Designing long-term policy: rethinking transitionmanagement

Jan-Peter Voß • Adrian Smith • John Grin

Published online: 21 November 2009� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2009

Abstract Long-term policy is enjoying something of a come-back in connection with

sustainable development. The current revival tries to avoid the pitfalls of an earlier gen-

eration of positivistic long-range planning and control approaches. Instead, this new

generation of policy design emphasises reflexive governance concepts. These aim at

inducing and navigating complex processes of socio-technical change by means of

deliberation, probing and learning. A practical expression of this move that is attracting

growing international attention amongst researchers and practitioners is the policy of

‘Transition Management’ (TM) in the Netherlands. This article takes stock of TM

implementation experience to date and discusses the critical issues it raises for long-term

policy design. The article provides a framework and synthesis for this Special Issue, which

comprises articles that address a range of those issues in more depth. We highlight three

critical issues: the politics of societal learning, contextual embedding of policy design and

dynamics of the design process itself. This leads us to propose a view on policy design as a

contested process of social innovation. Our conclusion considers implications for contin-

ued work on designing transition management in practice as well as the reflexive capacities

of democratic politics.

J.-P. Voß (&)Innovation in Governance Research Group, Institute of Sociology/Center for Technology and Society,Technische Universitat Berlin (Secretariat ER 2-2), 10623 Berlin, Germanye-mail: jan-peter.voss@tu-berlin.deURL: Web www.innovation-in-governance.org

A. SmithSPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research), Freeman Centre, Falmer, University of Sussex,Brighton, East Sussex BN1 9QE, UKe-mail: A.G.Smith@sussex.ac.uk

J. GrinFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, University of Amsterdam, OZ Achterburgwal 237,1012, DL, Amsterdam, The Netherlandse-mail: J.Grin@uva.nl

123

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302DOI 10.1007/s11077-009-9103-5

Keywords Policy design � Sustainable development � Reflexive governance �Transition management � Socio-technical change � Long-term planning �Deliberation � Politics of learning � Innovation in governance

Introduction

Long-term policy design is politically salient again. Substantive policy goals and policy

processes are re-emerging that seek to restructure radically key social systems in response

to a variety of social challenges. In the context of debates about sustainable development

there is growing policy interest in stepping away from incremental developments along

‘business-as-usual’ trajectories. Policy-makers increasingly consider how conventional

measures (such as environmental taxes and regulations aimed at reforming collective

behaviours, economic sectors and technologies) can be overlaid with a more integrated

package that delivers a ‘sustainability transition’ to radically more sustainable societal

systems over the long-term. Take our energy systems as a case in point. A commitment

taken by governments of the G8 in 2008 is an indication that a consensus is emerging on a

global target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050. Current energy systems

based in fossil fuels are currently responsible for a majority of these emissions. Given that

these energy systems underpin economic activity in other areas too, then meeting climate

change targets implies transforming our energy systems into radically decarbonised forms.

There is a growing body of academic work on the implications of such long-term

challenges for the concepts and practices of governance.1 A notable example of a new

generation of long-term policy design is the ‘transition management’ approach instituted

by the Dutch government since 2001 (see the article by Kemp and Rotmans 2009). The

development and implementation of this design are the focus of this special issue.

This interest contrasts sharply with the disrepute into which long-term policies had

fallen after the 1970s. Modernist conceptions of societal planning had reached a crisis

point. The not unconnected combination of an increasingly tarnished track record, an

apparent inability to rise to macro-economic problems and welfare crises, and the rise of

neo-liberal ideology, all contributed to a decline in long-range planning ambitions in

OECD governments and elsewhere. The collapse of the planned economies a decade later

confirmed this newly received wisdom. Long-term policy had become linked with long-

range, wide-scale and highly interventionist public planning. And that kind of planning no

longer had a good reputation.

This historical context prompts an intriguing question: whether interest in ‘transitions

towards sustainable development’ signals a return to long-range policy design? Does this

open space for more ambitious initiatives in sustainable development?

The collective urge to reflect, anticipate and intervene in societal development is a

recurring theme in the policy science literature (e.g. Mill 1862; Dewey 1927; Lindblom

1959/1969; Vickers 1965; and more recently, Elmore 1985; Fischer 1995, 2003; Schon and

Rein 1994; Bobrow and Dryzek 1987). Recent long-range policy ideas try to incorporate

1 This special issue is part of a larger cluster of activities in the context of an emerging research programmeon sustainability transitions. All papers have been presented in the context of a workshop series on SystemInnovations for Sustainable Development which has been co-funded through the conCISEnet project by theGerman Federal Minstry of Research and Education’s programme on Social-ecological Research(www.sozial-oekologische-forschung.org) and through the Knowlewdge Network for System Innovationsand Transitions (www.ksinetwork.nl) by the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and theEnvironment.

276 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

some of the painful lessons from past planning failures; failures which fed the neo-liberal

reaction. The current generation of long-term policy approaches appears more ‘reflexive’,

it avoids the notion of planning and is well aware of the limits to full knowledge in advance

and steering the course of history (Meadowcroft 1999). We consider how this reflexive

revival is panning out in the case of TM.

Transition management combines an orientation toward a long-term vision of ‘sus-

tainable development’ with short-term experimental learning to probe options and find

pathways to realise the vision. Its time horizon is 25–50 years. Over the course of the

process the vision may be adapted as learning about options proceeds. This, in turn, may

shift criteria for designing and evaluating experiments. This recursive cycle for meeting

substantive goals (e.g. reductions in carbon emissions, increases in resource efficiency,

enhancements in biodiversity) is a key characteristic of transition management. Another

characteristic is the mobilisation of ‘forerunners’ to become involved in ‘transition arenas’,

where visions are formulated and experiments are carried out. The concept envisages

procedural arrangements that catalyse innovation and societal learning for the sustainable

development of sectors like energy, mobility or agriculture. Whilst substantial goals drive

the process, transition management refrains from fixing specific measures and strategies

too early and too rigidly. At the core is the idea to modulate co-evolutionary dynamics that

already drive socio-technical change, and to bend them in ways that facilitate transfor-

mative innovation (articulating guiding visions and experimenting with options and

pathways). The general approach is one of nurturing and growing rather than planning and

controlling long-term societal change.

‘Transition management’ emerged from concerns for step-change sustainable devel-

opment. It has prompted experiments with policies aimed at transforming ‘socio-technical

systems’ of energy provision, agriculture, transport, housing and use of materials (Rotmans

et al. 2001). Parallel to these policy experiments, further conceptual work has developed

the approach into a general concept of governance (Loorbach 2007). As such it attracts

international attention amongst scholars concerned with socio-technical change, sustain-

able development and governance (Berkhout et al. 2004; Smith et al. 2005; Meadowcroft

2005; Shove and Walker 2007; Walker and Shove 2007; Smith and Stirling 2007). It is

time to give an account of the practical experiences to date, reflect on implications for the

continued development of more general governance concepts, and anticipate possible

future pathways for long-term policy design. With this in mind, the Special Issue aims to

contribute to continued policy learning in academic debate as well as in political practice.

A large part of the transition management literature stays on a conceptual and pro-

grammatic level. It tends to overlook the political processes through which transition

management is realised. Some notable exceptions in the literature have drawn attention to

the attenuating dominance of established policy institutions and political players, and have

identified some technocratic tendencies in the policy process (Hendriks 2008; Smith and

Kern 2009; Smith and Stirling 2007). We follow-up on these studies, but, unlike them,

contextualise transition management as an example of a new generation of long-term

policy design. This enables us to arrive at insights which may be relevant for other efforts

at designing reflexive governance for sustainable development. While acknowledging the

complexity of societal change processes in their subject domain, many of these concepts,

so far, lack an explicit concern for the work involved in realising new governance practices

in a context of prior policy paradigms. Crossing the gap between established policy par-

adigms and novel forms of experimental learning presumes radical innovation in gover-

nance practices. This difficulty is compounded by the well-known challenge of anticipating

implementation in policy design (Bardach 1977).

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 277

123

Policy sciences in a Lasswellian spirit approach this challenge by engaging with

political processes, finding out about what works by testing it out in vivo, and learning

from the experience. In this vein, we take early experiences with transition management as

an occasion to reflect on some fundamental challenges of long-term policy design. We

draw lessons from this particular case for questions of more general importance: How do

transition management and other concepts for reflexive governance work in practice? How

is a succession or accommodation between existing and new forms of governance realised?

What are particular challenges for transformative long-term policy design?

In this introductory article, we first introduce the Special Issue by outlining the tran-

sition management concept and situating it in the broader literature on designing long-term

policy. Second, we discuss the key challenges that transition management meets in prac-

tice. Here we build on analyses in the contributing papers. We highlight three critical

issues: (1) the ‘politics of learning’, which may undermine aspirations for open deliber-

ation; (2) the ‘contextual embedding’ that is required to turn new governance concepts into

policy configurations that work; and (3) the dynamics of ‘design as process’, which sug-

gests approaching policy design as open ended processes of social innovation, and in which

both concepts and practices undergo change. In concluding the article, we consider

implications for continued work on designing transition management in practice.

Long-term policy design: from planning to reflexive governance

We understand long-term policy design as the development and implementation of policy

strategies that seek to change radically key societal structures.2 In transition management

terms, long-term policies innovate new socio-technical systems of provision, rather than

optimise and correct existing systems at the margins. The realisation of long-term policy

goals extends well beyond electoral cycles and management terms, even beyond a gen-

eration of civil servants. Over the course of long-term change processes, policies have to

interact with transformative changes as they unfold. Long-term policy design thus needs to

be flexible and adaptive; it has to cope with the inherent uncertainties of inchoate pathways

of societal change.3

Long-term policies address problems which require solutions with long gestation

periods. Such policies need to induce and guide social and technological innovations

capable of replacing established ways of doing things, as well as their structural embed-

ment. Sustainable development is a challenge that exhibits these characteristics (Grin

2006). Solutions require a re-configuring of complex socio-technical systems like energy,

agriculture, mobility and health. These systems comprise many interdependent components

(a need for ‘system innovation’) and they involve large investments over long periods

(often with low initial returns). Transitions to sustainability consequently imply a desta-

bilizing of existing socio-technical structures as well as nurturing alternative systems that

can fill the opportunities created by structural change.

2 There is also a literature on long-term policy design in economics. This is not so much about empiricallyobservable dynamics of the policy process, but more about optimality conditions and the modeling ofincentives for long-term investments. Recurrent themes are questions about how to discount (uncertain) payoffs in the future to calculate present investments and questions about overcoming uneven distributions ofcosts and benefits of political measures across generations.3 We are not talking about political decisions with a temporal delay until they become effective (a law thatcomes into force in 5 years time). We also exclude the setting of long-term objectives, if they are put up asguiding posts without an accompanying programme for realisation (e.g. emission reduction targets).

278 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

Long-term policy design has a long intellectual history. Classical approaches address

the challenge as ‘planning’. A first generation of planning approaches was concerned with

building up infrastructures, administrative capacity and the welfare state, and was based on

a belief in the possibility of progress by use of forecasting, analysis and bureaucracy. There

is not space to recount this (well known and chequered) history (see Friedmann 1987;

Hillier and Healey 2008). A neo-liberal market orientation succeeded this first generation

into policy practice.4 Meanwhile, a second generation of (now marginalized) planners took

stock of their demise, revised ideas based in critical reflection, and suggested lessons for a

second generation of long-range planning.5

Second generation planning theory is concerned with precaution towards the unintended

side-effects of development plans, and is based on co-evolutionary understanding, par-

ticipation and learning (see, e.g. Beck 1994; Norgaard 1994). The linear, unilateral model

of rational planning has been reformulated into ‘forward and backward mapping’ between

problem definitions and assessments of policy solutions (Fischer 1980; Schon 1983; El-

more 1985; Hoppe et al. 1987; Bobrow and Dryzek 1987; Forester 1984, 1999). Planning

has been renamed as long-term policy design, with policy design conceived as an inter-

active process of constructing and shaping political reality (Stone 1988; Schneider and

Ingram 1990, 1993, 1997).

Long-term policy design tries to turn the messiness of bottom-up implementation into a

productive dynamic (Wildavsky 1988). Instead of imposing theoretically defined optima it

organizes processes of interactive learning (Bobrow and Dryzek 1987; Schneider and

Ingram 1997), or seeks to induce such processes by a mix of policy instruments that

promote learning between societal actors and policy actors (Van de Graaf and Grin 1999).

Explorative scenarios, experimentation and learning gain prominence. The underlying

understanding is that policy making is deeply embedded in broader dynamics and takes

shape in non-linear, open-ended processes. Policy must engage effectively with long-term

societal change, introduce new practices, redirect trajectories of societal development and

untie existing socio-technical systems. This requires policies to build upon and employ the

existing dynamics of change. The orientation is one of ‘modulating’ ongoing co-evolu-

tionary processes, rather suppressing complex dynamics of change with linear analysis and

mechanical steering arrangements (Hillier and Healey 2008).6

4 This arose out of an ideological clash, theoretical contestation, plus evidence from implementationresearch. While planning theory originally developed in context of the New Deal as ‘‘fourth power ofgovernment’’ (Rexford Tugwell) and a necessary basis of open and free societies (Karl Mannheim), it wassoon contested as the arch-enemy of a free society (Hayek). Arguably of more importance than ideologicalclashes, especially for the policy studies community, were detailed empirical analyses of policy imple-mentation difficulties which challenged the feasibility of political planning in the sense of societal blue-printing (Murphy 1971; Derthick 1972; Pressman and Wildavsky 1973; Mayntz 1977; Mazmanian andSabatier 1989/1983; Hofferbert 1986). The primacy of planning suffered in the wake of the economicturbulence, welfare state crises and apparent failure of planning in the 1970s, and compounded by glob-alisation of the economy.5 Prominent examples are Lasswell’s policy sciences (Lasswell 1951), Lindbloms’s incrementalism(Lindblom 1969/1959, 1979), and Wildavsky’s ‘bottom-up politics’ (Pressman and Wildavsky 1973;Majone and Wildavsky 1978).6 Long-term policy design in the tradition of a revised planning theory has great relevance and affinity withenvironmental and technology policy. There it goes under different labels such as ‘foresight’ (Renn 2002;Weber 2006; Voß et al. 2006a), ‘adaptive management’ (Johnson et al., 1993; Lee 1994; Holling et al. 1995;Gunderson and Holling 2002; Sendzimir et al. 2006), ‘learning’ (Grin and Van de Graaf 1996; Wals and vander Ley 2007) or ‘directed incrementalism’ (Grunwald 2000). By the beginning of the 1990s sustainabledevelopment supported these developments as a new political ‘Leitbild’and brings with it a re-legitimization

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 279

123

A central feature in contemporary long-term policy design is awareness of the future as

fundamentally uncertain. This acknowledges arguments about the inherent uncertainty of

planning due to changing circumstances and the unanticipated effects of policies in real

world contexts, in the vein of authors like Vickers (1965), Lindblom (1959/1969, 1990),

and Wildavsky (1979).7 Since inherent uncertainties will be interpreted through plural

perspectives there is an additional acknowledgement in second generation planning about

the likeliness and implications of certain developmental pathways remaining contested.

The appraisal of specific risks and merits of long-term policy becomes a political process

(and not solely a technical calculation) and needs to be treated as such (Stirling 2003,

2006). An important consideration is that long-term policy is not only linked to positive

expectations of development and progress (planning to realise), but also to negative

expectations about unintended consequences and possible damage (planning to avoid).

This feature structures the politics involved in designing long-term policy for sustain-

ability. While long-term policy design for progress (first generation planning) is a game

where the fight is about the distribution of benefits, long-term policy design to avoid

environmental deterioration or technological hazards is a game where some may win and

others loose. Certain trajectories may not be continued and investments may become

stranded. While the first is a (prospective) distributive policy, the second is a (prospective)

re-distributive policy that, through inducing structural change, may change actors’ ‘dis-

positional power’ (Arts and Van Tatenhove 2005). The mobilization of interests and power

becomes characteristic (Lowi 1972).8 Long-term policy design is a highly political

endeavour. This reflection speaks to the argumentative turn in policy analysis (Fischer and

Forester 1993) and in the development of several approaches for participatory planning

(e.g. Dienel and Renn 1995; Joss and Durant 1995; Grin and van de Graaf 1996; Healey

1997; Forester 1999).

Recent long-term policy concepts have been grouped under the label of ‘reflexive

governance’. In a reflexive perspective, governing processes as well as policy analysis

are seen as shaping, interlinked with and open to feedback from broader social, tech-

nological and ecological changes, both in terms of innovative action and structural

change (Grin 2006; Grin and van Staveren 2007; Voß and Kemp 2006; Smith and

Stirling 2007). As such governance is a messy and controversial process of multi-level

institutional transformation. Each of the actors involved has only a limited view of the

whole—which may be incommensurable with constructions of others—and restricted

capacities to influence outcomes (Smith and Stirling 2007). Discussion of the implica-

tions of such an orientation of reflexive governance is picked up in the literature on

governance for sustainable development (Rip 2006; Voß et al. 2007; Hendriks and Grin

Footnote 6 continuedand re-vitalization of long-term transformative policy and new ideas about planning (Kenny and Mead-owcroft 1999).7 This literature was inspired by a recognition of the combined implications of the limits of central planning(Hayek 1960; Lindblom 1965) and the limits of classical understandings of knowledge as were articulatedthrough notions as the ‘crisis of expertise’ (Schon 1983), the ‘politics of expertise’ (Fischer 1990), thedecreasing trust in modern ‘abstract systems’ of expertise (Giddens 1991) and critiques of instrumentalrationality (Horkheimer and Adorno 1988/1969).8 The other way around, structural changes may also help to overcome conflicts of interests. For instance,the 2008 financial crisis may prompt a reconsideration of the role of government regulations in relation tobusiness interests, and thereby make issues like planning for sustainable development more palatable. It isnot simply a re-positioning of actors’ relative interests that can be prompted by wider change, but a re-conceptualisation of what those interests are, and how they are best met.

280 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

2007; Meadowcroft 2007).9 Reflexive governance strategies recognise the inherent

ambivalence of policy goals, irreducible uncertainty about effects of alternative options,

distributed agency and power shaping the process of implementation, a dialectic relation

between policy design and societal context and the duality of structure and agency in

processes of long-term change (Voß and Kemp 2006; Meadowcroft 2009).

All reflexive planning approaches unavoidably face a dilemma. On the one hand, the

requirement is not to suppress diversity, but to nurture bottom-up spontaneous develop-

ments that are open to ambivalence and contestation, and to retain adaptability towards the

complex dynamics of change. On the other hand, there remains a requirement to achieve

coordination, to take a synoptic view on broader developments, to close down contingency,

to fix long-term goals for orientation and mobilization.10 In order to constructively deal

with this dilemma of long-term guidance and short-term contextuality, most approaches to

reflexive planning pragmatically combine top-down and bottom-up elements into more or

less sophisticated procedural designs for social learning. The focus of policy is towards

creating options and exploring paths of societal development, social innovation, as it were,

rather than planning and then implementation. At the same time it is acknowledged that

there must be closing down around options, and commitments to long-lived (infra-)

structures, that necessarily reduce flexibility owing to the path-dependencies they institute.

The discussion so far reveals a series of challenges in long-term policy design. Some

issues are practical. Key here is how concepts for dealing with uncertainty that are based in

adaptability and reflection, can be designed into concrete measures for appraising options

and making commitments. Some of the uncertainty derives from the sheer complexities

and contingencies of diverse real world contexts. A related practical issue is therefore how

to ensure adaptable long-term policy designs remain open to these contexts, and allow the

designs to stay true to the original policy goals in adapted ways, rather than buffeted and

distracted by events. Another practical challenge is presented by the desire to work with

the messiness of bottom-up implementation. Distributed agents may well be required to

deliver the strategic line, and the agency of each cannot do so alone. Yet, a few powerful

actors who are not in line with long-term policy goals may apply their agency to redirect or

disrupt the envisioned change process. Given the high-stakes, re-distributional qualities of

radical sustainable development, the interests of some actors to disrupt efforts are likely to

be considerable.

A deep theoretical issue is the extent to which long-range policy is fundamentally

characterised by problem-framing procedures, and the extent to which this demands

consensual social learning processes for any chance of success. If social learning is the

principle driver of reflexive long-term policy, then who is involved in that learning

becomes paramount; as does questions about whose voice and which lessons count. What

are appropriate institutional arrangements to make societal learning possible in practice?

9 To be sure, part of the response to the challenge of sustainable development have been planningapproaches which simply try to get back to first generation planning ideas as they try to overcome shortterminism by increasing planning capacities to force societal trajectories into a sustainable corridor. Onekind of such approaches focuses on the fixation of durable policy frameworks and on achieving politicalcommitment beyond the horizon of rationality that is in current institutions of political systems (Hovi et al.2007). Another approach, partly inspired by new public management, calls for a clear definition of sus-tainable development as a policy goal and articulation of indicators, monitoring and control (Steurer 2004;Janicke and Jorgens 2005).10 Aspects of this dilemma have been articulated in many shades, e.g. as exploration and exploitation(March 1991), as a conflict between engineering and ecological resilience (Holling 1996), as requirements oflong-term planning and short-term acceptance (Grunwald 2000), or as the efficacy paradox of governanceunder conditions of complexity (Voß et al. 2006b).

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 281

123

Here questions of fit and adaptation between new long-term initiatives and institutions

become important. There is also an issue about just how adaptable it is possible for these

novel arrangements to become in practice.

The challenge to learning is not simply institutional rigidities and priorities. As the

introduction to the reflexive governance literature mentioned above, knowledge politics

may well constrain aspirations for developing a shared problem framing. Consent may

derive instead from the way plural values are accommodated in the diverse commitments

being made by that process. This brings in issues of legitimacy and democracy in long-

range policy design processes. It also asks questions of whether the fluid networks char-

acteristic of reflexive governance can create direct democratic forms, and the ways they

may need reinforcing with links to more conventional institutions of representative

democracy. The quality of debate and commitment to sustainable development in those

broader political institutions becomes essential to more designed initiatives in reflexive

long-term policy for sustainable development. Arguably, it is the absence of strong support

for transition management amongst the broader polity that has left it incapable of really

getting to grips with these critical issues.

An emerging ‘transition management’ literature provides some imaginative ideas for

combining guidance with uncertainty, the long term with the short term, concern for the

whole and for the particulars, efficiency and resilience, closure and opening, top-down and

bottom-up, outside and inside, design and dynamics, structure and agency, private interests

and the common good. And yet, some of these are fundamental tensions which mayundermine confidence in the possibility of success. It is these tensions which we explore in

this Special Issue.

‘Transition management: an exemplary case?’ section describes how transition man-

agement seeks qualities of reflexive governance. ‘Critical design issues ‘section is more

critical about how they are working. Picking up on the theoretical issues mentioned above,

it raises three issues: politics, context and design as process. Politics refers to the challenge

of securing democratic legitimacy for the process and ensuring that learning-oriented

governance arrangements are not captured and attenuated by powerful interests. Contextrefers to policy histories, institutional dynamics and the challenge of translating and

instituting designs into new configurations that work in practice. The third group, design asprocess, refers to the societal interaction within the dynamics of the policy design process

itself. While politics issues are somewhat specific for long-term policy design (of the

second generation), issues under context and design as process are classic challenges for

policy design more generally, but become especially pronounced when the goal is the

transition to radically more sustainable socio-technical systems over the long term. Whilst

the contributions to this Special Issue shed light on those issues, they also raise new ones,

such as the way the language of long-range policy designs can alienate the very people they

seek to empower.

Transition management: an exemplary case?

In the following, we introduce specific tenets of ‘transition management’ as a recent long-

term policy design that contains the features and tensions noted for reflexive governance

above. Transition management builds on an analytical understanding of long-term societal

change from integrated assessment (Rotmans and van Vries 1997), complexity theory (in

ways explained in Rotmans 2005), evolutionary economics (Kemp 1994; Mulder et al.

1999) and the theory of socio-technical transitions (Kemp 1994; Geels 2001). The radical

282 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

transformation of socio-technical systems in energy, mobility, housing, food, etc. is con-

sidered necessary for dealing with persistent sustainability problems: problems which are

symptomatic of existing systems. These problems will only be resolved through a transi-

tion to new systems in which sustainability is centrally embedded.

The transition management framework

A key organising input for transition management comes from research on historical socio-

technical transitions, and in which a ‘multilevel perspective’ on the requisite transition

processes has developed (Rip and Kemp 1998; Geels 2001; Berkhout et al. 2004; Geels

and Schot 2007). Its claims may be summarized as follows (see the review in Grin 2008,

pp. 49–55):

1. The dynamics of sustainability transitions build up in interactions across different,

co-evolving levels: niches, regimes and landscapes.

2. Niches nurture novel socio-technical configurations for doing energy, housing,

transport, agriculture and so on in a new way.

3. Regimes constitute the dominant interplay of research, development, production, use

and regulation for the more established and mainstream socio-technical set-up.

4. Landscapes consist of broader societal patterns and developments that provide

structural gradients of possibility for socio-technical change.

5. Regime transitions occur through linkages and interaction between multiple devel-

opments on the three levels.

6. Strategic action plays a role for creating linkages between niches and between niche

and regimes, thereby helping induce a transition (Kemp and Loorbach 2006, p. 109).

This multi-level perspective on socio-technical change can be illustrated with recent

dynamics in electricity systems. Here, we see established regimes of centralised power

generation from fossil and nuclear sources being disputed by renewable energy sources

and decentralised power and load management in ‘intelligent’ distribution networks, and

which are becoming established in niches within the regime. At the same time, the regime

of power generation is coming under pressure as climate change and energy security gain

support on a broader socio-political landscape and shift the performance requirements for

social legitimacy. Challenge from within and pressure from above, however, do not lead

into an immediate and smooth transition. Due to the interconnectedness and comple-

mentarity of various elements of this complex technological system—such as the

institutional set-up of the industry, user routines and behaviour, economic production

chains, and the patterns of governance and political regulation—a new system of

electricity provision takes shape through a range of distributed innovation processes. Such

processes of ‘system innovation’ are not straightforward, but entail extended processes of

bricolage and probing.

Transition management builds on these findings by taking an ideal typical ‘purposive’

transition pattern consisting of four phases: a pre-development phase, a take-off phase, an

acceleration phase and a stabilization phase (Rotmans et al. 2001; Rotmans 2005). Tran-

sition management addresses both actors at the regime level and those involved in niche

experiments. A key feature and characteristic of transition management is its orientation

towards harnessing ongoing dynamics or ‘goal oriented modulation of co-evolutionary

processes’ (Kemp et al. 2007a). It seeks to provide an open framework for searching

sustainable development pathways in various sectors of society. Objectives should be

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 283

123

flexible and adjustable at the system level. The complexity of the system is at odds with the

formulation of specific, quantitative objectives.

Insight into the dynamics of the system is essential to identify effective modes of

intervention. A core idea is to rely on evolutionary mechanisms to ‘breed’ and ‘grow’

sustainable systems from niches where alternative practices are nurtured and start to sprout.

In order to bring about sustainable development, ‘frontrunners’ are brought together to

develop a vision of sustainable future systems. The vision informs the choice of promising

niche developments and forms of support. In effect, the vision provides an alternative

selection environment compared to established socio-technical paradigms.

Policy design in transition management

Crucially, transition management departs from the definition of a set of persistent problems

that appear not to be resolvable through conventional policy approaches in the context of

incumbent structure. The particular approach to policy design in transition management

comprises five main components: (1) Establishing a transition arena, (2) developing a

vision, (3) pathway development through back-casting techniques, (4) experimenting with

pathway options and (5) monitoring, evaluation and revisions (Loorbach 2007). For each of

these components of the transition management process, a variety of societal actors are

supposed to participate and provide knowledge, competences, material resources and

viewpoints.

• Establishing a transition arena: The transition arena is a platform for transition-

oriented interactions amongst societal actors, related to the persistent problems. Arenas

facilitate creative interaction, knowledge exchange, learning and discussion among

‘frontrunners’—‘innovators and strategic thinkers from different backgrounds’ (Kemp

and Loorbach 2006, p. 113). The goal is that ‘those actors involved will adjust their

own problem definitions and perceptions because of a better understanding of the

nature of the problem and the perspectives held by other actors and accordingly their

behaviour (that is second-order learning)’ (Kemp and Loorbach 2006, p. 113).

• Developing visions: Within the transition arena general policy goals are translated into

specific visions that serve to guide the formulation of particular measures to overcome

the persistence of the problems and to mobilize public support. Visions are to be

fleshed out in the form of socio-technical scenarios (e.g. what a sustainable housing

system will look like in the future). They need to be ‘appealing and imaginative’ in

order to be supported by a wide range of different actors. They are ‘integral target

images, which evolve over time and are dependent on the required insights and learning

effects’ (Kemp and Loorbach 2006, p. 113).

• Backcasting of transition pathways: Strategies for realising the vision are identified

through backcasting techniques. Back-casting from the vision generates alternative

transition paths that link the future with the present (Quist 2007). ‘Transition paths (…)

reflect the necessary trend breaks and behavioural and institutional changes, the

uncertainties associated with the pathway and the barriers and chances for implemen-

tation’ (Kemp and Loorbach 2006, p. 114). The multi-level heuristic framework for

transitions, based on niche-regime-landscape interactions, provides transition manage-

ment with a heuristic for organising the conceptualisation, organisation and commit-

ments between actors to some of these pathways.

• Experimenting with options: Practical experiments, which go well beyond established

socio-technical patterns and practices, serve to explore particular transition paths.

284 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

Experiments are expected to inform visions and pathways, as well as wider policies

which may help to create the structural conditions for transitions. They should be

designed for learning purposes and not in an ad hoc manner, fostering ‘real use of new

technologies in society to learn from practice and facilitate processes of mutual

adaptation and institution building’.

• Monitoring, evaluation and revisions: The overall processes as well as specific

experiments are continuously monitored. Evaluation takes place within ‘development

rounds’ and may lead into revisions of the guiding visions. They are the starting point for

programming a next round of experiments. Also the transition management process itself

(participation, quality of process, conflict, etc.) is an object of evaluation and revision.

Since adopting this approach in its Fourth National Environmental Policy Plan in 2001, the

Dutch government has facilitated a range of ‘transition projects’ in sectors like energy,

agriculture, water management, mobility and biodiversity. These aim to shape Dutch socio-

technical trajectories over a period of 25–40 years.11 Recent studies show how transition

management policy design is changing in interaction with implementation (Kemp et al.

2007b). Analysts suggest the energy transition has become captured by incumbent energy

policy networks (Kern 2006; Smith and Kern 2009; Kern and Smith 2008), and suffers

from a democratic deficit (Hendriks 2008).

Further pitfalls and difficulties may be expected in the light of the lessons identified

above from the long-term policy literature. Indeed, the contributions to this Special Issue

do identify a number of challenges, as well as opportunities, for TM. In the following

section, we discuss these issues under the headings of politics, context and design as

process. They echo some of the earlier debate about planning, but now on a level of

designing procedural arrangements for societal learning. While substantial decisions and

strategies are left to be worked out and revised throughout the process, the transition

management experience underscores that there is a challenge not to fall back on techno-

cratic policy approaches when it comes to the design and implementation of the new

arrangements for reflexive governance. Here, as with the substantial issues of socio-

technical development, a self-reflective and learning-oriented approach is required to

develop new forms of governance that actually work into desired directions of societal

change, and within specific contexts of established political practices.

Critical design issues

Taking a close look at transition management practice, as the articles in this Special Issue

do, reveals critical issues with respect to designing long-term policy. We discuss these

issues under three headings: politics, context and design as process and pay particular

attention to the contribution by each of the articles in this Special Issue.

Politics

New forms of long-term policy design aim at inducing and instituting societal learning.

Design efforts do not assume particular goals and means, but focus instead on interactive

11 ‘Away from fossil-fuels towards renewable sources’ in the energy sector, ‘away from exploitation anddegradation towards recycling and protection’ in the use of natural resources, ‘away from intensive farmingtowards precision farming’ in the agricultural sector and ‘away from car-based transport towards customisedservices’ in the mobility sector.

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 285

123

processes that reveal them through the articulation of visions and construction of experi-

ments, and thereby find pathways towards those visions. A main point in the papers of this

special issue (especially Meadowcroft 2009; Avelino 2009; Hendriks 2009) and of some

earlier studies (Kern and Smith 2008; Smith and Kern 2009) is that asymmetries in the

political power of transition actors is not accounted for; and that this plays out detri-

mentally in the societal learning arrangements and legitimacy of transition management to

shape the future. The open-endedness of TM and lack of specific procedural provisions

actually makes this policy design vulnerable towards capture by powerful incumbents of

the status quo. This may well be a ‘reverse salient’ for the development of reflexive

governance forms more generally. It requires further elaboration of procedural designs to

increase their political robustness.

Evolution cannot substitute for politics

A critical issue is how the transition management concept implies evolution to be an

alternative to making difficult political decisions. James Meadowcroft (2009) elaborates on

different ways in which politics creep back into the allegedly neutral ‘evolutionary pro-

cess’ that is installed to shape socio-technical development. With the example of Carbon

Capture and Sequestration technologies he shows how actors engaged in transition

activities are bound to be concerned with their own place in future arrangements, and who

intervene strategically to settle questions of competing socio-technical pathways as well as

changing dispositional power. Selection, implementation and evaluation of experiments

with a view to explore pathways of a sustainable future thus remain political processes.

With her empirical analysis of two transition management projects in the area of sus-

tainable mobility, Avelino shows how these struggles are fought at the micro-level—and in

effect block the smooth working of transition projects (2009). She also finds that the

abstract technical language of transition management scares off practitioners who are

expected to adopt the concept and work with it. Following Grin (2008, p. 68) and Smith

and Stirling (2007), Meadowcroft (2009) criticizes abstract notions of ‘systems’ and

‘evolution’ for diverting attention from concrete problems of sustainable development and

the interests that are at stake. The establishment of priorities for socio-technical options

remains a matter of political struggle. It cannot be concealed by concepts which promise

open evolutionary processes that are politically neutral in determining superior paths of

societal development (see also Scrase and Smith 2009).

Democratic legitimacy of societal learning

Linked to this inevitable politics are concerns for the democratic legitimacy of learning-

oriented policy design. Policy design that seeks to institute societal envisioning and

experimenting has to be explicit about how decisions of collective concern are to be taken.

Early experience with arenas for societal learning as part of the transition management

process in the Netherlands suggests little formal reflection on its democratic content.

Science and big business are strongly overrepresented in the stakeholder networks that

constitute the process (Kern and Smith 2008; Hendriks 2008, 2009). The Chief Executive

Officer of Shell Oil Company has taken over the lead for the ‘energy transition’ project on

behalf of the Dutch government (Kemp and Rotmans 2009).

An in-depth study of a transition management project in the domain of transport shows

that weak stakeholders are not involved (Avelino 2009). The same study shows that

interactions within the arena are shaped by asymmetric power relations and weaker actors

286 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

‘were afraid to open their mouth’. It appears that ‘transition arenas’ are captured by

powerful incumbents. TM as a concept for policy lacks effective provisions for inclusive

participation and fair deliberation within ‘transition arenas’.

Picking up on this, Hendriks’ (2008, 2009) analysis reveals the inadequacy of the

democratic self-understanding of actors involved in transition management. None of the

‘democratic storylines’ by which transition actors legitimise their activity (when asked)

comes close to new theory in democratic network governance that the TM approach might

benefit from (Sorensen and Torfing 2007). Hendriks links this kind of disorientation up to a

broader debate about ‘democracy in flux’ and the need for combining new forms of

legitimisation beyond traditional reliance upon liberal democratic representation. Transi-

tion management could potentially open up democratic opportunities by fostering more

participatory, deliberative and plural forms of policy making, but ‘‘democratic attributes do

not surface on their own, particularly for highly complex, technical issues. Instead pro-

cedural matters need to be ‘designed in’’’ (Hendriks 2009).

One way to tackle the democratic deficit of transition management would be to con-

centrate on innovative ways to encourage participation and establish closer linkages with

institutions of representative democracy for deciding about what constitutes the public

interest, for enforcing rules and resolving distributional conflicts (Meadowcroft 2009). An

earlier case study indicates that it is often at the interfaces between transition projects and

other—formal and informal—spheres that legitimization struggles arise (Hendriks and

Grin 2007).

Transition management as an example of recent developments in long-term policy

design evokes more general reflection on deliberative arrangements. The difficulty to help

‘rational discourse’ to unfold and prevent it from corruption is of general interest when it

comes to enriching representative democracy; especially with a view to mitigate myopia

and sectoralization. Finding adequate ways to embed long-term policy design in a

(changing) framework of democratic institutions is an important area for future conceptual

and practical thinking.

Context

A second critical issue for long-term policy design is the problem of moving away from

existing governance patterns and working towards new reflexive policy practices. In a

study of two cases in which transition management became translated to Finnish policy

contexts, Heiskanen et al. (2009) note a ‘huge distance between the capacities for reflexive

governance (…) and the prevailing policy realities’. New governance structures are never

created in a void, nor can it be presumed that the required governance capacities will be

attained easily. Making new arrangements work presumes the reform and, in parts, the

‘creative destruction’ of established practices of socio-political governance (Meadowcroft

2009).

Interaction with policy histories and institutional dynamics

The ‘fit’ of new policy designs with existing governance patterns is a critical issue for

transition management and other long-term policy designs, especially in prevailing con-

texts of positivist policy-making, new public management or market-liberalism. Those

paradigms are deeply ingrained in policy discourse, institutions and practices including

tools like forecasting models, cost-benefit analysis, budgeting and controlling procedures

or project evaluation manuals. Avelino (2009) observes that traffic models which were

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 287

123

embedded in established policy practice did not allow for radically alternative visions for

the future as promoted by the transition management policy.

Avelino points out that this dissonance may go all the way down to the capacity and

motivation of individual actors to engage in interactive learning. This may be due to a

restrictive professional environment and superiors or colleagues who require ‘concrete

results’ (2009). On the policy level, new designs co-exist, interact and sometimes compete

with both established approaches and parallel developments in policy: ‘(T)ransitions are

not the only game in town’ (Hendriks 2009). Transition management adds another layer

onto an already highly complex and dynamic institutional and political landscape; tran-

sitions must, as it were, be fleshed out amidst a heterogeneous set of structural changes

(Grin 2008). This is explicitly acknowledged in some policy practices in The Netherlands.

Provision is made for the ‘transitioning’ of existing policy programmes as a bridge

between old and new policy practice. Analysis of the actual processes pushed forward

under this strategy, however, shows that transitioning is not a one-way street. Imposing a

new conceptual framework and enforcing a change of course on existing policy processes

can just as easily prompt rejection, and may eventually undermine the transition initiative

(Avelino 2009).

Kern and Howlett (2009) present an analysis of the ‘problem of fit’ in form of a scheme

which distinguishes various pathologies of policy design. For the implementation of

transition management in Dutch energy policy they diagnose the way the existing policy

paradigm is deforming the original TM concept. The market liberalization paradigm,

anchored in the broader context of European Commission directives (see also Knill 1998;

Smith 2000), forces a short-termism that undermines the longer-term goals of TM. Yet, in

certain other respects, TM fits the Dutch policy context quite well. This is how transition

management builds on consensus-oriented negotiation as a policy practice which is typical

for Dutch political culture. After all, this is the context from which the design emerged.

Referring to the stereotypical characterization of the Dutch style of policy-making as the

‘polder-model’ (communal self-organization in the polder landscape) two of the key actors

involved in the design of transition management refer to it as a ‘super-polder-model’

(Kemp and Rotmans 2009).

A greater distance between design and reality is found in cases where the transition

management concepts travel beyond Dutch political culture and become part of policy

processes elsewhere in the world. A study of the transfer process to Finland, by Heiskanen

et al. (2009), elaborates the conflicts between transition management as a new management

model and dominant institutional logics which are the historical legacy of political inter-

actions within two different policy fields. Against the background of certain policy his-

tories, transition management appears to some as a model for the planned economy

(Gosplan) or as too demanding in terms of a cultural disposition for consensus oriented

deliberation, and which is absent in more oppositional political cultures. Other misfits are

of a more mundane nature and refer to the redistribution of institutional competences that

are anticipated to follow from the implementation of the new transition management policy

design. Heiskanen et al.’s case studies show how the transition management model either

‘bounced off’ or became hybridised with indigenous policy concepts and basically

re-invented through mutual adaptation.

‘Bottom-up’ dynamics and the irony of design

Well-known issues in the policy studies literature are the unforeseen dynamics and

unintended consequences that arise when policy designs developed in the heights of

288 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

governments (and scientific advisors) start interacting with processes ‘on the ground’ (e.g.

Pressman and Wildavsky 1973; Yanow 1993). The ‘ground’ (or street-level; Lipsky 1980)

is where certain tasks that play a role for a new policy design are carried out as part of daily

practices, embedded in a web of complex connections with other practices. These highly

contextual and specific patterns are difficult to anticipate in general scientific theories and

models. It is impossible to predict precisely what will become of even the most neatly

designed policy artefact out in the ‘field’. The ‘irony of design’ is that even well-intended

and sophisticated policy designs can never be made fail-safe against the perverse effects of

implementation (Rip 2006). In interaction with specific policy contexts and their ongoing

dynamics they can take on a life of their own (Voß 2007b).

The ‘empowerment’ component of the transition management design, for example, is

actually found to lead to the disempowerment of some actors on the operational level of

project management. The imposition of alien transition management concepts that were

intended to empower, actually resulted in participants becoming dependent upon transition

experts to explain how to do it. Avelino considers this to be a ‘paradox of imposed

empowerment’ (2009). Hendriks shows how the orientation towards deliberation and

collective learning is undermined by the technocratic and elitist self-understanding

amongst leading actors in the transition process. The capture of transition arenas by

incumbent players with an interest in the status quo, or an unreflective assumption of what

is best for everyone, is quite a substantive example of the irony of a design that was

intended to strengthen outsiders and newcomers (Kemp and Rotmans 2009; Hendriks

2009; Avelino 2009; Kern and Howlett 2009). To this belongs the diminution of radical,

systems-wide sustainable development as a goal of transition management policies, and its

exchange for technology development, global competitiveness and economic growth on

the way to implementation (Kern and Howlett 2009; Avelino 2009; Heiskanen et al. 2009;

Meadowcroft 2009).

What does this mean in terms of policy design? Why are transition management pro-

cedures so easily decoupled from the original goal of systems-wide sustainable develop-

ment? Is this a consequence of it being a conceptually driven policy design; and an

expression of the fact that it has often been taken up as a new, primarily procedural,

governance concept? Has there been too much ‘technological’ fascination with policy

designs rather than a political analysis of the concrete problems of sustainability (Mead-

owcroft 2009)?

Design as process

A third critical issue emerging from the studies in this Special Issue is that the process of

designing long-term policies needs itself to be considered as a long-term process. Policy

design is an interactive endeavour and is itself part of and embedded in the political context

which it seeks to reconfigure. Policy design gives rise to processes with a life of their own.

The studies in the Special Issue all confirm two points that are central to the policy studies

literature. First, policy design is not a technical or scientific exercise that is detached from

politics. Second, policy design is not a one-off event that is completed and then followed

by policy implementation. Analysis and model-building are intertwined with policy

implementation and evaluation. Contextual dynamics feed back into the design process.

The establishment of novel policy arrangements that work in practice involves learning and

continued re-design in interaction with politics. This makes policy design part of the

political process. And it underlines requirements to consciously link up with institutional

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 289

123

and ideational factors that influence how problems are handled in a particular policy field

(Meadowcroft 2009).

Distributed agency and politics of design

One aspect clearly appears from a close look at the transition management process: the

design as it became part of public policy is the result of distributed agency. There is no

single inventor, nor a single event of invention. The design took shape in an extended

interaction process which involved scientists and consultants, officials from public

administration and a broad range of stakeholders. In the course of this process shared

frameworks were worked out by going from abstract theoretical notions (e.g. niches,

regimes, transitions) to concrete constellations in policy fields and backwards again; all the

time trying out concepts that could accommodate the views of actors whose support was

needed to make the policy work (Kemp and Rotmans 2009; Smith and Kern 2009). A

concern to overcome persistent problems on the way to sustainable development was not

the only guiding orientation in this process, but also a struggle for dispositional power

amongst the actors involved.

In the Netherlands, transition management served the ministry of the environment to get

involved with the energy domain (traditionally a domain of the ministry of economic

affairs); and it served the ministry of economic affairs to become an active partner of

business and play a visible role in promoting innovation in sustainable energy. Gaining the

assent of the economics ministry meant a new emphasis in transition management fostering

international competitiveness in the Dutch economy (Smith and Kern 2009; Kemp and

Rotmans 2009). In studies of policy transfer to Finland, institutional politics played out as a

‘not invented here’ syndrome, and which made some policy actors reluctant to adopt

concepts for which they cannot pride themselves as creators (Heiskanen et al. 2009). In

both these cases, the original transition management concept got lost. This affected the

proposal to elaborate transition goals and visions by means of participatory processes and

define a transition pathway (e.g. for CO2-emissions) within which the transition process

could unfold (Kemp and Rotmans 2009). As a result, transition-management-in-practice

looks a bit more like policy-as-usual than would be recommended by transition-manage-

ment-in-theory. Nevertheless, transition management has succeeded in introducing

explicitly a discourse of system change into official policy circles, and that provides an

opening for more vigorous transition politics in the future (Smith and Kern 2009; Mead-

owcroft 2009).

Interpretive flexibility

One key mechanism that enables the alignment of diverse actors under certain policy

designs is their ‘interpretive flexibility’ (Pinch and Bijker 1987). Concepts such as tran-

sition management are able to accommodate a range of different interpretations as regards

meaning and effect of the respective policies. Various actors may each see their differing

perspectives reflected in the design. The word ‘transition’ (in Dutch: transitie) lends itself

to multiple interpretations; it evokes a sense of transformation without specifying what will

change or how (Kemp and Rotmans 2009).12 For business players, the energy transition

12 Kemp and Rotmans (2009) propose to understand the interpretive flexibility of transition management byframing the notion of ‘transition’ as a ‘boundary object’ which is a common reference point for differingperspectives and thus is able to bundle and align actor strategies (Star and Griesemer 1989).

290 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

opens up new markets; for technology developers it stimulates innovation and releases

funds; for the Dutch government it creates a clean, independent, and competitive energy

sector; for the various ministries it is a way to strengthen their institutional position; for

environmental groups it fosters sustainable energy; for policy scientists it is an interesting

experiment in reflexive governance; and for consultants it is a new business field (Hendriks

2009; Kemp and Rotmans 2009). While this ambiguity has aided the popularity of tran-

sition management as a policy design, it has also rendered it susceptible to capture (He-

iskanen et al. 2009; Smith and Kern 2009).

Towards reflexive design

We conclude this section with an outlook to reflexive design as an orientation for the

development of transformative long-term policy. From the analysis of transition man-

agement in practice, we see basic insights of policy studies confirmed.

Long-term policy design is not located outside target ‘systems’, but embedded in the

social and political processes it seeks to influence (Stone 1988). It concerns world views

and has distributive effects (Lowi 1972); and it is immediately related to questions of who

gets what, when and how from government (Schneider and Ingram 2005). As such it

involves ‘powering’ and ‘puzzling’ (Heclo 1974). Moreover, the design of long-term

policy is not separated from the implementation process, but is deeply intertwined with it;

it anticipates, frames, and structures activities of political actors (Bardach 1977; Kingdon

2003/1995), while it relies on testing designs in practice, it is forced to continuously reflect

on implementation experience, and undertake re-designs to respond to it (Majone and

Wildavsky 1978; Pierson 1993). It requires ‘inquiry’ in the sense Lindblom suggested:

probing as a mode of knowledge generation which does not aim at objective, universal

truth, but is action-oriented and, therefore, contextual in nature (Lindblom 1990). While

these are general points that are well understood and confirmed by studying transition

management, what is revealed in novel ways by transition management, and what does it

teach us for doing long-term policy design in the future?

Policy design as an innovation process

We propose that long-term policy design in context be understood as a process of inno-

vation. The notion of innovation overcomes the distinction between policy design and

implementation.

Long-term policy design is about the purposive negotiation and reconfiguration of

existing governing practices. It involves learning by and between policy makers, policy co-

producers and stakeholders (Grin and van de Graaf 1996) throughout the mutual adaptation

of plan (model design) and practice (real world dynamics) in a co-evolutionary process

(Voß 2007b, pp. 54–63).13 As such policy design is both shaped by, and co-shaping,

ongoing policy processes and broader structural change. This is what we know from

empirical studies of the long-term historical evolution of policy designs (Voß 2007b) and

literature on policy learning (Grin and Loeber 2007). Dynamics and results of the design

process itself are indeterminate. From this stems a concern for how designs develop and

13 This notion is in line with the reflective practice paradigm in general design theory (Kroes 2002, p. 289).In this view of the design process ‘the problem space and the solution space co-evolve together, withinterchange of information between the two spaces’ (Dorst and Cross 2001, p. 434).

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 291

123

change over time in co-evolution with broader political dynamics and how the promise of

designs can be fulfilled in practice (Voß 2007b, pp. 68–87).

A reflexive view on policy design as an innovation process entails systematic experi-

mentation with preliminary designs and evaluation of how they work out in practice—in

order to re-design with respect to the ‘backtalk’ of the context (Schon and Rein 1994). This

assigns a key role for tinkering, probing and re-adjusting—anticipation of implementation

in action (Rip 2006). In dealing with transition management, we need to understand design

as a process of moving back and forth between conceptual analysis and practical experi-

mentation. Transition management is itself an experiment (Meadowcroft 2009).

In terms of innovation strategy, long-term policy design entails the requirement to

respond to changing context conditions, to anticipate and prepare for counter running

dynamics, look out for opportunities. It involves ‘smart manoeuvring’ (Kemp and Rotmans

2009) for ‘surfing’ political dynamics. In this respect, Heiskanen et al. (2009) in their study

of re-designing transition management in Finnish policy contexts, highlight the importance

of, timing’’, i.e. finding the right moment to use openings or link-up to ongoing devel-

opments in the broader policy context. Interacting with societal change in the course of

long-term policies requires learning within the design process itself (not only designs forsocietal learning). This was partly reflected in the design process when general ideas and

design options were probed among a wider policy audience (Kemp and Rotmans 2009).

The experience of transition management revealed in this Special Issue suggests long-term

policy design has to be open for continued re-design, for adaptation and learning in the

course of implementation. Ideas are initially tried out in a confined space, in policy niches,

from where they can gradually broaden out (Kemp and Rotmans 2009; Loorbach 2007).

This is especially relevant for designs that represent radical innovation with respect to

established governance patterns.

(Re-)designing transition management?

So far, the (still relatively scarce) results of studies into transition management’s sub-

stantive policy outcomes remain ambiguous. Yet, we may be at a critical juncture where

the future development of this particular design for the reflexive governance of long-term

socio-technical change will be decided upon. The critical design issues appearing from the

papers in this special issue are reason enough to halt for reflection and take stock of what

has been achieved.

What can be witnessed is the slow emergence of new institutions and procedures for

producing and implementing long-term policies, like inter-departmental directorates, new

collaborative arrangements and concrete innovation projects (Dietz et al. 2008; Hendriks

2009). So far, however, these policy reforms take the form of ‘layering’ on top of earlier

paradigms, policy programmes and institutions, many of which appear to still be dominant

(Kern and Howlett 2009). Early lessons relate to incumbent actors and institutions learning

to live with transition management more than learning how to do transitions. More criti-

cally, transition management processes have been captured by incumbent policy and

business interests, and have a weak and unclear political standing. This indicates a need to

continue learning how reflexive governance can actually work out in practice and generate

actions that result in the kinds of radical structural change that diagnosis and prognosis of

sustainable development demands.

Viewing long-term policy design as an innovation process opens opportunities to build

on experiences and continue working towards envisioned changes in policy practice and

their promised results. It is necessary to take account of the fact that innovating policy

292 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

practice along the lines of the transition management concept will remain embedded in

broader institutional and discursive contexts. These will continue to function as a specific

selection environment for new varieties of long-term policy-design. It is thus important to

strategically engage with these broader contexts of governance, either by shaping them, or

by anticipating ongoing changes with a view to seizing future opportunities. An informed

learning by doing should be the focus of effort, rather than deliberations on idealised

theoretical constructions.14 With this end in view we highlight key lessons for the future

(re-)design of transition management, and for reflexive modes of governance, more

generally.

• Politics of learning: take care of democratic legitimacy! Include those actors who will

be affected by decisions, especially the marginalized (Hendriks 2008). Pluralize elite

institutions, empowering public debate and citizen engagement (Hendriks 2008).

Connect the public to issues (Latour 2005; Marres 2005; Warren 2001). Encourage

open public deliberation on all relevant issues (Hendriks 2009).15 Designs for

democratic participation meet their own particular difficulties, however. It may be

difficult to shift public attention away from immediate political concerns towards

longer term issues, particularly if they appear dry and technical matters, such as energy

(Hendriks 2009). Horizontal coordination is beset by the challenge of asymmetric

bargaining in which those without resources to offer in exchange loose out, and of

resulting in compromise solutions at the level of the lowest common denominator. One

solution could be to convene different transition arenas for dissenting voices, rather

than get everyone around the same table. Let the dissenting arenas propose their own

experiments, and fund some of them. Thereby opening out the diversity of options for

governments, businesses and citizens to consider and learn from.

• With all the necessary optimism there must be about sustainable development, sober

consideration of the limits to control of even procedural innovations in governance

must be borne in mind when looking for new approaches to the design of long-term

policy. Policy designs will take on momentum and undergo change which is beyond the

control of the originating actors. This has happened with transition management, which

has became more technology oriented over time and developed a somewhat impervious

conceptual language (Hendriks 2009; Meadowcroft 2009; Avelino 2009; Heiskanen

et al. 2009). More specifically, reflexive planning processes, being embedded in

traditional governance patterns, may easily fall back into more traditional, linear

planning practices and their orientation towards sustainable development may become

superseded by dominant discourses about economic growth and competitiveness

(Scrase and Smith 2009).16 It therefore seems central to strengthen and clarify

sustainable development as a policy problem that transition management is addressing.

14 However, there is a political dilemma here. Fictional certainties have their political uses (Rip 2006). Innot presenting transition management as a theory of governance that has all the answers, but as somethingmore modest, might it lack an ability to galvanize and mobilize support?15 Consider transition management more as a process of phronesis than techne, i.e. a process of prag-matically synthesizing the resolution of situated and contextualised problems, with considerations pertainingto the feasibility and acceptability of visions (Grin 2000; Flyvbjerg 2001).16 While transition management discourse started from persistent problems, it has developed into a verybroad and general framework of evolutionary political steering. The precise character of transitions movesinto the background and with it the substantive challenges which it sought to deal with in the first place(Meadowcroft 2009; Heiskanen et al. 2009). This makes the governance approach susceptible to abuse, aswell as difficult to keep on course at the same time as allowing for probing and adaptation in the designprocess.

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 293

123

As with the governance of socio-technical change, policy design for transition

management has to be clear about the vision and the goals for which experiments with

policy options are carried out. Otherwise policy innovation becomes all too easily

incorporated by the incumbent regime and instrumentalized for its purposes.

Table 1 provides a summary of these discussions. The recommendations of transition

management advocates are contrasted with the experience of practising transition

management as revealed in this Special Issue. In a third column we make some

recommendations of our own, drawing on the lessons from the Special Issue, and suggest

how some of the promise of transition insights might be made to work more fruitfully in

the future.

Conclusions

In conclusion, we come back to our question of how transition management as a design for

reflexive governance works in practice and how it crosses the gap between envisaged long-

term policy practices and existing governance patterns. We believe that transition man-

agement, both as a conceptual framework and a range of concrete policy experiments, does

open new avenues for long-term policy design. These could lead us out of some of the

conceptual dilemmas of planning and offer a real alternative to short-term oriented market-

liberalism. Our synopsis of the analyses of transition management experience in this

Special Issue has shown, however, that long-term policy design is an ongoing process,

embedded in broader political contexts, and with dynamics of its own. Transition man-

agement in its current form is not there, yet. Indeed, recent developments are disap-

pointing. They show a susceptibility of the transition management concept to the more

technocratic aspirations of policy makers and policy advisors, as well the possibility to

become instrumentalized for the goals and interests of particular powerful actors. Such

developments may pervert the original promise of the concept. Specifically, the probing of

transition management designs cautions against blind reliance in mechanisms of co-evo-

lutionary change and societal learning to bring about sustainable development. This should

be noted by advocates of reflexive governance more generally.

Transition management in practice is currently right in the middle of the trying to

extricate its envisaged design from established governance patterns. The coming years will

be crucial for shaping the pathway of transition management as an innovation in gover-

nance. The process may be drawn back into the power games, paradigms and institutions of

‘politics as usual’; or it may overcome teething problems and give shape to new actor

networks and reflexive governance practices that develop some robustness and promise. A

lot depends on how the design of transition management itself becomes adapted and

reinforced with a view to anchoring new governance practices in the context of established

democratic politics, whilst at the same time facilitating the transformative potential of a

new democratic politics.

A broader network of scholars and interested policy makers has emerged and engages

with the basic ideas of transition management. Within this broader constituency, the

shortcomings of transition management are being articulated and constructive work is

undertaken to overcome them. This Special Issue is itself part of this process. The

development of transition management will continue. Other, now dominant policy designs,

like ‘emissions trading’, for example, took more than 20 years to become stabilized and

more than 30 years to spread across the world. A change in broader policy discourse and

294 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

Tab

le1

Su

mm

ary

of

tran

siti

on

man

agem

ent

des

ign

and

re-d

esig

nis

sues

Des

ign

issu

eT

ransi

tion

man

agem

ent

conce

pt

Tra

nsi

tion

man

agem

ent

inpra

ctic

eR

e-des

ignin

gtr

ansi

tion

man

agem

ent

Go

als

Ov

erco

min

g‘p

ersi

sten

tp

rob

lem

s’o

fen

vir

onm

enta

lpoli

cy,

achie

vin

gtr

ansi

tion

inper

vas

ive

soci

o-t

echnic

alsy

stem

sto

war

ds

sust

ainab

lepat

tern

sof

pro

duct

ion

and

con

sum

pti

on

Th

ep

rom

oti

on

of

tech

no

log

ical

nic

hes

wit

hco

mm

erci

alpote

nti

alfo

rth

ew

orl

dm

arket

Nu

rture

bro

ader

soci

etal

dis

cou

rse

on

sust

ain

able

dev

elo

pm

ent,

ob

ject

ives

of

tran

siti

on

s,an

dch

alle

ng

eth

ele

git

imac

yo

fex

isti

ng

soci

o-t

ech

nic

alsy

stem

s

Org

anis

atio

nof

tran

siti

on

aren

aV

isio

nar

yre

gim

eac

tors

and

inn

ov

ativ

en

ewco

mer

sD

om

inan

ceb

yre

gim

ein

cum

ben

tsw

ith

ves

ted

inte

rest

sE

stab

lish

pri

nci

ple

san

dg

uid

elin

esfo

rse

lect

ion

of

par

tici

pan

tsan

dm

oder

atio

nof

inte

ract

ion

pro

cess

esto

ensu

reb

road

par

tici

pat

ion

of

acto

rsw

ho

co-p

rod

uce

new

syst

eman

dth

ose

who

are

affe

cted

Ro

leo

fv

isio

ns

Con

stru

ctio

no

fv

isio

ns

by

fro

ntr

un

ner

sin

form

san

dp

rece

des

stra

teg

yd

evel

op

men

tan

dd

esig

no

fex

per

imen

ts

Vis

ion

sar

eco

nst

ruct

edb

yin

cum

ben

tsan

dla

ckco

ncr

eten

ess

toin

form

stra

tegie

sor

sele

ctex

per

imen

ts

Const

ruct

ion

of

vis

ions

by

par

tici

pan

tsto

mak

ete

nsi

on

bet

wee

nn

orm

ativ

ed

esir

esan

dfe

asib

ilit

yco

nsi

der

atio

ns

pro

duct

ive

and

gen

erat

ecr

eati

vit

y

Ex

per

imen

tati

on

Rea

lw

orl

dex

per

imen

tsw

ith

po

rtfo

lio

of

opti

ons

for

alte

rnat

ive

soci

o-t

echnic

alsy

stem

s

Ev

asio

no

fp

oli

tica

lch

oic

esw

ith

resp

ect

top

ub

lic

sup

po

rtfo

rte

chno

log

ical

op

tio

ns

Pro

cedure

sto

sele

ct,

des

ign

exper

imen

tsto

secu

reli

nk

age

wit

hp

ub

lic

deb

ate

abo

ut

sust

ain

abil

ity

Eval

uat

ion

and

lear

nin

gE

volu

tionar

yse

lect

ion

pro

cess

,opti

ons

pro

ve

thei

rfe

asib

ilit

yin

real

wo

rld

con

tex

t,ev

aluat

ion

wit

hre

spec

tto

po

ten

tial

toco

ntr

ibute

toth

ev

isio

n

Ev

alu

atio

nb

yin

sid

ers

acco

rdin

gto

nar

row

tech

no

-eco

no

mic

crit

eria

Eval

uat

ion

crit

eria

neg

oti

ated

wid

ely

for

the

bro

adso

ciet

alim

pli

cati

ons

of

alte

rnat

ive

pat

hw

ays

tosu

stai

nab

led

evel

op

men

t,le

arn

ing

fro

mex

per

imen

tsan

do

ver

all

pro

cess

embed

ded

indem

ocr

atic

inst

itu

tio

ns

So

urc

eso

fle

git

imac

yT

he

go

alo

fsu

stai

nab

led

evel

op

men

tE

con

om

ican

dte

chno

log

ical

po

siti

on

and

exp

erti

seo

fp

arti

cip

ants

Incl

usi

ve

par

tici

pat

ion,

tran

spar

ency

and

pu

bli

city

of

cho

ices

,co

up

lin

gw

ith

esta

bli

shed

inst

itu

tion

so

fre

pre

sen

tati

ve

dem

ocr

acy

Em

bed

din

gin

po

liti

cal

con

tex

tT

ransi

tion

man

agem

ent

isbei

ng

imp

lem

ente

db

ych

oic

eo

fg

ov

ern

men

t,tr

ansi

tion

aren

asre

com

men

dsu

cces

sive

chan

ges

top

oli

tica

lin

stit

uti

on

s

Tra

nsi

tio

nm

anag

emen

tis

hel

du

pas

anid

eal

con

cep

tw

hil

ees

tab

lish

edin

stit

uti

on

san

dp

ow

erco

nst

ella

tio

ns

con

stra

inim

ple

men

tati

on

Po

licy

des

ign

asin

no

vat

ion

pro

cess

,w

ork

tow

ards

real

isat

ion

of

obje

ctiv

esby

con

tin

ual

lyd

esig

nin

gin

con

tex

t

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 295

123

dominant paradigms towards privatisation and market liberalisation was supportive of this

‘innovation’ in environmental governance (Voß 2007a). The future pathways for transition

management will depend on a similar magnitude of contextual change. Whilst this involves

processes beyond advocates’ control, they can nevertheless develop political strategies to

grasp the opportunities presented by those processes.

With studying transition management in practice, we set out to learn for the future, how

to make reflexive governance work in the context of real world politics. There are some

particular challenges for transformative long-term policy design which could be identified

in studying this case. The most outstanding issues are linked to power, politics and

democratic legitimacy in societal learning. Against this background, important issues for

further research involve the interaction between transition management efforts and their

wider institutional context. To mention one crucial issue, the notion of reflexivity should be

refined so as to comprise attempts to anticipate and mitigate the capture of transitions in

that context. And it is crucial to understand that transition management processes cannot

and need not resolve these problems by itself: legitimization processes, for instance, seem

to take place especially at the interfaces between transition management arrangements and

a variety of other institutional practices (cf. Hendriks and Grin 2007, pp. 342–346).

Future efforts to develop transition management and related governance concepts need

to concentrate on the design of procedures for the selection of participants in vision

development and experimentation. Of equal importance is a procedural framework for

balancing asymmetrical power relations within those collaborative processes. These two

points can help to create democratic legitimacy of societal learning arenas by inclusiveness

and fairness of the process. They cannot completely substitute for the legitimacy of

institutions of liberal democracy when it comes to difficult decisions about trade-offs, e.g.

between competing socio-technological options that shall become part of portfolio of

experiments. An important area for future design work thus comprises linkage between

reflexive arenas and established institutions such as parliaments and public debate.

Our analysis also confirms that long-term policy design is an open-ended process and

that irony of design is endemic. There is no guarantee of success. With the articulation of

challenges, however, we seek to contribute to the possibility of developing new reflexive

forms of governance that help shape sustainable development. With framing policy design

as a challenge of innovating governance we suggest that contingencies can be taken up in a

reflexive manner while working towards envisaged changes in governance patterns.

Conceptual frameworks and model designs can play a role as guiding frames, not as master

plans, which means that they must co-evolve with implementation experience from con-

crete application contexts.

An important insight from studying transition management in practice is that substan-

tive policy goals can easily get out of sight when the concern for complex dynamics pairs

with the fascination for new technologies of governance. Policy analysts and designers

may be drawn into ‘tilting with systems’ (Meadowcroft 2009) instead of working towards

the solution or transformation of concrete policy problems. This may be a point of more

general relevance with respect to reflexive governance approaches that put procedure up

front and refrain from fixing detailed targets and measures at the outset of the process. In

order not to loose direction transition management needs to keep ‘sustainable develop-

ment’ in view, also in practice, and let the search for solutions be guided by reflection on

how they contribute to cope with this policy challenge (Meadowcroft 2009). This may

require activities to stimulate public debate about the goal of ‘sustainable development’ as

part of the design process. Only by keeping radical goals clearly in view can transition

management overcome incrementalist shortcomings; envisioning radical changes in the

296 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

long-term whilst recognizing that current structures and dynamics will influence the ability

to get to that future.

Broad and open discussion of issues and procedures of socio-technical change that are

part of transition management may, in the end, stimulate debate about concepts of dem-

ocratic legitimacy. New reflexive forms of governance which seek to involve a diversity of

societal actors in interactive learning processes still require further development of our

understanding of democracy (Hendriks 2009). Such broader debate initiated through

engagement with new designs for ‘reflexive governance’ may remind us of the original

ideas and principal virtues of the basic institutions of democracy. One may even note that

democratic politics actually is a form of reflexive governance already taken up in the

constitution of modern nation states: Democratic polities provoke the articulation of future

visions, allow for novel socio-technical practices to prosper, grant space for a plurality of

constituencies to advocate diverse solutions, and provide for their contestation in public

controversy to sort out differences, construct compromises, build coalitions and finally

make decisions about trade-offs. Democracy as we know it may thus be recognized as an

already well established design for the governance of complex change. One may argue,

that it struggles to keep pace with rapid changes such as technological change, demo-

graphic transformations, knowledge society, globalising markets, etc. And it shows some

weaknesses to deal with the requirement for re-distributive transformative changes like

sustainable development. Building on the potential of existing institutions with a view to

revive and where necessary rethink democracy on a broader level of political systems may

still be a complementary way to engage with long-term development: improve existing

practices of democratic governance with a view to enhance the articulation of alternative

long-term pathways of societal development, strengthen capacities of diverse groups to

engage with these future images, and support marginal groups as challengers to established

systems in order to increase political diversity. Reflexivity in governance for sustainable

development could then be understood primarily as a property of the governance system as

a whole, not as something that can just be added by specifical social designs.

Acknowledgements We would like to thank Carolyn Hendriks, Toddi Steelman and the two anonymousreferees for helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

References

Arts, B., & van Tatenhove, J. (2005). Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the ‘‘old’’ and‘‘new’’ policy idioms. Policy Sciences, 37(3–4), 339–356.

Avelino, F. (2009). Empowerment and the challenge of applying transition management to ongoing projects.Policy Sciences, 42(4), 369–390.

Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Beck, U. (1994). The reinvention of politics: Towards a theory of reflexive modernization. In U. Beck,A. Giddens, & S. Lash (Eds.), Reflexive modernization (pp. 1–55). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Berkhout, F., Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2004). Socio-technical regimes and transition contexts. In B. Elzen,F. W. Geels, & K. Green (Eds.), System innovation the transition to sustainability. Theory, evidence,and policy (pp. 48–75). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

Bobrow, D., & Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Policy analysis by design. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Derthick, M. (1972). New towns in-town. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. New York: Holt.Dienel, P., & Renn, O. (1995). Planning cells: A gate to ‘fractal’ mediation. In O. Renn, T. Webler, &

P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation (pp. 117–140). Dordrecht:Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 297

123

Dietz, F., Brouwer, H., & Weterings, R. (2008). Energy transition experiments in the Netherlands. In J. C. J.M. van den Bergh & F. Bruinsma (Eds. in association with R. Vreeker & A. Idenburg), Managing thetransition to renewable energy: Theory and macro-regional practice (pp. 217–244). Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar Publishing.

Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. DesignStudies, 22, 425–437.

Elmore, R. F. (1985). Forward and backward mapping. In K. Hanf & D. Toonen (Eds.), Policy imple-mentation in federal and unitary systems (pp. 33–70). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

Fischer, F. (1980). Politics, values and public policy. The problem of methodology. Boulder, Col.: WestviewPress.

Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating public policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham: Duke

University Press.Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making social science matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Forester, J. (1984). Bounded rationality and the politics of muddling through. Public Administration Review,

44(1), 23–31.Forester, J. (1999). The deliberative practitioner. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Friedmann, J. (1987). Planning in the public domain: From knowledge to action. Princeton: Princeton

University Press.Geels, F. W. (2001). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: A multi-level

perspective and a case-study. Presented at the conference ‘‘The Future of Innovation Studies’’,organised by ECIS (Eindhoven Centre of innovation Studies) Eindhoven.

Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. W. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy,36(3), 399–417.

Giddens, A. (1991). Consequences of modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.Giddens, A. (2009). The politics of climate change. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Grin, J. (2000). Vision assessment to support shaping 21st century society technology assessment as a tool

for political judgement. In J. Grin & A. Grunwald (Eds.), Vision assessment: Shaping technology in21st century society. Towards a repertoire for technology assessment. New York: Heidelberg; Berlin:Springer Verlag.

Grin, J. (2006). Reflexive modernisation as a governance issue, or: Designing and shaping re-structuration.In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development(pp. 57–81). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Grin, J. (2008). The multi-level perspective and the design of system innovations (Chap. 3, pp. 47–80). InJ. C. J. M. van den Bergh & F. Bruinsma (Eds. in association with R. Vreeker & A. Idenburg),Managing the transition to renewable energy: Theory and macro-regional practice. Cheltenham, UK:Edward Elgar Publishing.

Grin, J., & Loeber, A. (2007). Theories of policy learning: Agency, structure, and change. In F. Fischer, G. J.Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis (pp. 201–219). London: Taylor &Francis.

Grin, J., & van de Graaf, H. (1996). Implementation as communicative action. An interpretive understandingof interactions between policy actors and target groups. Policy Sciences, 29(4), 291–319.

Grin, J., & van Staveren, A. (2007). Werken aan systeeminnovaties. Lessen uit de ervaringen van Inno-vatieNetwerk en andere praktijkorganisaties. Assen: Van Gorcum.

Grunwald, A. (2000). Technology policy between long-term planning requirements and short-rangedacceptance problems. New challenges for technology assessment. In J. Grin & A. Grunwald (Eds.),Vision assessment: Shaping technology in the 21st century society. towards a repertoire for technologyassessment (pp. 99–148). Berlin: Springer.

Gunderson, L. H., & Holling, C. S. (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and naturalsystems. Washington: Island Press.

Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative planning. Shaping places in fragmented societies. Houndsmil &New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Heclo, H. (1974). Social policy in Britain and Sweden. New Have, CT: Yale University Press.Heiskanen, E., et al. (2009). Designed to travel? Transition Management encounters environmental and

innovation policy histories in Finland. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 409–427.Hendriks, C. (2009). Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management.

Policy Sciences, 42(4), 341–368.

298 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

Hendriks, C. M. (2008). On inclusion and network governance: The democratic disconnect of Dutch energytransitions. Public Administration, 38(3), 1009–1031.

Hendriks, C., & Grin, J. (2007). Contextualising reflexive governance: The politics of Dutch transitions tosustainability. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3/4), 333–350.

Hiller, J., & Healey, P. (2008). Contemporary movements in planning theory. Critical essays in planningtheory (Vol. 3). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Hofferbert, R. I. (1986). The rise and decline of the U.S. policy evaluation industry: Lessons for export?Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Gothenburg.

Holling, C. S. (1996). Engineering resilience vs. ecological resilience. In P. Schulze (Ed.), Engineeringwithin ecological constraints. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Holling, C. S., Gunderson, L., & Light, S. (Eds.). (1995). Barriers and bridges to the renewal of ecosystemsand institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hoppe, R., van de Graaf, H., & van Dijk, A. (1987). Implementation research and policy design: Problemtractability, policy theory, and feasibility testing. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 53,581–604.

Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (1988/1969). Dialektik der Aufklarung. Philosophische Fragmente.Frankfurt: Fischer.

Hovi, J., Sprinz, D., & Underdal, A. (2007). Climate change as a long-term policy challenge: Threecommitment problems. Presented at the conference ‘‘48th Annual Convention’’, organised by Inter-national Studies Association Chicago. http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p179727_index.html.

Janicke, M., & Jorgens, H. (2005). Strategic environmental planning and uncertainty: A cross-nationalcomparison of green plans in industrialized countries. Policy Studies Journal, 28(3), 612–632.

Johnson, F. A., Williams, B. K., Nichols, J. D., Hines, J. El., Kendall, W. L., Smith, G. W. et al. (1993).Developing an adaptive management strategy for harvesting waterfowl in North America. Trans N AmWildl Nat Resour Conf (58), 565–583.

Joss, S., & Durant, J. (Eds.). (1995). Public participation in science. London: The Science Museum.Kemp, R. (1994). Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability. The problem of techno-

logical regime shifts. Futures, 26, 1023–1046.Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D. (2006). Transition management: A reflexive governance approach. In J.-P. Voß,

D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 103–130).Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007a). Transition management as a model for managing processesof co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Developmentand World Ecology, 14(1), 78–91.

Kemp, R., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Transitioning policy: Co-production of a new strategic framework forenergy innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 303–322.

Kemp, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2007b). Assessing the Dutch energy transition policy: How does itdeal with dilemmas of managing transitions? In J. Newig, J.-P. Voß, J. Monstadt (Eds.), Governancefor sustainable development. Steering in contexts of ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power,Volume Special issue of the Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3/4) (pp. forthcoming).London: Routledge.

Kenny, M., & Meadowcroft, J. (Eds.). (1999). Planning sustainability. London, New York: Routledge.Kern, F. (2006). Transition Management in der hollandischen Energiepolitik—Ein Erfolgsmodell fur

Deutschland? Presented at the conference ‘‘Staat und Gesellschaft—fahig zur Reform?’’, organised byDVPW Munster.

Kern, F., & Howlett, F. (2009). Implementing transition management as policy reforms: A case study of theDutch energy sector. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 391–408.

Kern, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy inthe Netherlands. Energy Policy, 36, 4093–4103.

Kingdon, J. W. (2003/1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. New York: Addison-WesleyEducational Publishers Inc.

Knill, C. (1998). European policies: The impact of national administrative traditions. Journal of PublicPolicy, 18, 1–28.

Kroes, P. (2002). Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts. Design Studies, 23, 287–302.Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences.

Stanford: Stanford University Press.Latour, B. (2005). Making things public: Atmospheres of democracy. Cambrdige, MA: MIT press.Lee, K. N. (1994). Compass and gyroscope. Integrating science and politics for the environment.

Washington, DC: Island Press.Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The intelligence of democracy. New York: Free Press.

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 299

123

Lindblom, C. E. (1969/1959). The science of ‘‘Muddling Through’’. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), Readings onmodern organizations. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall (first published 1959).

Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still muddling, not yet through. Public Administration Review, 39(November/December), 517–526.

Lindblom, C. E. (1990). Inquiry and change. The troubled attempt to understand and shape society.New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lipsky, B. (1980). Street-level Bureaucrats. New York: Sage.Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management. New mode of governance for sustainable development.

Utrecht: International Books.Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration Review, 32(4),

298–310.Majone, G., & Wildavsky, A. (1978). Implementation as evolution. In H. Freeman (Ed.), Policy studies

annual review (Vol. 2, pp. 103–117). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1),

71–87.Marres, N. (2005). No issue, no public: Democratic deficits after the displacement of politics. Dissertation,

University of Amsterdam.Mayntz, R. (1977). Die Implementation politischer Programme: THeoretische Uberlegungen zu einem

neuen Forschungsgebiet. Die Verwaltung (1), 51–66.Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (1989/1983). Implementation and public policy. Boston & London:

University Press of America.Meadowcroft, J. (1999). Planning for sustainable development: what can we learn from the critics? In

M. Kenny & J. Meadowcroft (Eds.), Planning sustainability (pp. 12–38). Routledge: London.Meadowcroft, J. (2005). Environmental political economy, technological transitions and the state.

New Political Economy, 10(4), 479–498.Meadowcroft, J. (2007). National sustainable development strategies: Features, challenges, and reflexivity.

European Environment, 17(3), 152–163.Meadowcroft, J. (2009). What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition management, and

long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 323–340.Mill, J. S. (1862). Considerations on representative government. New York: Harper & Brothers.Mulder, P., Reschke, C. H., & Kemp, R. (1999). Evolutionary theorising on technological change and

sustainable development. Presented at the conference ‘‘European Meeting on Applied EvolutionaryEconomics’’, organised by Institut for Energy Politics and Economics and INRA-Unit of Sociology andEconomics of Research and Developement 7.6 1999. Grenoble.

Murphy, J. (1971). Title I of ESEA. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 35–63.Norgaard, R. B. (1994). Development betrayed. The end of progress and a coevolutionary revisioning of the

future. London: Routledge.Pierson, P. (1993). When effect becomes cause. Policy feedback and political change. World Politics,

45(July), 595–628.Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1987). The social construction of facts and artifacts: Or how the sociology of

science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. In W. E. Bijker, T. P. Hughes, &T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 17–50). MIT Press:Cambridge.

Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. How great expectations in Washington aredashed in Oakland. Berkeley, Cal.: University of California Press.

Quist, J. (2007). Backcasting for a sustainable future. Delft: Eburon.Renn, O. (2002). Foresight and multi-level governance. Presented at the conference ‘‘Role of Foresight in

the Selection of Research Policy Priorities’’, organised by ipts Seville.Rip, A. (2006). A co-evolutionary approach to reflexive governance—and its ironies. In J.-P. Voß,

D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 82–101).Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Human choiceclimate change (pp. 327–399). Columbus, Ohio: Batelle Press.

Rotmans, J. (2005). Societal innovation: Between dream and reality stands complexity. Rotterdam: Inau-gural Lecture, Erasmus University.

Rotmans, J., & van Vries, H. J. M. (1997). Perspectives on global change: The TARGETS approach.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Asselt, Mv. (2001). More evolution than revolution: Transition management inpublic policy. Foresight, 03(01), 15–31.

300 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123

Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1990). Behavioral assumptions of policy tools. The Journal of Politics, 52(2),510–529.

Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politicsand policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347.

Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, Kansas: University ofKansas Press.

Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (Eds.). (2005). Deserving and entitled: Social constructions and publicpolicy. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.Schon, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection. Towards the resolution of intractable policy contro-

versies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Scrase, I., & Smith, A. (2009). The (non-) politics of low carbon socio-technical transitions. Environmental

Politics, 18(5), 707–726.Sendzimir, J., Magnuszewski, P., Balogh, P., & Vari, A. (2006). Adaptive management to restore ecological

and economic resilience in the Tisza river basin. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.),Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 131–161). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). CAUTION! Transitions ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transitionmanagement. Environment and Planning A, 39, 763–770.

Smith, A. (2000). Fitting in with Brussels: Implementing the urban waste water treatment directive inEngland and Wales. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 2(2), 115–134.

Smith, A., & Kern, F. (2009). The transitions storyline in Dutch environmental policy. EnvitonmentalPolitics, 18(1), 78–98.

Smith, A., & Stirling, A. (2007). Moving outside or inside? Objectification and reflexivity in the governanceof socio-technical systems. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3/4), 351–373.

Smith, A., Stirling, A., & Berkhout, F. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions.Research Policy, 34, 1491–1510.

Sorensen, E., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Basingstoke:Palgrave Macmillan.

Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology. ‘Translation’, and boundary objects: Amateursand Professionals in Berkeleys Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science,19, 387–420.

Steurer, R. (2004). Strategic public management as a holistic approach to policy integration. Presented atthe conference ‘‘Greening of Policies—Interlinkages and Policy Integration’’, organised by FreeUniversity Berlin. http://web.fu-berlin.de/ffu/akumwelt/bc2004/download/steurer_f.pdf.

Stirling, A. (2003). Risk, uncertainty and precaution: Some instrumental implications from the socialsciences. In F. Berkhout, M. Leach, & I. Scoones (Eds.), Negotiating change. Cheltenham: EdwardElgar.

Stirling, A. (2006). Precaution, foresight and sustainability. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.),Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. forthcoming). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

Stone, D. A. (1988). Policy paradox and political reason. New York: Harper Collins.Van de Graaf, H., & Grin, J. (1999). Policy Instruments, pratiques refliches et apprentisage. Implications

pour la gouvernabilite a long terme et la democratie. Espaces et Societes, 97–98, 63–90.Vickers, G. (1965). The art of judgement. A study of policy-making. New York: Basic Books.Voß, J.-P. (2007a). Innovation processes in governance: The development of ‘emissions trading’ as a new

policy instrument. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 329–343.Voß, J.-P. (2007b). Designs on governance. Development of policy instruments and dynamics in gover-

nance. PhD Thesis., Enschede: Twente University, School of Management and Governance.Voß, J.-P., & Kemp, R. (2006). Sustainability and reflexive governance: Introduction. In J.-P. Voß,

D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 3–28).Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Voß, J.-P., Truffer, B., & Konrad, K. (2006a). Sustainability foresight: Reflexive governance in the trans-formation of utility systems. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance forsustainable development (pp. 162–188). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Voß, J.-P., Kemp, R., & Bauknecht, D. (2006b). Reflexive governance: A view on an emerging path. InJ.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable developement(pp. 162–188). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Voß, J.-P., Newig, J., Kastens, B., Monstadt, J., & Nolting, B. (2007). Steering for sustainable development.A typology of problems and strategies with respect to ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power.Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3/4), 193–212.

von Hayek, F. A. (1960). The constitution of liberty. London: Routledge.

Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302 301

123

Walker, G., & Shove, E. (2007). Ambivalence, sustainability and the governance of socio-technical tran-sitions. In J. Newig, J.-P. Voß, & J. Monstadt (Eds.), Governance for sustainable development.Steering in contexts of ambivalence, uncertainty and distributed power, Volume Special issue of theJournal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 9(3/4). London: Routledge.

Wals, A., & van der Ley, T. (Eds.). (2007). Social learning towards a sustainable world. Wageningen:Wageningen UP.

Warren, M. E. (2001). Democracy and associations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP.Weber, M. (2006). Foresight and adaptive planning as complementary elements in anticipatory policy-

making: A conceptual and methodological approach. In J.-P. Voß, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.),Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 189–221). Edward Elgar: Cheltenham.

Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking truth to power: The art and craft of policy analysis. Boston: Little Brown.Wildavsky, A. (1988). The new politics of the budgetary process. Glenview Ill: Scott Foresman & Co.Yanow, D. (1993). The communication of policy meanings: Implementation as interpretation of text. Policy

Sciences, 26, 41–61.

302 Policy Sci (2009) 42:275–302

123