Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Proposals to alter large-scale socio-technical systems through government actions in order to promote goals such as sustainability are highly uncertain policy projects. What is being proposed is the replacement of specific elements of existing policy ‘mixes’—the goals and means—by others, in the expectation of avoiding counterproductive or sub-optimal policy outcomes. While laudable, such efforts are fraught with risks; including the possibility of the creation of sub-optimal policy mixes or of failed reform efforts with resulting poor outcomes. This article develops a model and typology of policy regime change processes and outcomes following Thelen and others in arguing that complex policy mixes typically emerge through one or more of four processes, ‘drift’, ‘conversion’, ‘layering’ and ‘replacement’, and that the expected outcomes of these different processes in terms of their ability to meet initial expectations are linked to the manner in which policy goals and means are (or are not) combined in a consistent, coherent and congruent fashion. This propensity is illustrated through examination of the case of energy transition management as practiced in the Netherlands.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the last several years, this case has been the subject of a number of papers. However, most of these publications were done by Dutch researchers who have also been involved in promoting the transitions approach (e.g. Rotmans, Kemp, Loorbach) or by practitioners involved in its implementation (e.g. Dietz et al. 2008). Others have written about the case but have not conducted any empirical analysis of it (e.g. Shove and Walker 2007). One of the authors of this paper has been involved in the first empirical, independent analysis of the implementation of the energy transition project from outside the Netherlands (see e.g. Kern and Smith 2008; Smith and Kern 2009).

  2. These interviews were conducted for a research project of the Sussex Energy Group at SPRU University of Sussex entitled ‘The energietransitie: analysing the socio-technical turn in Dutch energy policy’ led by Dr. Adrian Smith, which was funded by the UK Economic and Social Research Council. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

  3. In this paper, the substantive IEA reports were taken to be demarcating the policy mix of Dutch energy policy—all goals and means analyzed in the reports have thus been included in our analysis of the policy mix. Policies which were not judged to be central in Dutch energy policy by the IEA were thus excluded (e.g. agricultural policies). The IEA is believed to be a credible and competent authority to make this judgement.

References

  • Agterbosch, S., Vermeulen, W., et al. (2004). Implementation of wind energy in the Netherlands: The importance of the social-institutional setting. Energy Policy, 32(18), 2049–2066.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aubert, P. J. (2007). Energy transition—The Dutch approach. Vught: KSI Winterschool 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardach, E. (1977). The implementation game: What happens after a bill becomes a law. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beland, D. (2007). Ideas and institutional change in social security: Conversion, layering and policy drift. Social Science Quarterly, 88(1), 20–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., & ‘t Hart, P. (1996). Understanding policy fiascoes. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braybrooke, D., & Lindblom, C. E. (1963). A strategy of decision. Policy evaluation as a social process. New York, NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briassoulis, H. (2005). Complex environment problems and the quest of policy integration. In H. Briassoulis (Ed.), Policy integration for complex environmental problems: The example of Mediterranean desertification. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, F., & Brouwer, H. (2008). Energy transition experiments in the Netherlands. In J. van den Bergh, F. R. Bruinsma, et al. (Eds.), Managing the transition to renewable energy: Theory and practice from local, regional and macro perspectives (pp. 217–244). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinica, V., & Arentsen, M. J. (2003). Green certificate trading in the Netherlands in the prospect of the European electricity market. Energy Policy, 31(7), 609–620.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ECN (2004). Dutch energy policies from a European perspective. Major developments in 2003. ECN-P–04-001. Petten, ECN: 1-68.

  • Eliadis, P., Hill, M., & Howlett, M. (Eds.). (2005). Designing government: From instruments to governance. Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers, A. (2005). Mixed welfare systems and hybrid organizations: Changes in the governance and provision of social services. International Journal of Public Administration, 28, 737–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evers, A., & Wintersberger, H. (1990). Shifts in the welfare mix: Their impact on work, social services and welfare policies. Book, Whole vols. Frankfurt/Boulder: Campus/Westview.

  • EZ (2002a). Energy report 2002: Investing in energy, choices for the future.

  • EZ (2004a). Innovation in energy policy, energy strategy and consumption directorate.

  • EZ (2004b). Energy transition: Impulse for sustainability and innovation.

  • EZ (2005). Energy report 2005. Now for later.

  • EZ (2006). Kamerbrief: MEP. DGET/ED/6062695.

  • Geels, F. W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33(6–7), 897–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabosky, P. (1995). Counterproductive regulation. International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 23, 347–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham, N., & Sinclair, D. (1999). Regulatory pluralism: Designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law and Policy, 21(1), 49–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, J. S. (2004a). Reform without change, change without reform: The politics of US health policy reform in comparative perspective. In M. A. Levin & M. Shapiro (Eds.), Transatlantic policymaking in an age of austerity: Diversity and drift. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, J. S. (2004b). Review article: Dismantling the health care state? Political institutions, public policies and the comparative politics of health reform. British Journal of Political Science, 34, 693–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. M. (2008). On inclusion and network governance: The democratic disconnect of Dutch energy transitions. Public Administration, 86(4), 1009–1031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., & Rayner, J. (2007). Design principles for policy mixes: Cohesion and coherence in ‘New Governance Arrangements’. Policy and Society, 26(4), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2000). Energy policies of IEA countries: The Netherlands 2000 Review. Paris.

  • IEA (2004). Energy policies of IEA countries. The Netherlands 2004 Review. Paris.

  • Kemp, R., & Loorbach, D., (2005). Dutch policies to manage the transition to sustainable energy. In F. Beckenbach, U. Hampicke, C. Leipert et al. (Eds.) Jahrbuch Ökologische Ökonomik: Innovationen und transformation (pp. 123–150). Marburg, Metropolis: Verlag. 4.

  • Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2005). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Paper for special issue on (co)-evolutionary approach to sustainable development of The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology.

  • Kemp, R., & Rotmans, J. (2004). Managing the transition to sustainable mobility. In B. Elzen, F. W. Geels, & K. Green (Eds.), System innovation and the transition to sustainability. Theory, evidence and policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R., & Rotmans, J. (2005). The management of the co-evolution of technical, environmental and social systems. In M. Weber & J. Hemmelskamp (Eds.), Towards environmental innovation systems (pp. 33–56). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kemp, R., Rotmans, J., et al. (2007). Assessing the Dutch energy transition policy: How does it deal with dilemmas of managing transitions? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 9(3), 315–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwant, K. W. (2003). Renewable energy in The Netherlands: Policy and instruments. Biomass and Bioenergy, 24(4–5), 265–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1969/1959). The science of “Muddling through”. In A. Etzioni (Ed.), Readings on modern organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. (first published 1959).

    Google Scholar 

  • Loorbach, D., & Kemp, R. (2008). Transition management for the Dutch energy transition: Multilevel governance aspects. In J. van den Bergh & F. R. Bruinsma (Eds.), Managing the transition to renewable energy. Theory and practice from local, regional and macro perspectives (pp. 245–266). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2006). Managing transitions for sustainable development. In X. Olsthoorn & A. J. Wieczorek (Eds.), Understanding industrial transformation. Views from different disciplines (pp. 187–206). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Majone, G., & Wildavsky, A. (1978). Implementation as evolution. In H. Freeman (Ed.), Policy studies annual review (Vol. 2, pp. 103–117). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, P. J., Saptichne, J., & Workman, S. (2005a). Policy coherence and policy design. Paper read at annual research meeting of the association for public analysis and management.

  • May, P., Jones, B. D., Beem, B. E., Neff-Sharum, E. A., & Poague, M. K. (2005b). Policy coherence and component-driven policymaking: Arctic policy in canada and the united states. Policy Studies Journal, 33(1), 37–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meijers, E. (2004). Policy integration: A literature review. In D. Stead, H. Geerlings, & E. Meijers (Eds.), Policy integration in practice: The integration of land use planning, transport and environmental policy-making in Denmark, England and Germany. Delft: Delft University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oudshoff, B., & Klinckenberg, F., (2003). Transition towards sustainable production: Policy planning for a systems change. ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in industry 2003. Sustainability and industry: Increasing energy efficiency and reducing emissions. New York.

  • Peters, B. G. (1998). The experimenting society and policy design. In W. N. Dunn (Ed.), The experimenting society. Essays in honor of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 125–140). New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven, R. P. J. M. (2004). Implementation of manure digestion and co-combustion in the Dutch electricity regime: A multi-level analysis of market implementation in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 32(1), 29–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, R. P. J. M. (2006). Towards alternative trajectories? Reconfigurations in the Dutch electricity regime. Research Policy, 35(4), 581–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reijnders, L. (2002). Imports as a major complication: Liberalisation of the green electricity market in the Netherlands. Energy Policy, 30(9), 723–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennings, K., Kemp, R., et al. (2004). Blueprints for an integration of science, technology and environmental policy (BLUEPRINT). Mannheim: Zentrum für Eurpäische Wirtschaftsführung GmbH (ZEW).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.). Human choice and climate change (pp. 327–399). Columbus, OH: Battelle Press.

  • Rotmans, J. (2005). Societal innovation: Between dream and reality lies complexity. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & van Asselt, M. (2001). Transitions & transition management. The case for a low emission energy supply. ICIS working paper: I01-E001. Maastricht.

  • Schneider, A. L., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy design for democracy. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shove, E., & Walker, G. (2007). CAUTION! Transitions ahead: Politics, practice, and sustainable transition management. Environment and Planning A, 39(4), 763–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A., Stirling, A., et al. (2005). The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Research Policy, 34(10), 1491–1510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stead, D., & Meijers, E. (2004). Policy integration in practice: Some experiences of integrating transport, land-use planning and environmental politics in local government. Paper read at 2004 Berlin conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change: Greening of policies—Interlinkages and policy integration.

  • Streeck, W., & Thelen, K. (2005). Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Book, Whole vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Taskforce Energy Transition (2006). More with energy. opportunities for the Netherlands.. Amsterdam: Energy Transition Taskforce.

  • Thelen, K. (2003). How institutions evolve: Insights from comparative historical analysis. In J. Mahoney & D. Rueschemeyer (Eds.), Comparative historical analysis in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, K. (2004). How institutions evolve: The political economy of skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tornvlied, R., & Akkerman, A. (2004). Theory of ‘Soft’ policy implementation in multilevel systems with an application to social partnership in the Netherlands. Acta Politica, 39, 31–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Rooijen, S. N. M., & van Wees, M. T. (2006). Green electricity policies in the Netherlands: An analysis of policy decisions. Energy Policy, 34(1), 60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbong, G., & Geels, F. (2007). The ongoing energy transition: Lessons from a socio-technical, multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960–2004). Energy Policy, 35(2), 1025–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J.-P. (2007a). Designs on governance. Development of policy instruments and dynamics in governance. PhD thesis., Enschede: Twente University, School of Management and Governance. http://doc.utwente.nl/58085/1/thesis_Voss.pdf.

  • Voß, J.-P. (2007b). Innovation processes in governance: The development of ‘emissions trading’ as a new policy instrument. Science and Public Policy, 34(5), 329–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VROM (2001). Where there’s a will there is a world. 4th National Environmental Policy Plan—Summary, pp. 1–79.

  • VROM (2003). Transition progress report. Making strides towards sustainability. Directorate-General for the Environment, pp. 1–20.

  • Weimer, D. L. (1992). The craft of policy design: Can it be more than art? Policy Studies Review, 11(3/4), 370–388.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

In part, the research underlying this article has been made possible by the support of the UK Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex. We would like to thank the guest editors of this Special Issue as well as two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. SPRU-Science and Technology Policy Research University of Sussex, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 9QE, UK

    Florian Kern

  2. Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, V5A 1S6, Canada

    Michael Howlett

  3. Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore, 469C Bukit Timah Road, Singapore, 259772, Singapore

    Michael Howlett

Authors
  1. Florian Kern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Howlett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Howlett.

Appendix

Appendix

Overview of Interviews conducted

  • Interview 1: Policy Advisor from the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ), 16.01.06, The Hague.

  • Interview 2: Researcher I, 14.02.06, Eindhoven.

  • Interview 3: Researcher II, 14.02.06, Eindhoven.

  • Interview 4: Researcher III, 14.02.06, Eindhoven.

  • Interview 5: Member of the Taskforce Energy Transition, 15.02.06, Utrecht.

  • Interview 6: Platform secretary, 16.02.06, Utrecht.

  • Interview 7: Representative from Competence Centre Transitions, 16.02.06, Utrecht.

  • Interview 8: NGO member of a platform, 17.02.06, Utrecht.

  • Interview 9: Representative from Innovation Network Agriculture, 17.02.06, Utrecht.

  • Interview 10: Researcher IV, 21.02.06, Amsterdam.

  • Interview 11: Business representative, ex-member of platform, 21.02.06, Amsterdam.

  • Interview 12: Policy Advisor from the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ), 22.02.06, The Hague.

  • Interview 13: Representative from an Environmental NGO, 23.02.06, Amsterdam.

  • Interview 14: Business representative, member of platform, 27.02.06, The Hague.

  • Interview 15: Policy Advisor from the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ), 28.02.06, The Hague.

  • Interview 16: Business representative, member of platform, 01.03.06, Groningen.

  • Interview 17: Researcher, 06.03.06, Rotterdam.

  • Interview 18: Researcher, 14.03.06, Rotterdam.

  • Interview 19: Researcher, 07.03.06, Amsterdam.

  • Interview 20: Researcher, 24.05.06, Brighton.

  • Interview 21: Researcher, 10.03.06, Utrecht.

  • Interview 22: Business representative, ex-member of platform, 04.04.06, Brussels.

  • Interview 23: Researcher, 15.03.06, Rotterdam.

  • Interview 24: Policy Advisor from the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment.

  • (VROM) 28.02.06, The Hague.

  • Interview 25: Representative from Competence Centre Transitions, 16.02.06, Utrecht.

  • Interview 26: Energy Consultant I, 10.03.06, Utrecht.

  • Interview 27: Energy Consultant II, 10.03.06, Utrecht.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kern, F., Howlett, M. Implementing transition management as policy reforms: a case study of the Dutch energy sector. Policy Sci 42, 391–408 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9099-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-009-9099-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation