Despite increasing scepticism about the conventional growth model, the topic of destabilisation of socio-economic regimes has not yet captured scholarly interest. This paper addresses this gap and serves a twofold purpose. First, it develops an analytical framework for studying discursive regime destabilisation based on previous research by Turnheim and colleagues. The framework is novel as it allows for: (1) structured analysis of framing interactions between niche and regime actors; (2) visualised mapping of discursive actors; and (3) identification of phases of discursive destabilisation. Second, the paper contributes to the literature on an ongoing practice of socio-economic transformations by applying the framework to a case study of a social movement organisation, “Economy for the Common Good” (ECG), that seeks to advance socio-economic transition. The suggested framework was useful for analysing the ECG. First, it demonstrated that niche actors employed mostly motivational and prognostic frames supporting the alternative economic approach, while the regime diffused mostly diagnostic frames focusing on the perceived negative aspects of the niche. Second, by applying the framework, we identified three relevant destabilisation phases in this socio-economic transformation process: Blindness and Denial, Incremental Responses to Problems and Increasing Doubts and Diversification. We argue that the framing of the niche affects different actor groups differently: while representatives of high authorities remained in the first phase of destabilisation, regional authorities and private companies already appeared at the second and third phases.

multi-level perspective, socio-economic transformation, destabilisation, framing analysis, social movement organisations, Economy for the Common Good
dx.doi.org/10.3390/su11164385, hdl.handle.net/1765/134013
Sustainability
Arts & Culture Studies

Koretskaya, Olga, & Scholl, C. (2019). Towards a Framework for Understanding Discursive Regime Destabilisation: A Case Study of a Social Movement Organisation “Economy for the Common Good. Sustainability, 11(16). doi:10.3390/su11164385