green Revolution? BioScience, 20(16), 897-902.
doi:10.2307/1295581
Pakes, A., & Sokoloff, K. L. (1996). Science, technology, and economic growth. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 93(23), 12655-12657.
doi:doi:10.1073/pnas.93.23.12655
Palm, A. (2022). Innovation systems for technology diffusion: An analytical framework and
two case studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 182, 121821.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121821
Prados, M.-J., Iglesias-Pascual, R., & Barral, Á. (2022). Energy transition and community
participation in Portugal, Greece and Israel: Regional differences from a multi-level
perspective. Energy Research & Social Science, 87, 102467.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102467
Pregernig, M. (2014). Framings of science-policy interactions and their discursive and
institutional effects: examples from conservation and environmental policy.
Biodiversity and Conservation, 23(14), 3615-3639. doi:10.1007/s10531-014-0806-3
Pungas, L. (2023). Invisible (bio)economies: a framework to assess the ‘blind spots’ of
dominant bioeconomy models. Sustainability Science. doi:10.1007/s11625-023-
01292-6
Raffer, K., & Singer, H. W. (2001). The Economic North-South Devide: Six decades of unequal
development. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar.
Ramcilovic-Suominen, S., Kröger, M., & Dressler, W. (2022). From pro-growth and planetary
limits to degrowth and decoloniality: An emerging bioeconomy policy and research
agenda. Forest Policy and Economics, 144, 102819.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2022.102819
Rockström, J., Gupta, J., Qin, D., Lade, S. J., Abrams, J. F., Andersen, L. S., . . . Zhang, X. (2023).
Safe and just Earth system boundaries. Nature. doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06083-8
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., . . . Foley, J. A.
(2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472-475. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/461472a
Rogers, E. R. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.
21
Rosenberg, N. (1974). Science, Invention and Economic Growth. The Economic Journal,
84(333), 90-108. doi:10.2307/2230485
Rostow, W. W. (1969). The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Comunist Manifesto. USA:
Cambridge.
Ruggeri, E., & Garrido, S. (2021). More renewable power, same old problems? Scope and
limitations of renewable energy programs in Argentina. Energy Research & Social
Science, 79, 102161. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102161
Schlaile, M. P., & Urmetzer, S. (2021). Transitions to Sustainable Development. In W. Leal
Filho, A. M. Azul, L. Brandli, A. Lange Salvia, & T. Wall (Eds.), Decent Work and
Economic Growth (pp. 1067-1081). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Schlüter, M., Caniglia, G., Orach, K., Bodin, Ö., Magliocca, N., Meyfroidt, P., & Reyers, B.
(2022). Why care about theories? Innovative ways of theorizing in sustainability
science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 54, 101154.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2022.101154
Schmelzer, M. (2015). The growth paradigm: History, hegemony, and the contested making
of economic growthmanship. Ecological Economics, 118, 262-271.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.029
Schmelzer, M. (2017). The Hegemony of Growth: The OECD and the Making of the Economic
Growth Paradigm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schöneberg, J., & Häckl, M. K. (2020). It is time to abandon “development” goals and demand
a post-2030 Utopia. Retrieved from http://www.developmentresearch.eu/?p=762
Schumacher, E. F. (1973). Small is beautiful: die Rückkher zum menschlichen Maß (K. A.
Klewer, Trans. German Edition ed.). München: OEKOM.
Scoones, I., Stirling, A., Abrol, D., Atela, J., Charli-Joseph, L., Eakin, H., . . . Yang, L. (2020).
Transformations to sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling
approaches. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 42, 65-75.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.12.004
Sharpe, B., Hodgson, A., Leicester, G., Lyon, A., & Fazey, I. (2016). Three horizons: a pathways
practice for transformation. Ecology and Society, 21(2). doi:10.5751/ES-08388-210247
Solivetti, L. M. (2005). W.W. Rostow and His Contribution to Development Studies: A Note.
The Journal of Development Studies, 41(4), 719-724.
doi:10.1080/00220380500092903
Solow, R. M. (1974). The Economics of Resources or the Resources of Economics. The
American Economic Review, 64(2), 1-14. Retrieved from
www.jstor.org/stable/1816009
Sovacool, B. K., & Hess, D. J. (2017). Ordering theories: Typologies and conceptual frameworks
for sociotechnical change. Social Studies of Science, 47(5), 703-750.
doi:10.1177/0306312717709363
Tabrizian, S. (2019). Technological innovation to achieve sustainable development—
Renewable energy technologies diffusion in developing countries. Sustainable
Development, 27(3), 537-544. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1918
Unerman, J. (2020). Risks from self-referential peer review echo chambers developing in
research fields: 2018 Keynote Address presented at The British Accounting Review
50th Anniversary Celebrations, British Accounting and Finance Association Annual
Conference, London. The British Accounting Review, 52(5), 100910.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2020.100910
22
United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. (A/RES/70/1). The General Assembly Retrieved from
https://documents-dds-
ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N15/291/89/PDF/N1529189.pdf?OpenElement
United Nations. (2023). Progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals: Towards a
Rescue Plan for People and Planet. Report of the Secretary-General (Special Edition).
Retrieved from https://hlpf.un.org/sites/default/files/2023-
04/SDG%20Progress%20Report%20Special%20Edition.pdf
Vandeventer, J. S., Cattaneo, C., & Zografos, C. (2019). A Degrowth Transition: Pathways for
the Degrowth Niche to Replace the Capitalist-Growth Regime. Ecological Economics,
156, 272-286. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.10.002
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and
transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2). Retrieved
from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/
Wanner, T. (2015). The New ‘Passive Revolution’ of the Green Economy and Growth
Discourse: Maintaining the ‘Sustainable Development’ of Neoliberal Capitalism. New
Political Economy, 20(1), 21-41. doi:10.1080/13563467.2013.866081
Watari, T., McLellan, B. C., Giurco, D., Dominish, E., Yamasue, E., & Nansai, K. (2019). Total
material requirement for the global energy transition to 2050: A focus on transport
and electricity. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 148, 91-103.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.015
Wharton, C. R., Jr. (1969). The Green Revolution: Cornucopia or Pandora's Box? Foreign Affairs
(pre-1986), 47(000003), 464. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.2307/20039390
Williams, J. B., & McNeill, J. M. (2005). The Current Crisis In Neoclassical Economics and the
Case for an Economic Analysis Based on Sustainable Development. Retrieved from
Wittmayer, J. M., & Schäpke, N. (2014). Action, research and participation: roles of
researchers in sustainability transitions. Sustainability Science, 9(4), 483-496.
doi:10.1007/s11625-014-0258-4
Woiwode, C., Schäpke, N., Bina, O., Veciana, S., Kunze, I., Parodi, O., . . . Wamsler, C. (2021).
Inner transformation to sustainability as a deep leverage point: fostering new avenues
for change through dialogue and reflection. Sustainability Science.
doi:10.1007/s11625-020-00882-y
