Creative Destruction or Mere Niche Creation? Innovation Policy Mixes for Sustainability Transitions

By Paula Kivimaa, F. Kern. 2016

876 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Recently, there has been an increasing interest in policy mixes in innovation studies. While it has long been acknowledged that the stimulation of innovation and technological change involves different types of policy instruments, how such instruments form policy mixes has only recently become of interest. We argue that an area in which policy mixes are particularly important is the field of sustainability transitions. Transitions imply not only the development of disruptive innovations but also of policies aiming for wider change in socio-technical systems. We propose that ideally policy mixes for transitions include elements of ‘creative destruction’, involving both policies aiming for the ‘creation’ of new and for ‘destabilising’ the old. We develop a novel analytical framework including the two policy mix dimensions (‘creation’ and ‘destruction’) by broadening the technological innovation system functions approach, and specifically by expanding the concept of ‘motors of innovation’ to ‘motors of creative destruction’. We test this framework by analysing ‘low energy’ policy mixes in Finland and the UK. We find that both countries have diverse policy mixes to support energy efficiency and reduce energy demand with instruments to cover all functions on the creation side. Despite the demonstrated need for such policies, unsurprisingly, destabilising functions are addressed by fewer policies, but there are empirical examples of such policies in both countries. The concept of ‘motors of creative destruction’ is introduced to expand innovation and technology policy debates to go beyond policy mixes consisting of technology push and demand pull instruments, and to consider a wider range of policy instruments combined in a suitable mix which may contribute to sustainability transitions.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Global and Planetary Change, Management of Technology and Innovation

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bcf58eeb5feeffc345b56c61150383213c266fcb

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Global and Planetary Change

In Management of Technology and Innovation

Citations in the corpus

The technological innovation systems framework: Response to six criticisms (2015, background): “It might well be though that different processes (functions) will be at work for technology decline, compared to technology emergence (Kivimaa and Kern, 2015).”
The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Towards a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions (2019, background): “If policy instruments are poorly designed, are overly complex, and/or are not well aligned with other instruments in the mix, they are expected to be limited in their transformative potential (Kivimaa and Kern 2016) and their ability to generate positive feedbacks.”
Reducing energy demand through low carbon innovation: A sociotechnical transitions perspective and thirteen research debates (2018, background): “We agree with Sovacool [163] and Kivimaa and Kern [164] about the need for comprehensive policies rather than individual, isolated mechanisms that tend to operate in a non-predictable and non-synergetic matter.”
The political economy of coal in Poland: Drivers and barriers for a shift away from fossil fuels (2020, positive): “…call for a stronger integration of social sciences in energy and transition research (Sovacool et al., 2015) – including the analysis of how the incumbent fossil fuel regimes can be destabilised and eventually replaced (Kivimaa and Kern, 2016; Kungl and Geels, 2016; Turnheim and Geels, 2013).”
Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review (2016, background): “…scaling processes need to contribute and connect to, and focuses on reorienting system values towards this, i.e. some players such as policymakers within the regime may assist niches to make changes and disrupt the regime (Alrøe and Kristensen 2002; Kivimaa and Kern 2016; Mitchell et al. 2015).”
The pace of governed energy transitions: Agency, international dynamics and the global Paris agreement accelerating decarbonisation processes? (2016, background): “These examples show the increased political appetite for and relevance of speeding up the low carbon transition by using instruments in the policy makers’ toolkit aimed at ‘creative destruction’ (Kivimaa and Kern, 2016).”
The interplay of institutions, actors and technologies in socio-technical systems — An analysis of transformations in the Australian urban water sector (2016, background): “through policies explicitly aiming at the destruction of the status quo (Kemp and Rotmans, 2004; Kivimaa and Kern, 2015).”
Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical scenarios: The case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system (2010–2050) (2020, background): “reduction of subsidies for fossil fuels) and changes in social networks, for example by the replacement of key actors in stakeholder consultations or empowerment of new entrants in political debates (Kivimaa and Kern, 2016).”
Regional innovation policies for new path development – beyond neo-liberal and traditional systemic views (2018, background): “…of established systems and resistance to change, one may also critically ask if new path development (or niche creation) policies are sufficient or if they need to be complemented by ‘ old path breaking policies ’ (or what Kivimaa and Kern (2016) have called regime destabilization policies).”
Dealing with the game-changing technologies of Agriculture 4.0: How do we manage diversity and responsibility in food system transition pathways? (2020, neutral): “…that they actively seek to stimulate those directions deemed desirable, and also actively ‘destabilize’ incumbent systems not considered sustainable (Kivimaa and Kern, 2016; Schot and Steinmueller, 2018; ), c) be sensitive to context and acknowledge that technologies are not universal (a lesson…”