Experimenting for sustainability in India & Thailand A system innovation perspective on sustainable electricity and mobility initiatives Rob Raven (TU/e)

Overview Introduction and background Conventional development paradigm Starting point: experiments/SNM Challanges to transition perspective Programme design

Introduction Launch of Indian solar mission: MW in 2022 Currently: 11 MW

Discourse National action plan on climate change (2008) Need for an energy-efficient economy based on renewables rather than fossil India is a tropical country (lot’s of sunshine) Potential for rural development But solar is expensive; need for innovation

Discourse “Transforming India into a solar energy hub would include a leadership role in low-cost, high quality solar manufacturing” “Solar energy can be the next scientific and technological frontier in India after atomic energy, space and information technology” “We will need to create many solar valleys along the lines of the silicon valleys that are spurring our IT industry”

More than a discourse Unprecedented scale and pace of economic, industrial, social, political and environmental transformation (Rock and Angel, 2005) Environmental improvements happen sooner, faster and more simultaneous (Marcotullio et al, 2005; 2007) Evidence that there are many “sustainability experiments” in various sectors and developing Asian countries (Berkhout et al, 2009) Yet they have not in any significant way influenced dominant trends towards unsustainability (Esty et al, 2005)

More than a discourse 2 MW solar plant, West Bengal 500 kW biomass gasifier, Sunderban Experimental biodiesel plant, Maharashtra

Background New 4-year research programme funded by NWO-WOTRO (TUe, IVM, Jadavpur University, Chiang Mai University – starts in fall 2010 – 4 PhDs; 1 Post-doc) Basic idea: conventional growth perspectives fail to explain sufficiently current sustainability dynamics in Asia How can we assess the value of the current wave of experiments? What roles do they play in ongoing Asian transitions? How can their potential be fostered and strengthened? Theoretical ambitions: How do these dynamics challenge transition theories? What contributions can transition studies make to development theories?

Conventional paradigm Developed countries (US, Europe, Japan) are in the technological frontier Technology creates comparative economic advantage Best development strategy: catch-up with ‘known’ technological frontier Technology transfer, imitation, technological learning, capacity building, convergence

Limitations Too much emphasis on universal development pathways (Oyelaran and Rasiah, 2009; Hobday, 2003) Too much focus on technologies and technological learning (Nelson, 2004) Too much focus on economic development rather than holistic development (Loomis, 2000) Catch-up creates risk of fossil-fuel lock-in (Unruh, 2000) Catch-up paradigm aggregates marginal, but potentially rich experiences away into meso- and macro-level statistics (Loomis, 2000; Donaldson, 2008)

Transitions perspective Geels 2004

Potential contribution to development studies Explicitly acknowledges and investigates variety of pathways (Geels and Schot, 2007; Smith et al, 2005) Holistic approach (market, industry, technology, policy, culture, science) Explicitly acknowledge (and promotes) learning from variety in experiments (Hoogma et al, 2002; Raven, 2005). Compare: Romijn et al (2010).

Experiments ‘Experiments’ as critical arena for developing alternative pathways – but in tandem with regime destabilisation and mobilising landscape pressures “Initiatives that embody a highly-novel socio-technical configuration likely to lead to substantial sustainability gains and hold a promise for radical, system-level change” (Berkhout et al, 2010)

What experiments can do Provoking actors to articulate and negotiate their expectations and interests (in relation to wider regime problems and landscape pressures) Shared, tangible and specific expectations Establishing and strengthening new social networks Heterogenous and dense networks Stimulating a good learning process Holistic and reflexive learning

From experiments to niche Geels and Raven, 2006 Raven et al, 2008

Challenges to transition theory Highly dynamic nature of, and diversity in regimes A heterogeneous patchwork of technologies, institutions and practices rather than a homogenous entity Variety = ample opportunities for innovation? Ex-ante analysis of sustainability impact of experiments and pathways Multi-criteria mapping (Stirling, 1999; McDowall and Eames, 2007) Disclose variety in values to enrich debates rather than premature closure by finding ‘optimal solution’

Challenges to transition theory Transnational nature of experiments, niches, regimes, landscapes International financing institutions and foreign direct investments Multi-national business and international knowledge flows Role of politics, conflicts and power Poverty reduction vs. environmental development Rural vs. urban ‘Politics of low-carbon innovation’ (

Program design Two sectors in two countries (PhD projects) Electricity experiments in India (TU/e) Mobility experiments in India (Jadavpur) Electricity experiments in Thailand (Chiang Mai Uni) Mobility experiments in Thailand (TU/e) Post-doc project (IVM): Literature review and developing new methods Cross-case analysis, theory development, meta-questions Interacting with policy and practitioner domain

Programme design Stage 1: Inventorying and mapping experiments Stage 2: Analysis of transformative potential of selected experiments (SNM) Stage 3: Multi-criteria mapping analysis Stage 4: Regime and landscape analysis Stage 5: Development of 2-3 alternative pathways Stage 6: Comparative analysis

Discussion? Can we really ex- ante assess transition potential of experiments? What can policy makers learn? Or another audience? !? Which methods are best here? See also recent special issues in: Technological Forecasting & Social Change 76 (Edited by Berkhout, Angel & Wieczorek) Environmental Science & Policy 13 (Edited by Berkhout, Verbong & Wieczorek)