Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Transitioning policy: co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands

  • Forum Contribution
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article describes policy–science interactions in a transition process in which we were involved as scientists. We describe the interactions that occurred in a project for the fourth National Environmental Policy Plan in the Netherlands. The project was successful in that it produced a new concept and set of principles for policy to deal with persistent problems such as global climate change, which were used in the national policy plan. The new concept was that of transition and the principles were: policy integration, long-term thinking for short-term action, keeping multiple options open and learning-by-doing and doing-by-learning. Retrospectively, we ask ourselves: what factors facilitated the acceptance of the first ideas about transition management? Reconstructing the events and drawing on interviews with key individuals involved, we have tried to find the key factors for the adoption of the ideas developed in the project. Finally, we reflect upon our role as scientists-advisors and the role of others in the development of a new story line and set of principles for policy. Our own assessment, 8 years later, is that we were engaged in boundary work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Hoppe (2005) distinguishes five types of boundary arrangements: enlightenment model, technocracy model (models in which primacy is with science), bureaucratic model (primacy of politics) and dialogue-based models.

  2. In the latter tradition, “co-production is shorthand for the proposition that the ways in which we know and represent the world (both nature and society) are inseparable from the way in which we choose to live in it” (Jasanoff 2004, p. 2). This tradition of Science, Technology, Society studies is interested in how science and social order constitute each other, where “science (…) is understood as neither a simple reflection of the truth about nature nor an epiphenomenon of social and political interests” (ibid, p. 3).

  3. Peter Aubert was the head of the project team dealing with long-term energy issues for the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ). Frans Vollenbroek was strategist at the Ministry of Environment (VROM). They acted as important spokespersons and ambassadors for transition thinking. Peter Aubert was managing the project implementation of transition management (PIT) in the Ministry of Economic Affairs.

  4. The lecture was after a lecture 2 weeks earlier about sustainable development at VROM. Cees Moons the project leader of the NEPP4 working at VROM attended this lecture and when the term transition was used, he told Jan Rotmans that he was interested in transition processes and invited him to give a talk about transitions.

  5. MERIT is the Maastricht Economic Research Institute on innovation and Technology (now UNU-MERIT).

  6. The first project (by Harry te Riele) was based on a flux model of change which was applied to two empirical cases (the Aramis public transport systems in France and biological argiculture). It did not go into issues of steering, except for offering the suggestion that interventions by the right people at the right time could have big impacts in terms of achieving a transition (Te Riele et al. 2000).

  7. Bridges for crossing the boundary were thus built into the project infrastructure already from the start, at the special request of policymakers.

  8. The second paper on government policy and energy transitions came out on August 16 (Verbong 2000). It was written by Geert Verbong, associate professor at the Technical University of Eindhoven (TU/e). Verbong was an energy historian who had written a book about the history of alternative energy in the Netherlands.

  9. The other transitions were: the transition from steam engines to electro motors to provide motive power in the manufacturing sector (1850-1920), the transition from sailing ships to steam boats (1780-1890) and the demographic transition.

  10. Details of how they were to be chosen by society were not worked out; we only felt that the choice should not be made by typical experts.

  11. The fairy tale on transition management was presented by Marjolein van Asselt of ICIS.

  12. As an anecdote, Frans Vollenbroek recalls Belgium people saying: “we really envy you: you have brought down the walls [between departments], in our country we are fighting each other to death”.

  13. It also entered the mind of people in domains of mobility, water management, and biodiversity and sustainable management of resources, but in those areas, it did not become a hegemonic concept (Loorbach 2007).

  14. This was a precarious process, in which trust was gradually build (see Sect. 6).

  15. Whether something is science or not is a demarcation issue. Essentialist criteria of science being concerned with truth finding and ‘right’ classifications have been proven as inconsistent and ambiguous by constructivist analysis (Gieryn 1995). Facts are theory laden, and scientists adhere to the use of particular methods, theories, standards and evaluation points (such as the Pareto criterion and rationalist assumption in the case of economics).

  16. He also confirmed what we suspected at the time: that in meetings with us at times he would play the role of “devil’s advocate” by asking challenging questions.

References

  • Caplan, N. (1979). The two communities theory and knowledge utilization. American Behavioral Scientist, 22, 459–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksson, J., & Sundelius, B. (2005). Molding minds that form policy: How to make research useful. International Studies Perspectives, 6(1), 51–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geels, F., & Kemp, R. (2000). Transities vanuit sociotechnisch perspectief, achtergrondrapport voor de studie “Transities en Transitiemanagement” van ICIS en MERIT ten behoeve van NMP-4. UT, Enschede en MERIT, Maastricht.

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1983). Boundary work and the demarcation of science from nonscience: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. F. (1995). Boundaries of science. In S. Jasanoff, et al. (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 393–443). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernisation and the policy process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood, C. (1998). The art of the state. Culture, rhetoric, and public management. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, R. (1983). Economische Zaken schrijft een nota - Een onderzoek naar beleidsontwikkeling en besluitvorming bij nonincrementeel beleid, VU Uitgeverij, Proefschrift VU, Amsterdam.

  • Hoppe, R. (1999). Policy analysis, science, and politics: from speaking truth to power to making sense together. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 201–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoppe, R. (2002). Van flipperkast naar grensverkeer. Veranderende visies op de relatie tussen wetenschap en beleid. AWT-Achtergrondstudie 25, Rotterdam.

  • Hoppe, R. (2005). Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements. Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science, 3(3), 199–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science-advisors as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2004). The idiom of co-production. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order (pp. 1–12). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D. (2005). Dutch policies to manage the transition to sustainable energy, Jahrbuch Ökologische Ökonomik 4 Innovationen und Nachhaltigkeit (pp. 123–150). Marburg: MetropolisVerlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D. (2006). Transition management: A reflexive governance approach. In J.-P. Voss, D. Bauknecht, & R. Kemp (Eds.), Reflexive governance for sustainable development (pp. 103–130). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Loorbach, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution. The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 14, 78–91 (special issue on (co)-evolutionary approach to sustainable development).

    Google Scholar 

  • Kern, F., & Smith, A. (2008). Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy transition policy in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 36, 4093–4103.

    Google Scholar 

  • KETI. (2000). Van saneren naar innoveren. De rol van kennis en technologische innovaties bij het realiseren van de beleidsopgaven van NMP4. Werkgroep kennis en technologische innovaties (KETI). Nederland: Den Haag.

  • Loorbach, D. (2007). Transition management. New mode of governance for sustainable development. Utrecht, The Netherlands: International Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loorbach, D., & Kemp, R. (2008). Transition management for the Dutch energy transition: multilevel governance aspects. In J. van den Bergh & F. Bruinsma (Eds.), Managing the transition towards renewable energy sources: Theory and practice from local, regional and macro perspectives (pp. 243–264). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meadowcroft, J. (2005). Environmental political economy, technological transitions and the state. New Political Economy, 10(4), 479–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metze, T. (2007) The power of discursive boundaries in deliberative practices. Paper presented at the conference on Interpretation in policy analysis: Research & practice, 31 May–2 June 2007, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

  • Ministery of Economic Affairs (EZ). (2008). Energy innovation agenda. Den Haag.

  • Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) (2001) De Reis. Transitie naar een duurzame energiehuishouding (The Journey. Transition to a sustainable energy system). Den Haag.

  • Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) (2003a). Plan van aanpak. Project Implementatie Energietransitie fase 2 (Action plan. Project implementation energy transition, phase 2). Den Haag.

  • Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ). (2003b). Steering towards the South. Reinvigorating government policy for the energy transition (in Dutch). Advies van het PIT-deelproject Beleidsvernieuwing. Den Haag.

  • Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ). (2004). Innovatie in het Energiebeleid. Energietransitie stand van zaken en vervolg, (Innovation in energy policy. State of affairs in the energy transition and follow-up action). Den Haag.

  • NMP-4. (2001). Een wereld en een wil. Werken aan duurzaamheid (A world and a will. Working towards sustainability). The Hague: SDU.

  • Pielke, R. (2004). When scientists politicize science: Making sense of controversy over the sceptical environmentalist. Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 405–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans, J., & Kemp, R. (2008). Detour ahead. A response to Shove and Walker about the perilous road of transition management. Environment and Planning A, 40, 1006–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., van Asselt, M., Geels, F., Verbong, G., & Molendijk, K. (2000). Transities & Transitiemanagement. De casus van een emissiearme energievoorziening. Final report of study “Transitions and Transition management” for the 4th National Environmental Policy Plan (NMP-4) of the Netherlands, October 2000. Maastricht: ICIS & MERIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution. Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans, J., Grin, J., & Schot, J. (2003). Multi-, inter- and transdisciplinary research program into transitions and system innovations. KSI-Research Program, February 2003.

  • SER (2001) Advies over NMP4 (Advice on National Environmental Policy Plan 4). The Hague, the Netherlands: Social and Economic Council.

  • Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). CAUTION! transitions ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A, 39, 763–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., & Kern, F. (2007). The transitions discourse in the ecological modernisation of the Netherlands. SPRU electronic working paper series, no. 160.

  • Smith, A., & Kern, F. (2009). The transitions story line in Dutch environmental policy. Environmental Politics, 18(1), 78–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Task Force Energietransitie (TFE). (2006). Transitieactieplan “Meer met Energie”.

  • Te Riele, H.R.M., Duifhuizen, S.A.M., Hötte, M., Zijlstra, G., & Sengers, M.A.G. (2000). Transities: kunnen drie mensen de wereld doen omslaan? VROM-report made by Twijnstra en Gudde.

  • Van der Hoeven, D. (2005). Symfonie in nieuw gas, SenterNovem, publicatie 8ET–05.03.

  • Verbong, G. (2000). De Nederlandse overheid en energietransities: een historisch perspectief, achtergrondrapport voor de studie “Transities en Transitiemanagement” van ICIS en MERIT ten behoeve van NMP-4, November 2000, SHT. Eindhoven: TU Eindhoven.

  • VROM (2003). Nieuwsbrief Transities (Newsletter transitions), nr 3, January 2003.

  • VROM-Raad. (1998). Transitie naar een koolstofarme energiehuishouding (Transition to a carbon-low energy system). Advies 010. Den Haag.

  • VROM-Raad. (2001). Waar een wil is is een weg, (Where there’s a will, there is a way) advice on NEPP4 (in Dutch). The Hague, The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing.

  • VROM-Raad en Algemene Energie Raad. (2004). Energietransitie. Klimaat voor nieuwe kansen (Energy transition: climate for new chances (in Dutch). Advice no. 45, The Hague, the Netherlands.

  • Weingart, P. (1999). Scientific expertise and political accountability: Paradoxes of science in politics. Science and Public Policy, 26(3), 151–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. (1980). Social science research and decision-making. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. H. (1991). Policy research: Data, ideas, or arguments? In P. E. A. Wagner (Ed.), Social sciences and modern states: national experiments and theoretical crossroads (pp. 307–332). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Jan-Peter Voß, Adrian Smith, John Grin, Rob Hoppe and two anonymus reviewers for extensive comments and many helpful suggestions. Their comments helped us to better interpret our experiences in theoretical terms and guided us into a deeper analysis. We also thank Peter Aubert, Frans Vollenbroek and Wim Turkenburg for providing us with detailed representations both in word and writing of what happened.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dutch Reseach Institute for Transitions (DRIFT), Rotterdam, Netherlands

    René Kemp & Jan Rotmans

  2. UNU-MERIT, Maastricht, Netherlands

    René Kemp

  3. ICIS, Maastricht, Netherlands

    René Kemp

Authors
  1. René Kemp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Rotmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to René Kemp.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kemp, R., Rotmans, J. Transitioning policy: co-production of a new strategic framework for energy innovation policy in the Netherlands. Policy Sci 42, 303–322 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9105-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9105-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation