The structuration of socio-technical regimes—Conceptual foundations from institutional theory

By Lea Fuenfschilling, Bernhard Truffer. 2014

797 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Global and Planetary Change, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c99ec71fdc2e7a18fff156998e2ff433fab57d3d

How researchers see this paper

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

In Global and Planetary Change

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

How mismatching institutional logics hinder niche–regime interaction and how boundary spanners intervene (2015, background): “This combination of social and material elements matches with the alignment of social and technical elements in a socio-technical regime (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014).”
Moving innovation systems research to the next level: towards an integrative agenda (2017, neutral): “For that purpose, IS studies could profit from insights developed in the field of neo-institutional sociology (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014), or institutional entrepreneurship and institutional work (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2016).”
Harnessing theories of the policy process for analysing the politics of sustainability transitions: A critical survey (2017, background): “The focus of the PET on political institutions is also promising given the interest in institutions and institutional change as important parts of transitions (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014).”
Transformative policy mixes in socio-technical scenarios: The case of the low-carbon transition of the German electricity system (2010–2050) (2020, background): “This resonates well with the increasing attention in transition studies to focus on institutional change as key dimension of socio-technical change (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014), as well as thinking on governing sustainability transitions (Laes et al.”
Systemic perspectives on scaling agricultural innovations. A review (2016, background): “At regime level, MLP describes incumbent systems that involve dominant configurations relating to, e.g. science, infrastructure , markets and technology, and that have established 'institutional logics' (Fünfschilling and Truffer 2014).”
The politics of sustainability transitions (2016, neutral): “(Leftwich, 1983/2010, p. 11) Not surprisingly, there is already a substantial body of literature on the politics of transitions (e.g. Avelino, 2009; Fuenfschilling & Truffer, 2014; Grin et al., 2010; Geels, 2014; Hess, 2014; Hoffman, 2013; Jhagroe, 2016; Kern, 2011; Paredis, 2013; Späth &…”
Discursive regime dynamics in the Dutch energy transition (2014, result): “This observation is in line with early transition studies in which regimes have (often) been conceptualized as homogeneous entities that are generally robust to change (Fuenfschilling and Truffer, 2014; Geels and Schot, 2007, 2010; Holtz et al., 2008; Kemp et al., 1998).”
Beyond the agroecological and sustainable agricultural intensification debate: Is blended sustainability the way forward? (2018, background): “…(Edquist, 1997; Lundvall, 1992) theories postulate that technological paradigms and technological transitions (Dosi, 1982) are influenced by the prevailing knowledge production or socio-technical regimes (Fuenfschilling & Truffer, 2014; Pestre, 2003; Possas, Salles-Filho, & Da Silveira, 1996).”
Disruption and low-carbon system transformation: Progress and new challenges in socio-technical transitions research and the Multi-Level Perspective (2017, background): “• To further elaborate the role of firms and organizations, scholars have started to import ideas from organizational and business literatures on technological competence and capabilities [23], technology management [24], institutional theory [7] and disruptive innovation [23,47,48].”
Applying institutional theory to the low-carbon energy transition (2016, positive): “In their study of the urban water sector in Australia, Fuenfschilling and Truffer [106] also drew on organizational institutionalism to examine the role of organizational field logics.”
Sustainability Transitions Research: Transforming Science and Practice for Societal Change (2017, background): “In the socio-institutional approach, institutional dynamics (62, 63) are addressed more prominently to explain inertia and lock-in as well as to critically explore issues of power, politics, and agency (64–66).”
Bridging analytical approaches for low-carbon transitions (2016, positive): “The multi-level perspective (MLP), in particular, offers a heuristic framework of how radical low-carbon innovations, which are conceptualized as emerging in niches 67 , struggle against existing socio-technical regimes, which are characterized by path dependence and lock-in mechanisms 68,69 .”