Elsevier

Research Policy

Volume 31, Issues 8–9, December 2002, Pages 1257-1274
Research Policy

Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper addresses the question of how technological transitions (TT) come about? Are there particular patterns and mechanisms in transition processes? TT are defined as major, long-term technological changes in the way societal functions are fulfilled. TT do not only involve changes in technology, but also changes in user practices, regulation, industrial networks, infrastructure, and symbolic meaning or culture. This paper practices ‘appreciative theory’ [R.R. Nelson, S.G. Winter, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Bellknap Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982] and brings together insights from evolutionary economics and technology studies. This results in a multi-level perspective on TT where two views of the evolution are combined: (i) evolution as a process of variation, selection and retention, (ii) evolution as a process of unfolding and reconfiguration. The perspective is empirically illustrated with a qualitative longitudinal case-study, the transition from sailing ships to steamships, 1780–1900. Three particular mechanisms in TT are described: niche-cumulation, technological add-on and hybridisation, riding along with market growth.

Introduction

Technological Transitions (TT) are defined as major technological transformations in the way societal functions such as transportation, communication, housing, feeding, are fulfilled. TT do not only involve technological changes, but also changes in elements such as user practices, regulation, industrial networks, infrastructure, and symbolic meaning. An example is the transition in offices from punched card technology and small office technology to digital computers, 1930–1960 (Van den Ende and Kemp, 1999).

This paper addresses the following questions: How do TT come about? Are there particular patterns and mechanisms in transition processes? My analysis of TT is based on a particular perspective on technology, stemming from sociology of technology. In this perspective technology, of itself, has no power, does nothing. Only in association with human agency, social structures and organisations does technology fulfil functions. In this respect, Hughes (1987) coined the useful metaphor of a ‘seamless web’ in which physical artefacts, organisations, natural resources, scientific elements, legislative artefacts are combined in order to achieve functionalities. Rip and Kemp (1998) analyse technology as ‘configurations that work’. While the term ‘configurations’ refers to the alignment between a heterogeneous set of elements, the addition ‘that work’ indicates that the configuration fulfils a function. Configurations that work cannot easily be bounded from the rest of society in a simple and obvious way. Things and skills are part of routines, of patterns of behaviour, of organisations. They work only because they are embedded. Societal functions are fulfilled by sociotechnical configurations. Fig. 1 portrays the modern sociotechnical configuration for land-based personal transportation. The transportation function is fulfilled, because a heterogeneous set of elements is linked together.

In this conceptualisation, TT consist of a change from one sociotechnical configuration to another, involving substitution of technology, as well as changes in other elements. Such reconfiguration processes do not occur easily, because the elements in a sociotechnical configuration are linked and aligned to each other. Radically new technologies have a hard time to break through, because regulations, infrastructure, user practices, maintenance networks are aligned to the existing technology. New technologies often face a mis-match with the established socio-institutional framework (Freeman and Perez, 1988). But socio-technical configurations rarely remain ‘closed’ for good. Previously achieved closure can be undone. The question then becomes how we can understand inertia, and how it is overcome. Before addressing this question I will position my paper in the literature, particularly evolutionary economics and technology studies.

Within evolutionary economics, there are two views on the process of technological evolution.1 In the first view, evolution is a process of variation, selection and retention. In Section 2, I build upon this view by using Nelson and Winter’s concept of ‘technological regimes’ to understand inertia of established technologies. In the second view, evolution is a process of unfolding, creating ‘new combinations’ (Schumpeter, 1934, p. 66), resulting in paths and trajectories. While there are sophisticated debates in evolutionary economics about ‘variation’ (e.g. learning within firms, organisational routines, knowledge management), ‘selection’ is taken somewhat for granted. Markets are simply assumed to be ‘out there’. For radically new technologies, however, there are no established markets and no fixed preferences. Radically new technologies, markets, and user preferences co-evolve. Furthermore, selection is more than adoption. User also have to integrate new technologies in their practices, organisations and routines, something which involves learning, adjustments and ‘domestication’ (Lie and Sørensen, 1996). Another critique is that the selection environment is wider than users and markets. Policies and institutions also play a role, as well as infrastructures, cultural discourse or maintenance networks. Although Nelson, 1994, Nelson, 1995 has done some work on such wider co-evolution processes, the topic is under-exposed in evolutionary economics. With regard to evolutionary economics, this paper explores two new things. First, a multi-level perspective is described to combine both views of evolution. Second, I complement the focus on ‘variations’ with attention for the wider selection environment, using the concept of socio-technical configurations.

In technology studies, the idea that linkages between technical and social elements provide stability is particularly emphasised in actor-network theory (e.g. Latour, 1991, Latour, 1993, Law and Callon, 1992). Sociotechnical change is described as a process of shifting assemblies of associations and substitutions, a reweaving of elements. Changes in one element in the network can trigger changes in other elements. The empirical illustrations of this process usually have a micro-focus. There has been relatively little attention in technology studies for long-term and large-scale technological developments.2 This paper addresses this gap.

Section snippets

An integrative evolutionary multi-level perspective on technological transitions

In this section, I briefly outline the multi-level framework, which has been described more elaborately elsewhere (Kemp, 1994, Schot et al., 1994, Rip and Kemp, 1998, Kemp et al., 1998, Van den Ende and Kemp, 1999, Rip, 2000, Geels and Kemp, 2000, Kemp et al., 2001). The multi-level perspective aims to integrate findings from different literatures as an ‘appreciative theory’ (Nelson and Winter, 1982). The different levels are not ontological descriptions of reality, but analytical and heuristic

Empirical case-study: from sailing ships to steamships, 1780–1900

Traditional analyses of this transition describe it in terms of a life-cycle of steamships, a hero fighting against sailing ships (David versus Goliath). To prevent a heroic storyline, I will start the analysis with the established sailing ship regime, and show how steamships emerged within this context. I aim to tell the story in terms of complexity and reconfiguration processes. To this end, I will use a mosaic style of writing, shifting between different elements of the sociotechnical regime

Analysis and some mechanisms in technological transitions

I now return to the questions formulated at the end of Section 2. How does the arrow representing a breakthrough from niche- to regime-level, come about? And how do reconfiguration processes occur? I will address these questions on the basis of the case-study, but make the answers more general by referring to other examples. The general pattern by which radical innovations break out is that they follow trajectories of niche-cumulation. The step from niche to regime-level does not occur at once,

Discussion and conclusions

To answer the question how TT come about, I described a new perspective, based on insights from evolutionary economics and technology studies. These insights have been synthesised in a multi-level perspective consisting of three levels: technological niches, sociotechnical regimes, sociotechnical landscape. This perspective combines two views on evolution. Evolution as ‘variation and selection’ is encompassed by conceptualising niches as the locus where radical variety is generated, and regimes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Adri de la Bruhèze, Bo Carlsson, Edward Constant, Jasper Deuten, Boelie Elzen, Ken Green, Luigi Orsenigo, Keith Pavitt, Arie Rip and two anonymous referees for their useful comments on previous versions of this paper. The study was supported by a grant from the Dutch research council NWO.

References (56)

  • W. Devine

    From shafts to wires: historical perspective on electrification

    Journal of Economic History

    (1983)
  • Dirkzwager, J.M., 1993. Scheepsbouw. In: Lintsen, H.W., et al. (Eds.), Geschiedenis van de Techniek in Nederland: De...
  • Fletcher, R.A., 1910. Steam-Ships: The Story of Their Development to the Present Day. J.B. Lippincott,...
  • Freeman, C., Perez, C., 1988. Structural crisis of adjustment, business cycles and investment behaviour. In: Dosi, G.,...
  • Garrat, G.R.M., Goodman, D.C., Russel, C.A., 1973. Science and Engineering, Units 14 and 15. Open University Press,...
  • Geels, F.W., Kemp, R., 2000. Transities vanuit sociotechnisch perspectief. Report for the Dutch Ministry of...
  • Gilfillan, S.C., 1935. Inventing the ship: a study of the inventions made in her history between floating log and...
  • C. Graham

    The ascendency of the sailing ship 1850–1885

    Economic History Review

    (1956)
  • Harley, C.K., 1973. On the persistence of old techniques: the case of North American wooden shipbuilding. Journal of...
  • Harley, C.K., 1988. Ocean freight rates and productivity 1740–1913: the primacy of mechanical invention reaffirmed....
  • Harrison, R.T., 1990. Industrial Organisation and Changing Technology in UK Shipbuilding: Historical Developments and...
  • Hoogma, R., 2000. Exploiting Technological Niches: Strategies for Experimental Introduction of Electric Vehicles. PhD...
  • Hughes, T.P., 1983. Networks of Power, Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930. Johns Hopkins University Press,...
  • Hughes, T.P., 1987. The evolution of large technological systems. In: Bijker, W.E., Hughes, T.P., Pinch, T. (Eds.), The...
  • Hunter, L.C., Bryant, L., 1991. The History of Industrial Power in the United States, 1780–1930, The Transmission of...
  • Jackson, G., 1998. Ports, ships and government in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In: Van Royen, P.C., Fischer,...
  • Jarvis, A., 1998. The nineteenth-century roots of globalization: some technological considerations. In: Starkey, D.J.,...
  • Kaukiainen, Y., 1998. International freight markets in the 1830s and 1840s: the experience of a major Finnish...
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text